Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:07 AM - Re: Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics (Bob Verwey)
2. 03:11 AM - Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics (donjohnston)
3. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Ken Ryan)
4. 11:09 AM - Re: Essential Bus Diode Voltage D-25 voltage drop of 2.3V? (plevyakh)
5. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Alec Myers)
6. 12:32 PM - Re: Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics (Bill Watson)
7. 03:02 PM - Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (user9253)
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: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
I wonder if interference could be a problem, and the subsequent
troubleshooting thereof?
Best Regards,
Bob Verwey
082 331 2727
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 03:13, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> When I bought my Approach FastStack, I had them make the cables I needed
> at the time because it wasn't that much money. As things changed, I made
> my own cables.
>
> The nice part is when you swap out a device, you just make a new cable for
> the connection between the device and the hub. Most interconnects between
> devices are done in the hub.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496712#496712
>
>
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: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
bob.verwey(at)gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if interference could be a problem, and the subsequent troubleshooting
thereof?
> Best Regards,Bob Verwey
None that I tell after 5 years.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496720#496720
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
I agree that sudden complete battery failure is extremely rare. But that is
not the failure mode that is of most concern. Of most concern is that
between our yearly capacity test, something happens that reduces the
battery's capacity, and we don't realize it. That sort of a failure would
be much more common. Two things that I can think of that might cause a
reduction in capacity are a hard starting engine and inadvertently leaving
the master switch on. Given that we cannot put a stick into the battery to
read its actual capacity before each flight, it seems prudent to have two
batteries (if battery power is the backup for an electrically dependent
engine).
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:21 PM user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I confirm that my PC680 failed while in flight. I sent it to Bob. He
> opened it
> up and found a broken weld. I can not remember how old the battery was,
> probably 5 years or more. That battery cranked the engine just fine on
> that
> last flight. I did not realize the battery had failed until I reduced
> engine RPM
> prior to landing. The alternator had been supplying power up to that
> point.
> While battery failure is extremely rare, it can happen. If an aircraft
> has two
> batteries, a new one can be installed every other year. Worst case is
> that one
> battery will be 4 years old and the other one 2 years old. I am not
> necessarily recommending two batteries. Having two batteries will give
> some
> pilots peace of mind, even though heavier and more expensive.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496709#496709
>
>
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: Essential Bus Diode Voltage D-25 voltage drop of |
2.3V?
Folks,
Thanks for the quick inputs. I will do some investigating on my Grand Rapids
Technology EIS 4000 power and ground connections.
The EIS 4000 voltage is sensed by the power input and doesn't require a separate
connection...but good power and ground wired connections to the instrument are
a must.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / Cincinnati, Ohio
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496728#496728
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
Joe,
Just to play devils advocate, if youre prepared to replace a new battery every
other year, then if you only have one battery, the worst case is that its 2 years
old. And youre not schlepping a 4 year old battery around with you.
Your mean battery age with two batteries would be three years; with a single battery
the mean age is only one year, an improvement by a factor of 3.
\. If an aircraft has two
batteries, a new one can be installed every other year. Worst case is that one
battery will be 4 years old and the other one 2 years old. I am not
necessarily recommending two batteries. Having two batteries will give some
pilots peace of mind, even though heavier and more expensive.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496709#496709
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: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
I used Approach FastStack to do my panel back around 2009, first flew in
2011 and 1200 hours now.
My initial panel consisted of (3) GRT HX units, G430, G327, SL30,
TruTrak AP, CO2 detector, a PS audio panel with (4) place jacks and (2)
place powered for the Bose.
Using the FastStack service and hub not only made the panel easy to
wire, but their detailed knowledge of exactly what needed to be hooked
up to what to get the fullest possible function from this combination of
components far exceeded my skill level. There were many connection
options between the various piece parts from different certified and
experimental avionic manufacturers. Put simply, they knew what I was
going to want before I knew it.
The FastStack hub is unpowered, dumb, and for the most part a
standardized device. The few internal modifications required were made
and documented before the original shipment and it's never required any
further update. The custom wiring harnesses were of the highest quality
according to my inexperienced eyes. Each cable is fully documented per
avionics device. There is a one page avionics connection summary that
is perhaps the most valuable bit of documentation for the entire aircraft.
When I added the NavWorx ADS600b, they supplied custom cables and
updated documentation at a reasonable price.
Recently I changed out the G327 and Navworx for a Trig TT22 Transponder
and uAvioni echoUAT. The lead time on new cables was too long so I
modified some and added my own. The detailed documentation made this easy.
If one is going to do a DIY panel, I can't recommend this 'approach'
highly enough.
I guess that does further validate the OPs thinking.
Bill "flying the rust off and getting ready to go somewhere again" Watson
On 6/8/2020 9:04 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> When I bought my Approach FastStack, I had them make the cables I needed at the
time because it wasn't that much money. As things changed, I made my own cables.
>
> The nice part is when you swap out a device, you just make a new cable for the
connection between the device and the hub. Most interconnects between devices
are done in the hub.
>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
Alec, everything you wrote is true. Keep in mind that I was not necessarily
recommending two batteries. Someone who has an electrically dependent
engine with only one alternator might want to have two batteries. If the
alternator failed a long way from an airport, would that person prefer to have
one 2-year-old battery, or . . one 2-year-old battery plus one 4-year-old
battery? Some pilots do not replace their battery until it will not crank the
engine any more. Many batteries last 5 or more years. The nice thing about
experimental aircraft is that the builder designs the electrical system the way
that they want to.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496732#496732
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! --
|