Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:01 AM - Re: Local Automotive Source for Starter Contactor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:14 AM - Re: Local Automotive Source for Starter Contactor? (Jared Yates)
3. 09:28 AM - Re: Z13/8 VS Z12 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 02:31 PM - Re: Z13/8 VS Z12 (don van santen)
5. 05:45 PM - Re: Z13/8 VS Z12 (user9253)
6. 06:22 PM - Re: Re: Z13/8 VS Z12 (don van santen)
7. 07:24 PM - Solder (Sebastien)
8. 07:33 PM - Re: Solder (don van santen)
9. 08:38 PM - Re: Solder (Sebastien)
10. 09:22 PM - Re: Solder (don van santen)
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: Local Automotive Source for Starter Contactor? |
At 09:23 PM 8/15/2017, you wrote:
>When I attempted to crank my Z13/8 today I got
>nothing, no click or anything from the starter
>contactor. It has been working fine for 250
>hours with no hints of any trouble.=C2
Yup . . . things break
>First step was to verify with the meter that I
>am getting 12v at the contactor when I engage
>the start switch, and that is verified, so I'm
>thinking the contactor must have gone bad.
>
>One easy option is to order one of these from B&C:
><http://www.bandc.aero/intermittentdutystartercontactor.aspx>http://www.ban
dc.aero/intermittentdutystartercontactor.aspx
>But he's in Kansas and I'm AOG in North
>Carolina. I'll call first thing in the morning
>to see how long it will take for him to ship one to me.
Go to any local parts store and ask for a Standard
SS598 or it's cross-referenced equivalent.
Emacs!
>Bob has said in the list archives that the B&C
>is a part with automotive pedigree. Being that
>there are 5 different brands of auto parts
>stores within short driving distance, has anyone
>found what that automotive pedigree is? Usually
>around here the folks that work at those places
>can't operate without a year/make/model to put
>into their computer. So has anyone found a way
>to get a similar part from the local chain auto
>parts store? Like what kind of car it might have once been used in?
Just about every part that found its way onto
airplanes has roots in grounded vehicles.
Event the vaunted split-rocket switch
customized for aircraft in the early
days of alternators-on-airplanes was
a modified, commercial off the shelf
component with no roots in aviation.
>Looking at ebay item=C2 1639535936 it looks very
>similar, though I gather that on the ebay option
>one of the two small terminals needs to be
>routed to ground, instead of to a starter
>engaged indicator. The seller lists in his
>compatibility charts that it fits a huge list of
>ubiquitous vehicles including the F150, Taurus,
>etc. If there isn't a closer match to the B&C,
>is there a good reason why this one wouldn't be
>a good choice to get back in the air safely?
Define 'safely'. There is no such thing
as a safe airplane. Airplanes are dangerous as
hell with all manner of hazard when
limits are not identified and accounted
for with training, planning and skilled
execution.
So your contactor failed. Did that create
a high risk condition? In what circumstance
would a contactor failure in flight represent
a more high risk condition?
If you're wanting to get back the air ASAP,
then hit the local autoparts store. There
are few, if any starter contactors offered
there that cannot be adapted to your needs
with immeasurable difference in levels
of risk.
Bob . . .
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: Local Automotive Source for Starter Contactor? |
Thanks Bob, I was able to test the Napa version today, and so far it is
working.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:23 PM 8/15/2017, you wrote:
>
> When I attempted to crank my Z13/8 today I got nothing, no click or
> anything from the starter contactor. It has been working fine for 250 hou
rs
> with no hints of any trouble.=C3=82
>
>
> Yup . . . things break
>
>
> First step was to verify with the meter that I am getting 12v at the
> contactor when I engage the start switch, and that is verified, so I'm
> thinking the contactor must have gone bad.
>
> One easy option is to order one of these from B&C:
> http://www.bandc.aero/intermittentdutystartercontactor.aspx
> But he's in Kansas and I'm AOG in North Carolina. I'll call first thing i
n
> the morning to see how long it will take for him to ship one to me.
>
>
> Go to any local parts store and ask for a Standard
> SS598 or it's cross-referenced equivalent.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> Bob has said in the list archives that the B&C is a part with automotive
> pedigree. Being that there are 5 different brands of auto parts stores
> within short driving distance, has anyone found what that automotive
> pedigree is? Usually around here the folks that work at those places can'
t
> operate without a year/make/model to put into their computer. So has anyo
ne
> found a way to get a similar part from the local chain auto parts store?
> Like what kind of car it might have once been used in?
>
>
> Just about every part that found its way onto
> airplanes has roots in grounded vehicles.
> Event the vaunted split-rocket switch
> customized for aircraft in the early
> days of alternators-on-airplanes was
> a modified, commercial off the shelf
> component with no roots in aviation.
>
>
> Looking at ebay item=C3=82 1639535936 it looks very similar, though I gat
her
> that on the ebay option one of the two small terminals needs to be routed
> to ground, instead of to a starter engaged indicator. The seller lists in
> his compatibility charts that it fits a huge list of ubiquitous vehicles
> including the F150, Taurus, etc. If there isn't a closer match to the B&C
,
> is there a good reason why this one wouldn't be a good choice to get back
> in the air safely?
>
>
> Define 'safely'. There is no such thing
> as a safe airplane. Airplanes are dangerous as
> hell with all manner of hazard when
> limits are not identified and accounted
> for with training, planning and skilled
> execution.
>
> So your contactor failed. Did that create
> a high risk condition? In what circumstance
> would a contactor failure in flight represent
> a more high risk condition?
>
> If you're wanting to get back the air ASAP,
> then hit the local autoparts store. There
> are few, if any starter contactors offered
> there that cannot be adapted to your needs
> with immeasurable difference in levels
> of risk.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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: Z13/8 VS Z12 |
At 06:59 PM 8/15/2017, you wrote:
>Listers,
>
>Roughly eight months ago I asked a question relating to the Z12
>diagram. I stated that I have Z13/8 system and was considering
>changing to the Z12 to take advantage of the additional power that
>the SD20 alternator offers.
>
>Bob responded that he would not recommend this as the Z13/8 offers
>more levels of protection. I decided to try to add the added layers
>of protection to the Z12.Battery
I'm trying to recall the context of that recommendation . . .
but let's pretend like it didn't happen and start from
scratch . . .
I am especially fond of Z13/8 because it offers the lowest
cost, lightest weight, failure tolerant architecture
that exploits the oft-ignored vacuum pump drive pad
on aircraft engines.
Like ALL constellations of hardware, Z13/8 is not without
limits. The major feature being the limits of an SD8 alternator
to carry anticipated endurance loads.
>I am using two PMAGS, the second edition versions that are powered
>by their internal alternators as long as the engine rpm remains
>above 700. My dual EFIS system uses the TCW backup battery system.
>The backup functions as a third power source for the EFIS system.
>More importantly it acts as a brown out battery to avoid EFIS
>rebooting which would cause me to have no oil pressure information
>immediately after engine start.
>
>In the end I decided to build the Z12 without the E Bus or the
>Battery Bus. I would like to know what failure modes the Z13/8 would
>handle that the Z12 as described would not.
Z12 is a derivative of a band-aid pasted
onto the architecture of TC aircraft that
left the factory with one battery and one
alternator. It too depends on the availability
of a AND20000 drive pad turning at some useful
RPM.
The only difference is the AeroElectric addition
of an E-bus.
The obvious advantage of Z12 over Z13/8 is the greater
support for endurance loads. Unlike Z13/8 + Ebus
combination even allows you to eliminate battery
contactor current from endurance loads. Extra
snort available from the SD20 makes contactor load
insignificant in the endurance equation.
>Thanks in advance for the information as well as any constructive
In my mind, the major driver for upgrading to Z12
is the size of your endurance loads. Just how
much 'stuff' needs to stay lit up during the
EN ROUTE phase of a flight that cannot be
carried by an SD8?
Recall that the first goal for adding a second alternator
is to conserve stored energy in the battery for descent,
approach and landing phase. Once you have the
airport in sight, you should be able to run a whole
panel of electro-whizzies with the battery making
up the difference.
What does your load analysis dictate? Is there no
comfortable way you can sustain en route flight
on an 8-10A endurance budget?
If not, then Z12 is the next step up . . . a
decision that totally unrelated to my personal
fondness for any other architecture.
Bob . . .
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: Z13/8 VS Z12 |
Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
There are many things that I find important when picking an electrical
architecture. In addition to cost, weight and failure tolerance. The
normal mission for the aircraft is more a deciding point than cost or
weight. Failure tolerance is vital.
I fly in and around four different class B air spaces. Twenty percent
of the flights involve IFR conditions anywhere from departing and
approaches only to four plus hours in hard IMC.
The cost difference is roughly $330. This is less than the cost of two fill ups.
The weight difference is roughly 3 pounds.
Therefore I will loose the 20 pounds that I put on while recovering
from an injury. I know that there would still be three extra pounds on
board, but I can live with the very slight extra cost of dragging the
extra weight around.
Now to what i consider the most important point which is failure tolerance.
After you recommended not switching from the Z13/8 to the Z20 I spent
a great deal of time/energy trying to make the Z20 as failure tolerant
as the Z13/8. I was able to find one possible area of concern,
It is my belief based only on my experience that most primary
alternator failures are the result of belt drive failures. Most FBO's
only change the belt when it breaks. I do not know any experimental
owner that routinely changes out the belt.
So if a Z20 system looses its battery for and reason as per Joe Gores,
nothing happens as the primary alternator is already running. If
during the same flight the alternator belt breaks does the secondary
come on line?
It seems to me that the bus voltage would go to zero immediately. As
the SB voltage regulator needs voltage to provide field current to
make the SD20 run I think the SD20 would not come online. (If this is
incorrect please inform me.)
If the above is correct I came up with two solutions. One is to wire
one of the TCW standby battery leads to my E BUS switch which is not
currently connected to anything and the switch to the bus connector on
the SB regulator to provide voltage until the SD20 comes online.
After that the E BUS switch would be opened.
The other option added cost and weight so it was abandoned. It was to
add an Odyssey PC310 battery switched through a 40 amp relay to the
main bus. This system would always be off during start.
Sorry for being so wordy. Do you see any serious problems with this
design excepting the possibly misunderstanding of the SB regulator
behavior under the described conditions.
Thanks again.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:59 PM 8/15/2017, you wrote:
>
> Listers,
>
> Roughly eight months ago I asked a question relating to the Z12 diagram. I
> stated that I have Z13/8 system and was considering changing to the Z12 to
> take advantage of the additional power that the SD20 alternator offers.
>
> Bob responded that he would not recommend this as the Z13/8 offers more
> levels of protection. I decided to try to add the added layers of protection
> to the Z12.Battery
>
>
> I'm trying to recall the context of that recommendation . . .
> but let's pretend like it didn't happen and start from
> scratch . . .
>
> I am especially fond of Z13/8 because it offers the lowest
> cost, lightest weight, failure tolerant architecture
> that exploits the oft-ignored vacuum pump drive pad
> on aircraft engines.
>
> Like ALL constellations of hardware, Z13/8 is not without
> limits. The major feature being the limits of an SD8 alternator
> to carry anticipated endurance loads.
>
> I am using two PMAGS, the second edition versions that are powered by their
> internal alternators as long as the engine rpm remains above 700. My dual
> EFIS system uses the TCW backup battery system. The backup functions as a
> third power source for the EFIS system. More importantly it acts as a brown
> out battery to avoid EFIS rebooting which would cause me to have no oil
> pressure information immediately after engine start.
>
> In the end I decided to build the Z12 without the E Bus or the Battery Bus.
> I would like to know what failure modes the Z13/8 would handle that the Z12
> as described would not.
>
>
> Z12 is a derivative of a band-aid pasted
> onto the architecture of TC aircraft that
> left the factory with one battery and one
> alternator. It too depends on the availability
> of a AND20000 drive pad turning at some useful
> RPM.
>
> The only difference is the AeroElectric addition
> of an E-bus.
>
> The obvious advantage of Z12 over Z13/8 is the greater
> support for endurance loads. Unlike Z13/8 + Ebus
> combination even allows you to eliminate battery
> contactor current from endurance loads. Extra
> snort available from the SD20 makes contactor load
> insignificant in the endurance equation.
>
> Thanks in advance for the information as well as any constructive
>
>
> In my mind, the major driver for upgrading to Z12
> is the size of your endurance loads. Just how
> much 'stuff' needs to stay lit up during the
> EN ROUTE phase of a flight that cannot be
> carried by an SD8?
>
> Recall that the first goal for adding a second alternator
> is to conserve stored energy in the battery for descent,
> approach and landing phase. Once you have the
> airport in sight, you should be able to run a whole
> panel of electro-whizzies with the battery making
> up the difference.
>
> What does your load analysis dictate? Is there no
> comfortable way you can sustain en route flight
> on an 8-10A endurance budget?
>
> If not, then Z12 is the next step up . . . a
> decision that totally unrelated to my personal
> fondness for any other architecture.
>
> Bob . . .
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: Z13/8 VS Z12 |
Don,
It is highly unlikely that two failures will occur on the same flight: battery
contactor and alternator belt, especially since battery contactors rarely fail.
But let's suppose it happens. Assume the voltage regulator for the main alternator
is set at 14.4 and the voltage regulator for the smaller alternator is
set at 13.5 volts. Both alternators are on-line when the failure occurs, but
only the main alternator has been supplying power to the aircraft because its
output voltage is higher. The smaller alternator has been producing voltage
but no current.
When the alternator belt breaks, the system voltage will not immediately drop
to zero. It will take time for the alternator to slow down and stop. Let's say
it takes 0.5 seconds. During that brief time, the system voltage will fall.
When it gets to 13.5 volts, the smaller alternator will start pushing current
because the higher voltage from the main alternator is no longer impeding it.
The smaller alternator should now supply the aircraft power, even with the
battery disconnected. At least that is my theory. It needs to be confirmed
with testing or refuted by Bob.
If concerned about battery contactor failure, a 40 amp relay could be connected
in parallel with it (disabled during engine cranking).
A concern that I have is activation of the over-voltage protection device. Will
it disable both alternators? If so, which is the greater danger, an actual
over voltage condition, or the loss of both charging systems? Perhaps the over-voltage
set-point for main alternator could be one or two volts less than the
set-point for the smaller alternator.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=471947#471947
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: Z13/8 VS Z12 |
Thanks Joe,
That is what I expected/hoped for. The additional two feet of wire and
1 butt splice that allows the TCW backup (already installed) to add
another layer with less than $5 cost and less than 15 ounces of added
weight.
Anyone interested in why the TCW backup is already installed can me
their phone number to the listed email address and I will call and
explain. The explanation is too long to put it on the list.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:44 PM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don,
> It is highly unlikely that two failures will occur on the same flight: battery
contactor and alternator belt, especially since battery contactors rarely fail.
But let's suppose it happens. Assume the voltage regulator for the main
alternator is set at 14.4 and the voltage regulator for the smaller alternator
is set at 13.5 volts. Both alternators are on-line when the failure occurs,
but only the main alternator has been supplying power to the aircraft because
its output voltage is higher. The smaller alternator has been producing voltage
but no current.
> When the alternator belt breaks, the system voltage will not immediately drop
to zero. It will take time for the alternator to slow down and stop. Let's
say it takes 0.5 seconds. During that brief time, the system voltage will fall.
When it gets to 13.5 volts, the smaller alternator will start pushing current
because the higher voltage from the main alternator is no longer impeding
it. The smaller alternator should now supply the aircraft power, even with
the battery disconnected. At least that is my theory. It needs to be confirmed
with testing or refuted by Bob.
> If concerned about battery contactor failure, a 40 amp relay could be connected
in parallel with it (disabled during engine cranking).
> A concern that I have is activation of the over-voltage protection device.
Will it disable both alternators? If so, which is the greater danger, an actual
over voltage condition, or the loss of both charging systems? Perhaps the
over-voltage set-point for main alternator could be one or two volts less than
the set-point for the smaller alternator.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=471947#471947
>
>
Message 7
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 |
|
I've given up on being an idiot trying to solder stuff with whatever solder
is sitting in the bottom of my electrical box. "Premium Computer Solder"
indeed.
Does anyone know where - preferably in Canada - I can get a lifetime supply
of proper solder? 67/33 is I believe the stuff I should be using?
Thank you,
Sebastien
Message 8
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 |
|
Amazon sells it. Not sure they can ship to Canada. The EU has banned the
sale of lead containing products. Check Canadas laws.
On Aug 17, 2017 19:29, "Sebastien" <cluros@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've given up on being an idiot trying to solder stuff with whatever
> solder is sitting in the bottom of my electrical box. "Premium Computer
> Solder" indeed.
>
> Does anyone know where - preferably in Canada - I can get a lifetime
> supply of proper solder? 67/33 is I believe the stuff I should be using?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sebastien
>
Message 9
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 |
|
I found some on Digikey. I guess the thinner stuff would be better for
electronics?
https://www.digikey.ca/products/compare/en?RI=262_0_0_1000011_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_%7C2dc186f%2Cffe00106%2C2b80001&k=solder&part=SMDSW.031+4OZ-ND&part=SMDSW.020+4OZ-ND
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:32 PM, don van santen <donvansanten@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Amazon sells it. Not sure they can ship to Canada. The EU has banned the
> sale of lead containing products. Check Canadas laws.
>
> On Aug 17, 2017 19:29, "Sebastien" <cluros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've given up on being an idiot trying to solder stuff with whatever
>> solder is sitting in the bottom of my electrical box. "Premium Computer
>> Solder" indeed.
>>
>> Does anyone know where - preferably in Canada - I can get a lifetime
>> supply of proper solder? 67/33 is I believe the stuff I should be using?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Sebastien
>>
>
Message 10
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 |
|
True except for fat wires, I crimp and solder those.
On Aug 17, 2017 20:44, "Sebastien" <cluros@gmail.com> wrote:
> I found some on Digikey. I guess the thinner stuff would be better for
> electronics?
>
> https://www.digikey.ca/products/compare/en?RI=262_0_
> 0_1000011_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_%7C2dc186f%2Cffe00106%
> 2C2b80001&k=solder&part=SMDSW.031+4OZ-ND&part=SMDSW.020+4OZ-ND
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:32 PM, don van santen <donvansanten@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Amazon sells it. Not sure they can ship to Canada. The EU has banned the
>> sale of lead containing products. Check Canadas laws.
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2017 19:29, "Sebastien" <cluros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've given up on being an idiot trying to solder stuff with whatever
>>> solder is sitting in the bottom of my electrical box. "Premium Computer
>>> Solder" indeed.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know where - preferably in Canada - I can get a lifetime
>>> supply of proper solder? 67/33 is I believe the stuff I should be using?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Sebastien
>>>
>>
>
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! --
|