Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:23 AM - Tacho Wiring? (JonSmith)
2. 07:58 AM - Re: Tacho Wiring? (PHILLIPS I)
3. 01:56 PM - firewall penetrations (Fred Klein)
4. 06:27 PM - Re: firewall penetrations (Bud Yerly)
5. 10:54 PM - Re: firewall penetrations (Fred Klein)
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 |
|
Just a quick question - is it considered acceptable for the electric tacho wires
to pass through the firewall via the multipin plug/ socket connector that I
have all the other low current things going through (oil press/ temp, starter
solenoid control wire etc etc) or are the tacho wires subject to interference
and should thus be routed separately? Also is it advisable for these wires to
be shielded or just plain? I'm not talking about the ignition (P) leads, I have
those shielded and separate, just the tacho.
Many Thanks, Jon
--------
G-TERN
Classic Mono
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328681#328681
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: Tacho Wiring? |
Hi Jon
I have run mine through a CPC bulkhead connector using gold plated machine
pins
and too date i have had no problems with interference,
regards
Ivor
On 27 January 2011 15:20, JonSmith <jonsmitheuropa@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> jonsmitheuropa@tiscali.co.uk>
>
> Just a quick question - is it considered acceptable for the electric tacho
> wires to pass through the firewall via the multipin plug/ socket connector
> that I have all the other low current things going through (oil press/ temp,
> starter solenoid control wire etc etc) or are the tacho wires subject to
> interference and should thus be routed separately? Also is it advisable for
> these wires to be shielded or just plain? I'm not talking about the
> ignition (P) leads, I have those shielded and separate, just the tacho.
> Many Thanks, Jon
>
> --------
> G-TERN
> Classic Mono
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328681#328681
>
>
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: | firewall penetrations |
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:20 AM, JonSmith wrote:
> is it considered acceptable for the electric tacho wires to pass
> through the firewall via the multipin plug/ socket connector that I
> have all the other low current things going through (oil press/
> temp, starter solenoid control wire etc etc) or are the tacho wires
> subject to interference and should thus be routed separately?
All,
Every so often I read a post which gets my attention and prompts me to
reconsider aspects of my build...this is one of them.
As I've posted previously, my engine is a MPEFIed derivative ot the
Sube EA81which arrived w/ a fully complete and dyno-tested wiring
harness in a nice, neat, and tidy bundle with several rectangular 15
and 27 pin Dsub connectors intended to be plugged into the ECU (shock
mounted aft of the firewall) and a small control unit to be mounted on
the instrument panel.
In the process of mounting various sensors on the engine (EGT
thermocouples, oil temp. & pressure, coolant temp. & pressure, etc.),
I have a second bundle of wires...both bundles, of course, must
penetrate the firewall in some manner.
With a fair amount of ignorance and naivety, I have been loath to mess
with the ECU bundle; consequently, I've cut a slot in the firewall big
enough to slide the 27 pin Dsub connector thru and fabbed a cover
plate from firewall material which is secured w/ nutplates w/ a hole
sufficient for the bundle. A short length of split rubber hose
surrounding the bundle is intended to protect the wires from wear
against the raw edge of the firewall and cover plate.
With regard to the sensor bundle, having been advised to avoid
connectors in the thermocouple wires leading to my EMS unit which
degrade their accuracy to some degree, I have similarly drilled the
firewall and installed a rubber grommet as shown.
A couple of photos are attached.
Prior to flight test, it's my intention daub on a bit of RTV sealant
to stop any air leakage; all of the above appears to be consistent w/
techniques used for firewall penetrations on my 1946 Stinson.
Informed comment would be much appreciated.
Please be gentle,
Fred
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: firewall penetrations |
Fred,
My DAR, Dennis Carley was fine with the penetrations I had on a Zenith
which were similar to yours but metal of course. The Subaru was so
dependent on the electrical, he asked that I consider using fire sleeve
over the critical fuel injection and ignition wiring especially near the
high heat areas and of course seal it all with RTV as you said, to deter
fumes and flame penetration. He did not make it mandatory, but asked me
to consider it because the harness was automotive wire and not mil spec
aviation wire... I looked at other aircraft builder techniques and
instead of running the wires through the fire sleeve, I noticed many RV
builders slit the fire sleeve and only use it near the firewall and in
high temp areas and not over the whole engine. Then they zip tie it...
That looks nasty. To seal the slit in the fire sleeve, I recommend F4
tape and RTV
F4 tape is a self adhering (non adhesive) silicone tape developed by
the military and when pulled is heat resistant and self adhering. I've
used it when you forget that piece of heat shrink, and it is awesome,
but somewhat expensive. See one of the vendors:
http://www.rescuetape.com<http://www.rescuetape.com/> or just Google
it.
My DAR feels like I do that if the fire is bad enough to burn up the
military spec wiring, you have more problems than worrying about the
insulation of the wires. If you just do, lets say, the 4-6 inches from
the firewall penetration with fire sleeve and F4 tape, at least that
will ensure the fire and fumes won't get through the firewall. If you
have automotive wire, change it or protect it unless it is of the new
high temp stuff....
As most of you know I build a large 6x12 D shaped access hole with a
flange and shear web reinforcing behind the firewall and fashion a
removable panel for access to more quick disconnect plugs at the rear of
the instrument panel. Attached to the removable panel, I secure one or
two plugs for quick disconnects. It takes me only a few minutes to pull
an engine or instrument panel as I try to make everything serviceable.
It takes longer to build, but if the engine or instrument panel is easy
to remove, you'll benefit from it in the long run. I prefer the metal
mil spec plugs as they are highly resistant to everything, but the AMP
brand plastic circular plugs are commonly used in my aircraft for
firewall penetrations also. They are not fire proof, but with an RTV
seal in the wire securing clamp on the rear of the plug to seal it, I
believe they hold up well. Like you Fred, I don't like to cut factory
bundles, but I will build a transition plug to go through the firewall
only because I can build a good and trustworthy plug. For instance, if
the EMS plug from the engine to computer has a D Sub, I will look at it
and determine if it is worth it for me to build a transition plug from
the engine through the firewall rather than drill a big hole. I would
like to pull the engine easily, and this means pulling the wire harness
with it. Another plug is used for the firewall mounted devices. A D
Sub is not fireproof nor is it strong, and so I don't use them as
firewall penetrations, especially since you have to cut out the firewall
and mount the D Sub to a metal panel anyway because the plug is too
short to be attached to the glass. If you decide to build a D Sub
firewall transition plug, the purist would glass up an insulated cover
or use a small metal cup with a flange for a fireproof cover. That is
overkill to me, so go with a hole and proper fire wall penetration cover
and put a transition plug behind the firewall for easy panel removal..
I leave the thermocouple wires as supplied by the probe manufacturer
(normally a spade), but then inside the airframe, I'll run the rest of
the way to the EIS with 20 gauge mil spec wire for CHT and EGT and have
had no problem. But one should continue to the EIS with the same wire
(thermocouple if the type is known) to the box. Not all manufacturers
supply the extra wire and I get away with using regular mil spec
aircraft wire without problems from the spades supplied by the factory
going to the Engine Management box. Works for me so far.
My DAR also does not like nyloc nuts anywhere on the engine. He prefers
to use loctite on studs, squeeze nuts or a cotter pins and castle nuts
on the engine.
Finally, the penetration hole is best sealed with a stainless firewall
penetration cover. The type that has a half a hole in each half, but
the two haves have a tab that actually overlaps and are secured with
screws and nutplates. A grommet cut to slip on the wires along with RTV
seals the hole well. Your setup looks like you have a slot which does
the same thing but in the fire wall material, so protect the wires and
rubber hose with a bit of fire sleeve, and seal it with RTV and go for
it.
Regards,
Bud
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Klein<mailto:fklein@orcasonline.com>
To: europa-list@matronics.com<mailto:europa-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:52 PM
Subject: Europa-List: firewall penetrations
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:20 AM, JonSmith wrote:
> is it considered acceptable for the electric tacho wires to pass
> through the firewall via the multipin plug/ socket connector that I
> have all the other low current things going through (oil press/
> temp, starter solenoid control wire etc etc) or are the tacho wires
> subject to interference and should thus be routed separately?
All,
Every so often I read a post which gets my attention and prompts me to
reconsider aspects of my build...this is one of them.
As I've posted previously, my engine is a MPEFIed derivative ot the
Sube EA81which arrived w/ a fully complete and dyno-tested wiring
harness in a nice, neat, and tidy bundle with several rectangular 15
and 27 pin Dsub connectors intended to be plugged into the ECU (shock
mounted aft of the firewall) and a small control unit to be mounted on
the instrument panel.
In the process of mounting various sensors on the engine (EGT
thermocouples, oil temp. & pressure, coolant temp. & pressure, etc.),
I have a second bundle of wires...both bundles, of course, must
penetrate the firewall in some manner.
With a fair amount of ignorance and naivety, I have been loath to mess
with the ECU bundle; consequently, I've cut a slot in the firewall big
enough to slide the 27 pin Dsub connector thru and fabbed a cover
plate from firewall material which is secured w/ nutplates w/ a hole
sufficient for the bundle. A short length of split rubber hose
surrounding the bundle is intended to protect the wires from wear
against the raw edge of the firewall and cover plate.
With regard to the sensor bundle, having been advised to avoid
connectors in the thermocouple wires leading to my EMS unit which
degrade their accuracy to some degree, I have similarly drilled the
firewall and installed a rubber grommet as shown.
A couple of photos are attached.
Prior to flight test, it's my intention daub on a bit of RTV sealant
to stop any air leakage; all of the above appears to be consistent w/
techniques used for firewall penetrations on my 1946 Stinson.
Informed comment would be much appreciated.
Please be gentle,
Fred
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: firewall penetrations |
Bud...thank you for your very responsive and thoughtful post
addressing my concerns...followup comments indented below.
Fred
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Bud Yerly wrote:
> Fred,
> My DAR, Dennis Carley was fine with the penetrations I had on a
> Zenith which were similar to yours but metal of course. The Subaru
> was so dependent on the electrical, he asked that I consider using
> fire sleeve over the critical fuel injection and ignition wiring
> especially near the high heat areas and of course seal it all with
> RTV as you said, to deter fumes and flame penetration. He did not
> make it mandatory, but asked me to consider it because the harness
> was automotive wire and not mil spec aviation wire...
I'm not sure and have asked the engine builder, Ron Carr, of RAM
Performance; he did use all Aeroquip hose and fittings on the plumbing
side of things...
> I looked at other aircraft builder techniques and instead of running
> the wires through the fire sleeve, I noticed many RV builders slit
> the fire sleeve and only use it near the firewall and in high temp
> areas and not over the whole engine. Then they zip tie it... That
> looks nasty. To seal the slit in the fire sleeve, I recommend F4
> tape and RTV
>
> F4 tape is a self adhering (non adhesive) silicone tape developed
> by the military and when pulled is heat resistant and self adhering.
Why am I not surprised to learn you endorse "F4" tape?
> I've used it when you forget that piece of heat shrink, and it is
> awesome, but somewhat expensive. See one of the vendors: http://www.rescuetape.com
> or just Google it.
>
> My DAR feels like I do that if the fire is bad enough to burn up the
> military spec wiring, you have more problems than worrying about the
> insulation of the wires.
That's nice to know...that's exactly what I was thinkin, but was
unsure about how close to the razor's edge that kind of thinking was
putting me.
> If you just do, lets say, the 4-6 inches from the firewall
> penetration with fire sleeve and F4 tape, at least that will ensure
> the fire and fumes won't get through the firewall. If you have
> automotive wire, change it or protect it unless it is of the new
> high temp stuff....
Bud...when you say fire sleeve 4-6 inches from the firewall
penetration, do you intend that the fire sleeve lines the hole of the
FW penetration?...or do you intend that it ends hard against the
firewall?
> As most of you know I build a large 6x12 D shaped access hole with
> a flange and shear web reinforcing behind the firewall and fashion a
> removable panel for access to more quick disconnect plugs at the
> rear of the instrument panel. Attached to the removable panel, I
> secure one or two plugs for quick disconnects. It takes me only a
> few minutes to pull an engine or instrument panel as I try to make
> everything serviceable. It takes longer to build, but if the engine
> or instrument panel is easy to remove, you'll benefit from it in the
> long run. I prefer the metal mil spec plugs as they are highly
> resistant to everything, but the AMP brand plastic circular plugs
> are commonly used in my aircraft for firewall penetrations also.
> They are not fire proof, but with an RTV seal in the wire securing
> clamp on the rear of the plug to seal it, I believe they hold up
> well. Like you Fred, I don't like to cut factory bundles, but I
> will build a transition plug to go through the firewall only because
> I can build a good and trustworthy plug. For instance, if the EMS
> plug from the engine to computer has a D Sub, I will look at it and
> determine if it is worth it for me to build a transition plug from
> the engine through the firewall rather than drill a big hole. I
> would like to pull the engine easily, and this means pulling the
> wire harness with it. Another plug is used for the firewall mounted
> devices.
The lines to my D Subs (which will all be aft of the firewall) are
plenty long enough to plug into the ECU and control module on the
panel face, so I'm good there. To pull the engine, all I have to do is
remove the instrument sub-panel, unplug them, and disconnect a couple
of "eyes" bolted to power studs...that seems simple enough...I have so
much stuff bolted to both sides of the firewall, a big D shaped access
panel thru the firewall isn't in the cards.
> A D Sub is not fireproof nor is it strong, and so I don't use them
> as firewall penetrations, especially since you have to cut out the
> firewall and mount the D Sub to a metal panel anyway because the
> plug is too short to be attached to the glass.
> If you decide to build a D Sub firewall transition plug, the purist
> would glass up an insulated cover or use a small metal cup with a
> flange for a fireproof cover. That is overkill to me, so go with a
> hole and proper fire wall penetration cover and put a transition
> plug behind the firewall for easy panel removal..
>
> I leave the thermocouple wires as supplied by the probe manufacturer
> (normally a spade), but then inside the airframe, I'll run the rest
> of the way to the EIS with 20 gauge mil spec wire for CHT and EGT
> and have had no problem. But one should continue to the EIS with
> the same wire (thermocouple if the type is known) to the box. Not
> all manufacturers supply the extra wire and I get away with using
> regular mil spec aircraft wire without problems from the spades
> supplied by the factory going to the Engine Management box. Works
> for me so far.
In my case, my EGT thermocouples came w/ 4 feet of wire ending in
1/4" long pins, so my intention is to clip the pins and wire them
directly into the EMS box. The EMS has plenty of unused channels (I'll
have no CHTs to measure) so I'm planning on making up some
thermocouples to measure inlet/outlet coolant at both rads, along w/
inlet/out air temps at both rads...looks like I'll have a bunch more
wires thru the firewall...
> My DAR also does not like nyloc nuts anywhere on the engine. He
> prefers to use loctite on studs, squeeze nuts or a cotter pins and
> castle nuts on the engine.
Nor do I...the ones you see in the photo are locally purchsed SS
nylocs (the ONLY ones on my airplane) to mate w/ the shock-mount studs
I got from mcmaster to mount the overall instrument module to the
firewall...I'll be replacing them w/ stiff nuts...I'm using castle
nuts & cotter pins on the engine mounting frame.
> Finally, the penetration hole is best sealed with a stainless
> firewall penetration cover. The type that has a half a hole in each
> half, but the two haves have a tab that actually overlaps and are
> secured with screws and nutplates. A grommet cut to slip on the
> wires along with RTV seals the hole well. Your setup looks like
> you have a slot which does the same thing but in the fire wall
> material, so protect the wires and rubber hose with a bit of fire
> sleeve, and seal it with RTV and go for it.
>
> Regards,
> Bud
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Klein
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:52 PM
> Subject: Europa-List: firewall penetrations
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:20 AM, JonSmith wrote:
>
> > is it considered acceptable for the electric tacho wires to pass
> > through the firewall via the multipin plug/ socket connector that I
> > have all the other low current things going through (oil press/
> > temp, starter solenoid control wire etc etc) or are the tacho wires
> > subject to interference and should thus be routed separately?
>
> All,
>
> Every so often I read a post which gets my attention and prompts me to
> reconsider aspects of my build...this is one of them.
>
> As I've posted previously, my engine is a MPEFIed derivative ot the
> Sube EA81which arrived w/ a fully complete and dyno-tested wiring
> harness in a nice, neat, and tidy bundle with several rectangular 15
> and 27 pin Dsub connectors intended to be plugged into the ECU (shock
> mounted aft of the firewall) and a small control unit to be mounted on
> the instrument panel.
>
> In the process of mounting various sensors on the engine (EGT
> thermocouples, oil temp. & pressure, coolant temp. & pressure, etc.),
> I have a second bundle of wires...both bundles, of course, must
> penetrate the firewall in some manner.
>
> With a fair amount of ignorance and naivety, I have been loath to mess
> with the ECU bundle; consequently, I've cut a slot in the firewall big
> enough to slide the 27 pin Dsub connector thru and fabbed a cover
> plate from firewall material which is secured w/ nutplates w/ a hole
> sufficient for the bundle. A short length of split rubber hose
> surrounding the bundle is intended to protect the wires from wear
> against the raw edge of the firewall and cover plate.
>
> With regard to the sensor bundle, having been advised to avoid
> connectors in the thermocouple wires leading to my EMS unit which
> degrade their accuracy to some degree, I have similarly drilled the
> firewall and installed a rubber grommet as shown.
>
> A couple of photos are attached.
>
> Prior to flight test, it's my intention daub on a bit of RTV sealant
> to stop any air leakage; all of the above appears to be consistent w/
> techniques used for firewall penetrations on my 1946 Stinson.
>
> Informed comment would be much appreciated.
>
> Please be gentle,
>
> Fred
>
>
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! --
|