Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:46 AM - Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (Christopher Cee Stone)
2. 06:52 AM - Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (William Hunter)
3. 08:07 AM - Re: Tosten grip wiring with car-relay for trim (Achille)
4. 08:27 AM - Re: Future of Flight ()
5. 10:51 AM - Re: Future of flight . . . (George Nielsen)
6. 05:15 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight . . . (Rick Beebe)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
The photo is of an AMP Mate'n'lock connector. There are three or four
sizes of Mate'n'lock connectors based on pin size (diameter).
The contact removal tool is a sleeve and plunger tool. The sleeve
compresses the retainer tangs into flush with the contact body and the
plunger pushes them out of the housing.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:02 AM, William Hunter <billhuntersemail@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I need to rearrange the wires on this AMP 12 pin connector and my hope is
> to simply pop out the terminal ends and leave the wires still connected and
> just move them to the proper pin locations and pop them back in (I might
> have to re-bend the metal retainer tabs).
>
>
> The questions are:
>
>
> Does anyone know what terminal connector this is?
>
>
> How does one (me) unseat the terminal ends from the connector and what
> tool should be used?
>
>
> ..
>
>
> THANKS!!!
>
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
That is exactly it. THANK YOU SO MUCH for the help.
Bill Hunter
On Jun 22, 2017 5:51 AM, "Christopher Cee Stone" <rv8iator@gmail.com> wrote:
> The photo is of an AMP Mate'n'lock connector. There are three or four
> sizes of Mate'n'lock connectors based on pin size (diameter).
>
> The contact removal tool is a sleeve and plunger tool. The sleeve
> compresses the retainer tangs into flush with the contact body and the
> plunger pushes them out of the housing.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:02 AM, William Hunter <
> billhuntersemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I need to rearrange the wires on this AMP 12 pin connector and my hope is
>> to simply pop out the terminal ends and leave the wires still connected and
>> just move them to the proper pin locations and pop them back in (I might
>> have to re-bend the metal retainer tabs).
>>
>>
>>
>> The questions are:
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know what terminal connector this is?
>>
>>
>>
>> How does one (me) unseat the terminal ends from the connector and what
>> tool should be used?
>>
>>
>>
>> ..
>>
>>
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Tosten grip wiring with car-relay for trim |
Hello,
Thank you I will do it, it's true that before wire was twist only 3 inch. and the
other wire for the trim/switch trim/bus were not.
For the wiring I find a wiring diagram for a car relay, but time to actuate relay
is very slow for trim fonction. Any idea to improve ? (special relay ? or other
things ? )
Mickal ;)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470374#470374
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/capture_dcran_2017_06_22__170547_630.png
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: Future of Flight |
<< Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 /
gal.
headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. >>
In part, because I already have a wind generator that supplies about 1/2
of my electricity, and if I do get an electric car, I will add a solar
system that will provide the rest. At that point, I would only be
concerned about recharging on the road...
But I also believe your "headed towards $1.00" gas outlook is a bit
optimistic.
<< Flight schools will be the very last adopters of electric airplanes
if ever. Flight schools only make money by keeping their aircraft in the
air every hour of every sunny weekend day, to make up for all the down
time. You can refuel an empty gas powered 172 in two minutes while the
next pilot is performing a preflight inspection and get it earning money
with essentially no gaps. >>
You are making the assumption that the batteries in that airplane cannot
be swapped out in an equivalent amount of time. Some of the more
practical designs for electric-powered airplanes have swappable battery
packs that can be recharges over time - no need to draw massive amounts
of electricity over a 5-minute period. You've got a full 24 hours to
recharge that battery pack. That changes the power draw required to
recharge that battery to about 30KW (if I did my math correctly).
And as someone else pointed out, our Lycosaurus engines are <30%
efficient at converting gas to power (though some more modern designs
may be up to 45% efficient). By contrast, an electric motor running at
75% rated power is generally 90% efficient. So you'll need about 35% of
the energy using an electric motor that you would if you used an ICE. So
your 30KW draw comes down even further, towards the 10KW range.
And you're completely ignoring the economics of no longer having to
maintain that internal combustion engine, the fuel pumps, lines, and
tanks, etc. Even at current battery prices, Siemens and AirBus have
determined that it would be less expensive to purchase and maintain
spare batteries than service and maintain gas-powered engines.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think this is going to happen tomorrow, and
I'm not selling my gas-powered airplane any time soon, but it WILL
happen in most of our lifetimes, and perhaps even within the next few
years. The airplanes may not look like what we're used to seeing, but
multi-rotor type aircraft are on the (very near) horizon!
Jim Parker
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Future of flight . . . |
An aspect of electric aircraft which is worth considering is the risk of
fire following an accident. I know of a case where an electric aircraft
got into a spin at low altitude and crashed. The post crash fire
consumed everything and little was left of the pilot. Fortunately he
died on impact.
Batteries are a fire hazard. We have seen that with Tesla cars that
burn. Fortunately nobody has been hurt so far, as far as I know. We have
also seen the batteries of laptops and of Samsung Galaxies catch fire. I
understand that such events are caused by a rupture within the battery
which results in a short circuit, and the energy thus released causes a
conflagration.
I wonder how much it would cost to insure an electric aircraft that uses
lithium-ion or similar batteries. The possibilities of a crash causing a
major conflagration have to be kept in mind.
It is obvious that electric motors are far more efficient than internal
combustion engines. However, generating electricity is very inefficient.
One also has to take the energy cost of transmission of all that
electric power into consideration. Of course refining oil and
distributing fuel also consumes energy. It is my impression that, if one
takes the global view, there is no huge difference between the
efficiencies of internal combustion and electric aircraft.
Given the cost of creating an electric power grid that serves all
airfields and the fire hazard of current batteries in my opinion the
internal combustion engine is the power source of the foreseeable
future. But not necessarily the spark ignition engine. I think that
diesel engines are the future of aircraft propulsion for a few decades
at least. They are heavier but provide power and torque at lower engine
speeds and are more efficient energy wise. Besides I understand that
diesel and jet fuel are less of a fire risk than gasoline. Current
diesel engines for aircraft are converted automotive units and may not
be optimal, but once they start making dedicated aircraft diesel engines
I expect to see improvements.
I myself have flown diesel powered Robin DR400's. I would be reluctant
to set foot in an electric aircraft, at least one based on present
technology.
George Nielsen
On 22-Jun-17 9:01, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
> Time: 10:44:32 AM PST US
> From: John B <jbsoar@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future of flight . . .
>
> Yes, the electric airplane...
> Eventually, we will have viable electric airplanes. The model airplane
> folks have largely gone to electric power...
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ybztoq3g
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Future of flight . . . |
On 6/22/2017 10:50 AM, George Nielsen wrote:
> <genie@swissmail.org>
>
> An aspect of electric aircraft which is worth considering is the risk of
> fire following an accident. I know of a case where an electric aircraft
> got into a spin at low altitude and crashed. The post crash fire
> consumed everything and little was left of the pilot. Fortunately he
> died on impact.
Different battery chemistries have different risk of fire. As do
different liquid aviation fuels. Car fires are so common (175,000
resulting in 445 deaths and $1.2 billion in damage in 2015 alone) that
they barely make the news. Electric vehicle fires get sensationalized
because they're so rare. As electric aircraft get commercialized, I
believe that's a risk that's easily mitigated.
> It is obvious that electric motors are far more efficient than internal
> combustion engines. However, generating electricity is very inefficient.
> One also has to take the energy cost of transmission of all that
> electric power into consideration. Of course refining oil and
> distributing fuel also consumes energy. It is my impression that, if one
> takes the global view, there is no huge difference between the
> efficiencies of internal combustion and electric aircraft.
Generating electricity isn't all that inefficient especially compared to
"generating" fuel. In fact refining fuel takes huge amounts of
electricity and heat. Several analysis have said it takes roughly 6kWh
of energy to refine one gallon of gasoline, or enough to drive an
electric car 20 miles. This article is a fairly unbiased analysis of a
lot of that research:
https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/gasoline-costs-6kwh.html
> Given the cost of creating an electric power grid that serves all
> airfields and the fire hazard of current batteries in my opinion the
> internal combustion engine is the power source of the foreseeable
> future.
I think it will be for a while, as well, but only because of the need to
go distances and/or recharge very quickly. Both of which are coming
faster than I suspect we imagine.
--Rick
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|