Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:10 AM - Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (Krea Ellis)
2. 09:31 AM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (Charlie England)
3. 10:17 AM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (C&K)
4. 10:20 AM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 11:39 AM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:44 AM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 11:49 AM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (Foghorn Inc)
8. 12:31 PM - Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (johnbright)
9. 03:50 PM - Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine (johnbright)
10. 04:14 PM - Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (user9253)
11. 05:35 PM - Re: Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 05:53 PM - Re: Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (Ken Ryan)
15. 06:38 PM - Replacing an EGT Probe (Art Zemon)
16. 06:56 PM - Re: Replacing an EGT Probe (Charlie England)
17. 07:09 PM - Re: Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 07:12 PM - Re: Replacing an EGT Probe (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 07:18 PM - Re: Replacing an EGT Probe (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:44 PM - Re: Replacing an EGT Probe (Sebastien)
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: | Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent engine |
First post. Thanks for considering my dilemma.
Installing dual ECU SDS fuel injection and ignition on a 6 cylinder Lycoming on
an RV-10.
Design goal was for independent busses for each channel of SDS. Easy to achieve
for fuel pumps, ECUs and coil packs. Not easy for fuel injector power. In normal
mode, each ECU only controls half (three) fuel injectors. Injectors are ground
triggered by the ECU, power to all injectors comes from the airframe bus(ses),
not the ECUs.
Was trying to avoid have power for injectors going through a single switch. Other
option is a diode fed/protected injector bus but this creates failure modes
as well.
So is power through an appropriately rated Honeywell TL switch more reliable/redundant
than the diode fed bus?
Any other suggestions as to how to provide redundant power to all 6 fuel injectors?
Thanks much!
Krea Ellis
Sent from my iPad
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: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:15 AM Krea Ellis <krea.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> =EF=BBFirst post. Thanks for considering my dilemma.
>
> Installing dual ECU SDS fuel injection and ignition on a 6 cylinder
> Lycoming on an RV-10.
>
> Design goal was for independent busses for each =9Cchannel=9D
of SDS. Easy to
> achieve for fuel pumps, ECU=99s and coil packs. Not easy for fuel i
njector
> power. In normal mode, each ECU only controls half (three) fuel injectors
.
> Injectors are ground triggered by the ECU, power to all injectors comes
> from the airframe bus(ses), not the ECU=99s.
>
> Was trying to avoid have power for injectors going through a single
> switch. Other option is a diode fed/protected =9Cinjector bus
=9D but this
> creates failure modes as well.
>
> So is power through an appropriately rated Honeywell TL switch more
> reliable/redundant than the diode fed bus?
>
> Any other suggestions as to how to provide redundant power to all 6 fuel
> injectors?
>
> Thanks much!
>
> Krea Ellis
I can offer some of the choices I made for a different automotive-style
injection system, for your consideration. My dual controller system and all
associated components are powered by a single 'engine bus', which is
separate from any other a/c bus. The engine bus can be powered either
directly from the battery, via a heavy duty switch, or from the plane's
main power bus, via another heavy duty switch. The entire a/c can be
powered down without affecting the engine, similar to a 'traditional' a/c
engine installation. Each injector (and each individual coil) has its own
fused supply from the engine bus. Assuming a 'best practices' installation
of the engine bus and its supply circuits, the odds of losing the entire
bus should be about the same as airframe structural failure. Individual
components fed by the bus are protected by fuses, so no single component or
wire failure should be able to take down the entire bus.
The controller has too many other design choices to cover here, but the
short version is that the engine can be made to run at near full power with
the loss of just about any one thing, short of total electrical failure.
While I'm aware of SDS' products, I'm not intimately familiar with how they
handle failed subsystems. Are you saying that if you lose a controller,
there's no way to drive that bank of injectors from the other controller?
That does not sound like a system that would keep me happy at all. Losing
half the engine's cylinders means losing *far* more than half its
performance, not unlike a twin losing an engine. Will a fully loaded -10 be
able to climb safely on significantly less than 50% power? It sounds like
the designer chose the loss of half the engine, over the choice of losing a
single cylinder if a relay failed.
To recap, my choice would be to supply all the injectors' power with
individually fused circuits from a single, well conceived and installed
bus, with redundant power sources. Your choices might be different, of
course.
Charlie
(Mazda Renesis/RWS controller installation in progress)
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: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
Krea Welcome. A good thought provoking question.
I'm confident that properly implemented diode feeding is more reliable
than any switch. Especially for a switch that is not operated in
fight. I'm cautious about diode fed power though unless there will be
real time failure indications. Finding the failed issue on the next
start up is fine however I want to know about such failures well before
I decide where to land.
I believe that the risk from an in flight switch failure is minuscule
compared to the risk of several other failures not least of which is the
risk of aircraft handling after a power loss. So from an emergency
handling perspective diodes are attractive but there will still be
switches in the circuit. I think the dilemma is whether to wire both
busses through a dual throw switch with no diodes or two single throw
switches and diodes for each bank of 3 injectors. I'd favor the latter
choice or consider the comment in my last paragraph below. I avoided
dual throw switches and diodes myself but I had other options. I assume
these are battery busses that are at very low risk of going dark
simultaneously. It sounds like you understand the need to avoid cross
connecting two busses through a switch that can't handle it (especially
if one buss is dead). Sooner or later there will be switches
mispositioned.
Ecu's generally adjust injector timing for varying system ecu voltage so
a diode in the injector supply might very slightly lean the engine if it
was previously tuned without the diode.
I don't have SDS ecu's but I chose to power all my operating injectors
from the same buss at any given time to make switching everything one
quick action while concentrating on flying the airplane. Unless I was
confident that I could maintain flight on half my injectors I would do
the same with your system. I can't maintain flight very long with half
my injectors out but I still didn't want procedures such as:
A. try switching half the injectors - is it better or worse.
B. If still abnormal try switching the other two injectors - is it
better or worse.
C...
If one of my ecu's is misbehaving in any way I want the other ecu to run
everything rather than half and half.
Ken
On 27/01/2020 7:08 AM, Krea Ellis wrote:
>
> First post. Thanks for considering my dilemma.
>
> Installing dual ECU SDS fuel injection and ignition on a 6 cylinder Lycoming
on an RV-10.
>
> Design goal was for independent busses for each channel of SDS. Easy to achieve
for fuel pumps, ECUs and coil packs. Not easy for fuel injector power. In normal
mode, each ECU only controls half (three) fuel injectors. Injectors are
ground triggered by the ECU, power to all injectors comes from the airframe bus(ses),
not the ECUs.
>
> Was trying to avoid have power for injectors going through a single switch. Other
option is a diode fed/protected injector bus but this creates failure modes
as well.
>
> So is power through an appropriately rated Honeywell TL switch more reliable/redundant
than the diode fed bus?
>
> Any other suggestions as to how to provide redundant power to all 6 fuel injectors?
>
> Thanks much!
>
> Krea Ellis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
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: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
At 06:08 AM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
>
>=EF=BBFirst post. Thanks for considering my dilemma.
>
>Installing dual ECU SDS fuel injection and
>ignition on a 6 cylinder Lycoming on an RV-10.
>
>Design goal was for independent busses for each
>=9Cchannel=9D of SDS. Easy to achieve for fuel
>pumps, ECU=99s and coil packs. Not easy for fuel
>injector power. In normal mode, each ECU only
>controls half (three) fuel injectors. Injectors
>are ground triggered by the ECU, power to all
>injectors comes from the airframe bus(ses), not the ECU=99s.
>
>Was trying to avoid have power for injectors
>going through a single switch. Other option is a
>diode fed/protected =9Cinjector bus=9D but this creates failure
modes as well.
>
>So is power through an appropriately rated
>Honeywell TL switch more reliable/redundant than the diode fed bus?
>
>Any other suggestions as to how to provide
>redundant power to all 6 fuel injectors?
>
>Thanks much!
What architecture are you considering?
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: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
At 06:08 AM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
>
>=EF=BBFirst post. Thanks for considering my dilemma.
>
>Installing dual ECU SDS fuel injection and
>ignition on a 6 cylinder Lycoming on an RV-10.
>
>Design goal was for independent busses for each
>=9Cchannel=9D of SDS. Easy to achieve for fuel
>pumps, ECU=99s and coil packs. Not easy for fuel
>injector power. In normal mode, each ECU only
>controls half (three) fuel injectors. Injectors
>are ground triggered by the ECU, power to all
>injectors comes from the airframe bus(ses), not the ECU=99s.
>
>Was trying to avoid have power for injectors
>going through a single switch. Other option is a
>diode fed/protected =9Cinjector bus=9D but this creates failure
modes as well.
>
>So is power through an appropriately rated
>Honeywell TL switch more reliable/redundant than the diode fed bus?
>
>Any other suggestions as to how to provide
>redundant power to all 6 fuel injectors?
>
>Thanks much!
What architecture are you considering?
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: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
>
>Any other suggestions as to how to provide redundant power to all 6
>fuel injectors?
>
>Thanks much!
This is figure Z-14 . . . both main and
aux busses are already quad redundant
with virtually zero risk for total loss
of power.
Can you point us to a schematic/wiring
diagram for the engine electrics?
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
The SDS diagrams show a single =9CENG=9D bus powering the system
. I believe this bus should be powered from the battery bus to insure no int
erruption in power if you have an alternator failure. SDS also recommends a s
tandby battery that isn=99t apart of the electrical system and runs th
rough a 30A switch for emergency power. Many ways to skin this cat.
As to the relays and injectors. It=99s my understanding (4 cylinder en
gines) that the dual ECUs connect to 2 injector relays. Each relay drives tw
o injectors. If the primary ECU has a fault there is a switch to change to t
he Alternate ECU, which will continue to fire all 4 injectors. I haven
=99t read the 6 cylinder manual but it=99s available for free at www.s
dsefi.com.
Jeff Parker
757-817-4929
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 11:37, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
>
>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:15 AM Krea Ellis <krea.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> =EF=BBFirst post. Thanks for considering my dilemma.
>>
>> Installing dual ECU SDS fuel injection and ignition on a 6 cylinder Lycom
ing on an RV-10.
>>
>> Design goal was for independent busses for each =9Cchannel=9D
of SDS. Easy to achieve for fuel pumps, ECU=99s and coil packs. Not e
asy for fuel injector power. In normal mode, each ECU only controls half (th
ree) fuel injectors. Injectors are ground triggered by the ECU, power to all
injectors comes from the airframe bus(ses), not the ECU=99s.
>>
>> Was trying to avoid have power for injectors going through a single switc
h. Other option is a diode fed/protected =9Cinjector bus=9D but t
his creates failure modes as well.
>>
>> So is power through an appropriately rated Honeywell TL switch more relia
ble/redundant than the diode fed bus?
>>
>> Any other suggestions as to how to provide redundant power to all 6 fuel i
njectors?
>>
>> Thanks much!
>>
>> Krea Ellis
>
> I can offer some of the choices I made for a different automotive-style in
jection system, for your consideration. My dual controller system and all as
sociated components are powered by a single 'engine bus', which is separate
from any other a/c bus. The engine bus can be powered either directly from
the battery, via a heavy duty switch, or from the plane's main power bus, v
ia another heavy duty switch. The entire a/c can be powered down without aff
ecting the engine, similar to a 'traditional' a/c engine installation. Each i
njector (and each individual coil) has its own fused supply from the engine b
us. Assuming a 'best practices' installation of the engine bus and its suppl
y circuits, the odds of losing the entire bus should be about the same as ai
rframe structural failure. Individual components fed by the bus are protecte
d by fuses, so no single component or wire failure should be able to take do
wn the entire bus.
>
> The controller has too many other design choices to cover here, but the sh
ort version is that the engine can be made to run at near full power with th
e loss of just about any one thing, short of total electrical failure.
>
> While I'm aware of SDS' products, I'm not intimately familiar with how the
y handle failed subsystems. Are you saying that if you lose a controller, th
ere's no way to drive that bank of injectors from the other controller? That
does not sound like a system that would keep me happy at all. Losing half t
he engine's cylinders means losing *far* more than half its performance, not
unlike a twin losing an engine. Will a fully loaded -10 be able to climb sa
fely on significantly less than 50% power? It sounds like the designer chose
the loss of half the engine, over the choice of losing a single cylinder if
a relay failed.
>
> To recap, my choice would be to supply all the injectors' power with indiv
idually fused circuits from a single, well conceived and installed bus, with
redundant power sources. Your choices might be different, of course.
>
> Charlie
> (Mazda Renesis/RWS controller installation in progress)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
Thanks Bob,
I'm planning dual ECU SDS electronic fuel injection and ignition for an O-360.
The reason for a dual feed bus is that there is only one set of injectors. At present
I am showing all engine related items on an engine bus. I don't know how
to decide if this is the way to go or if it would be better to have an injector
bus and put main and aux pumps, coils, and ECUs on main and aux battery buses.
In the case of SDS the check engine light would go on the main battery bus
and the injector relays on the aux battery bus.
I plan voltmeters on main, aux, and battery buses in order to detect open or shorted
engine bus feed diodes during preflight. These voltmeters are built into
the dual EFIS screens and the backup EFIS.
I also plan one radio on the engine bus so in event of electrical fire, master
contactors open, the crew will have a radio in addition to the EFIS screens which
have backup batteries from their manufacturers.
The ECUs do not power the injectors. The ECU box has a computer section and an
injector driver section. The injector driver section is transistor switches that
ground the injector minus lead; injector power comes from ships power. Double-throw
relays are used to switch injectors from primary to backup ECU in case
of ECU failure.
If we were looking for a universal solution that would work with EFII (brand) six
cylinder applications as well as SDS applications the coils would logically
go on an engine bus because EFII uses three four-cylinder coils and one of them
fires top and bottom of cylinders 5 and 6 so loss of that coil is loss of two
cylinders. This is not the case for SDS who use two six-cylinder coils; one
for top and one for bottom. By the way, four-cylinder coils have integral drivers
and six-cylinder coils have external drivers mounted next to them.
It's interesting that power distribution components are not generally part of a
reliability study. This saves me a lot of (wasted) work.
I attached a snip of my electrical schematic. For those interested the full schematic
and related documents are at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360, dual SDSEFI EM-5-F
<a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K">Dual
Batt Dual Alt RV-6A SDS dual EM-5-F</a>
john_s_bright@yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=494481#494481
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/snip_of_electrical_schematic_rv_6a_with_sds_dual_em_5_f_rev_f_742.jpg
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 implementation for electrically dependent |
engine
SDS six cylinder dual ECU system IS capable of driving all six injectors with one
ECU. When they are driven by both ECUs, three on primary ECU and three on backup
ECU, the ECUs are capable of trimming duty cycles to make all six A/F ratios
the same. There is a three-position switch on the IP... pri/normal/bak...
normal is for matched A/F ratios, pri or bak puts all six injectors on one ECU
and the engine runs fine just you can't do LOP.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360, dual SDSEFI EM-5-F
<a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K">Dual
Batt Dual Alt RV-6A SDS dual EM-5-F</a>
john_s_bright@yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=494483#494483
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
What if the smoke in the cockpit is coming from Com 1?
I suggest removing Com 1 from the engine bus.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=494484#494484
Message 11
| 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: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
At 06:12 PM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
>
>What if the smoke in the cockpit is coming from Com 1?
>I suggest removing Com 1 from the engine bus.
or turning it off
Bob . . .
Message 12
| 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: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
At 02:29 PM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
><john_s_bright@yahoo.com>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I'm planning dual ECU SDS electronic fuel injection and ignition for an O-360.
>
>The reason for a dual feed bus is that there is only one set of
>injectors. At present I am showing all engine related items on an
>engine bus. I don't know how to decide if this is the way to go or
>if it would be better to have an injector bus and put main and aux
>pumps, coils, and ECUs on main and aux battery buses. In the case of
>SDS the check engine light would go on the main battery bus and the
>injector relays on the aux battery bus.
Okay, riddle me this . . . suppose all injectors were
powered from the aux bus of Z14. Deduced and cite the
failure that would bring the aux bus down . . . and
what would be the mitigating action?
Bob . . .
Message 13
| 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: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
At 02:29 PM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
><john_s_bright@yahoo.com>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I'm planning dual ECU SDS electronic fuel injection and ignition for an O-360.
>
>The reason for a dual feed bus is that there is only one set of
>injectors. At present I am showing all engine related items on an
>engine bus. I don't know how to decide if this is the way to go or
>if it would be better to have an injector bus and put main and aux
>pumps, coils, and ECUs on main and aux battery buses. In the case of
>SDS the check engine light would go on the main battery bus and the
>injector relays on the aux battery bus.
Okay, riddle me this . . . suppose all injectors were
powered from the aux bus of Z14. Deduced and cite the
failure that would bring the aux bus down . . . and
what would be the mitigating action?
Bob . . .
Message 14
| 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: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
Turning it off? Really? Is turning it off with a knob considered the same
as cutting the power coming to the device?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:12 PM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
>
>
> What if the smoke in the cockpit is coming from Com 1?
> I suggest removing Com 1 from the engine bus.
>
>
> or turning it off
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 15
| 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: | Replacing an EGT Probe |
Folks,
I have one EGT probe which is intermittent and I want to replace it during
my annual next month. It is an MGL probe, like this
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/1105567.php
When I bought my engine, it came with a full set of probes and I kept the
old ones.
Should I install one of the old probes? Are they EGT probes the same? Or
should I buy a new one?
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19
Message 16
| 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: Replacing an EGT Probe |
On 1/27/2020 8:34 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I have one EGT probe which is intermittent and I want to replace it
> during my annual next month. It is an MGL probe, like this
> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/1105567.php
>
> When I bought my engine, it came with a full set of probes and I kept
> the old ones.
>
> Should I install one of the old probes? Are they EGT probes the same?
> Or should I buy a new one?
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. /Deut.
> 10:19
Both are likely type K probes. Next question is, grounded or ungrounded.
The replacement should match the original.
Message 17
| 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: Proposed Z-14 implementation |
At 08:07 PM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
>Turning it off? Really? Is turning it off with a knob considered the
>same as cutting the power coming to the device?
Probably . . . it's the first thing
to try if you KNOW the smoke is coming
from that appliance.
Panel mounted devices are not a
potential source for much smoke.
they might smell bad but don't
represent much of a hazard.
Bob . . .
Message 18
| 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: Replacing an EGT Probe |
At 08:34 PM 1/27/2020, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I have one EGT probe which is intermittent and I
>want to replace it during my annual next month.
>It is an MGL probe, like this=C2
><https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/1105567.php>https://www.air
craftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/1105567.php
>
>When I bought my engine, it came with a full set
>of probes and I kept the old ones.=C2
>
>Should I install one of the old probes? Are they
>EGT probes the same? Or should I buy a new one?=C2
EGT probes are generally type-K wire
and operationally robust . . . if they
work at all . . . they're probably
okay. Besides, you're not using it
to hit a target temperature . . . just
so many "clicks below peak."
So try an old one . . . it just might
save you some bux.
Bob . . .
Message 19
| 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: Replacing an EGT Probe |
>Both are likely type K probes. Next question is,
>grounded or ungrounded. The replacement should match the original.
Charlie brings up an excellent point. If your
EGT instrument is a stand-alone steam-gage,
it probably doesn't care. But if a modern
digitally processed device, it might make
a difference. Something to consider if your
experimental replacement from the junk-box
is wonky. Cheap, low risk experiment.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| 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: Replacing an EGT Probe |
Is it the probe or the connector?
Art in my experience there is no difference in functionality between
different brand probes. Garmin, Dynon, Electronics International, they all
respond and read the same. The difference lies in the longevity of the
probes and quality of the connectors. If you already have probes that came
with the engine (and if you had 4 probes it was for some sort of engine
monitor so they are probably the correct types) old or not I would use them
until they fail. No sense spending money on something that will work the
same as what you already have.
I often cut the connectors off and use these instead:
https://www.aircraftspruce.ca/catalog/inpages/eioverlapolc-1-10-05470.php
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:25 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> Both are likely type K probes. Next question is,
> grounded or ungrounded. The replacement should match the original.
>
>
> Charlie brings up an excellent point. If your
> EGT instrument is a stand-alone steam-gage,
> it probably doesn't care. But if a modern
> digitally processed device, it might make
> a difference. Something to consider if your
> experimental replacement from the junk-box
> is wonky. Cheap, low risk experiment.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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! --
|