---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 08/17/17: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:01:05 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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.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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:26 AM PST US From: Jared Yates Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:28:44 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:31:54 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:09 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z13/8 VS Z12 From: "user9253" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:09 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:45 PM PST US From: Sebastien Subject: AeroElectric-List: Solder 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:33:28 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:38:37 PM PST US From: Sebastien Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:22:40 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder True except for fat wires, I crimp and solder those. On Aug 17, 2017 20:44, "Sebastien" 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 > 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" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.