 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:06 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
 |
|
That is up to my mechanic….I am just trying to make it easier for him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a “minor” repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDO’s require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a “minor” alteration. He says if I keep the design “generic” and similar to other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have detailed drawings, use “approved” components, and have the wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
M. Haught
| Quote: | On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:
Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
> Old Bob -
> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>
> Neal
>
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> wrote:
>
>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>> What am I missing?
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
> *
>
>
> *
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ngeorge(at)continentalmot
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:54 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Depends on the design of the subject aircraft, the extent of the changes and the perspective/interpretation/demands of the mechanic and approving IA, I suppose.
Adjusting the average 40-year-old airplane to reflect Z-12 seems relatively simple, straightforward, and safer to this IA.
Z-13/8 or Z-14 would take a little more paperwork...
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
| Quote: | On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:
Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
> Old Bob -
> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>
> Neal
>
>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>> What am I missing?
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
> *
>
>
> *
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:09 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
And is probably what I will do.....Mark is trying to get signed up but
the server has been down, he says. He has corrected all the stuff
pointed out as problems on his schematic and will be reposting the
drawings.
M. Haught
On 6/15/2015 2:53 PM, Neal George wrote:
| Quote: |
Depends on the design of the subject aircraft, the extent of the changes and the perspective/interpretation/demands of the mechanic and approving IA, I suppose.
Adjusting the average 40-year-old airplane to reflect Z-12 seems relatively simple, straightforward, and safer to this IA.
Z-13/8 or Z-14 would take a little more paperwork...
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>
>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>> Old Bob -
>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>
>> Neal
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>> What am I missing?
>>> Happy Skies,
>>> Old Bob
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
|
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:55 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That is
what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing system.
Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light airplane
background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an STC
approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't even
consider a reference to an existing modification.
Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom wiring
setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your diagrams. Much
better if he can rely on original Piper data.
On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
| Quote: |
That is up to my mechanic….I am just trying to make it easier for him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a “minor” repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDO’s require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a “minor” alteration. He says if I keep the design “generic” and similar to other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have detailed drawings, use “approved” components, and have the wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
M. Haught
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>
> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>> Old Bob -
>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>
>> Neal
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>> What am I missing?
>>> Happy Skies,
>>> Old Bob
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:03 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Don't forget; the plane is in Alaska. Everything I've ever heard about
Alaska indicates that they get to work with a different FAA than the
rest of us. 
Some of the legal mods I've heard about would make wiring changes almost
unnoticeable, relatively speaking.
Charlie
On 6/15/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
| Quote: |
<kellym(at)aviating.com>
Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That
is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing
system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light
airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an
STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't
even consider a reference to an existing modification.
Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom
wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your
diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data.
On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>
> <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
>
> That is up to my mechanic….I am just trying to make it easier for
> him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been
> used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have
> done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a “minor”
> repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDO’s
> require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other
> places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a “minor”
> alteration. He says if I keep the design “generic” and similar to
> other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have
> detailed drawings, use “approved” components, and have the wiring and
> components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your
> last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and
> project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side
> benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
>
> M. Haught
>
>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>>
>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other
>> than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that
>> fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving
>> will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major"
>> or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO
>> needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything
>> is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have
>> a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>>
>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>>> Old Bob -
>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated
>>> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>>
>>> Neal
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>>> <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>>> <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
>>>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the
>>>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>> Old Bob
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
user9253
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1920
Location: Riley TWP Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electrical system. If the powers to be think that it is too complicated, remove the ebus circuit and run everything off from the main bus.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11N.pdf
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Joe Gores |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
user9253
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1920
Location: Riley TWP Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
| Quote: | | . . . corrected. . . .his schematic and will be reposting the drawings. M. Haught |
It would be a big improvement if the drawing will be posted as a pdf instead of an almost unreadable Word document.
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Joe Gores |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:07 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Well, having lived and flown in Alaska for over 20 years, yes,
enforcement is less, field approvals a little easier, but it is the same
FAA, just further from HQ.
On 6/15/2015 5:04 PM, Charlie England wrote:
| Quote: |
<ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Don't forget; the plane is in Alaska. Everything I've ever heard about
Alaska indicates that they get to work with a different FAA than the
rest of us.
Some of the legal mods I've heard about would make wiring changes
almost unnoticeable, relatively speaking.
Charlie
On 6/15/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That
> is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing
> system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light
> airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
> It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an
> STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs
> won't even consider a reference to an existing modification.
> Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom
> wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your
> diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data.
>
> On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>>
>> <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
>>
>> That is up to my mechanic….I am just trying to make it easier for
>> him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been
>> used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we
>> have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a “minor”
>> repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDO’s
>> require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other
>> places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a “minor”
>> alteration. He says if I keep the design “generic” and similar to
>> other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before,
>> have detailed drawings, use “approved” components, and have the
>> wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier.
>> And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic
>> and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the
>> side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
>>
>> M. Haught
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>>>
>>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes
>>> other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the
>>> aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major
>>> alteration or repair.
>>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving
>>> will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major"
>>> or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO
>>> needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything
>>> is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have
>>> a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>>>
>>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>>>> Old Bob -
>>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated
>>>> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>>>
>>>> Neal
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>>>> <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>>>> <mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
>>>>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the
>>>>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>>>> What am I missing?
>>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>>> Old Bob
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:32 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
At 03:53 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't even consider a reference to an existing modification.
Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data. |
or a professionally crafted and presented
wirebook . . .
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:38 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
At 08:03 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electrical system |
Z-11 is a snapshot of an architecture . . . not
a wirebook. I've launched a wirebook project for
Mark's airplane. With the List's eyes and gray-matter
sifting the details, we'll end up with a wirebook
worthy of attachment to any one-time STC or 337
effort.
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:14 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Which is what I am after for my Pacer project and any future projects! Congrats, Mark.....you re on the list. This is gonna be fun!
Marv
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
[quote] At 08:03 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)>
Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electrical system |
Z-11 is a snapshot of an architecture . . . not
a wirebook. I've launched a wirebook project for
Mark's airplane. With the List's eyes and gray-matter
sifting the details, we'll end up with a wirebook
worthy of attachment to any one-time STC or 337
effort.
Bob . . .
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmoyle
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 10
Location: Platinum, Alaska
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:32 am Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
First time posting here...the guy who didn't clean up his dwg.... Omit hidden construction lines that showed up when I converted to a raster file to get something to Marv. It's fixed on my end... Gone is the diode from the alternator, and the battery symbol has been corrected...now a ground symbol. I've briefly looked at the wiring schematic Bob emailed to me.
Here's the email Bob sent. I'll add to this post below...
Can you tell us more about your project? The Pacer
is my Canadian 'dream machine' . . . I've often
thought that if I lived in Canada, I'd de-cert
a nice airframe and engine, strip the electrical,
install cargo pad in back seat, put nice bucket
seats in the front and end up with a pretty agile,
low-cost, mo-gas powered CC machine for the wife
and I . . .
So much for fantasies . . . how can the List
help?
Can you give us a narrative on the hardware you've
already purchased . . . alternator, regulator, battery,
radios, instruments, etc. I presume this is going
to be an Alaskan workhorse. Did you get your copy
of the 'Connection?
You might take advantage of the breaker-list
and see what is already known about what items
will need DC power and how much energy those
gizmos use. This page becomes the index for
following page-per-system drawings.
Bob . . .
The Pacer as Marv described was purchased in June of 2013. Landing gear failed here at home. Initial plan was to install a new set of Univair gear legs...that changed when I found hidden damage from the previous three wrecks. Me being a person who can't leave things alone...opened a can of worms. Stripped to the bare fuselage. Repared the bent airframe. STC's for 3" extended PA18 gear legs and Maule oleo struts...(Trimmer), Maule fuel valve STC Which allowed a new fuel system with a both setting at the valve
(Trimmer), right and left seaplane door STC (Trimmer), Copper River Airmotive 150 hp O320 engine conversion....had a full power prop strike on the sweet running O290D. Lycon 150 to 160hp up grade. PA18 tail feathers, Borer prop and Odyssey batter STC from Sveen's. Pierce Aero gascolator, sky light and rudder trim. New Cub doctor firewall to replace the crunched original and a new instrument panel with smaller corner radius...which makes enough room to locate the six pack over the left yoke shaft. Tail reinforcement, lower longeron repair at the tail post, thicker flying wire bracket and solid bushing for the tail spring bolt. Float fittings, water rudder cable pulley mounts under the fabric. Fabric is Superflight system 7. The instrument panel uses the original six pack less the DG. In its place I've installed Ei's new CGR 30-P deluxe. Ei's USB power supply for the Bride/co-pilot's entertainment and a Lone Star dual port USB power supply. The lone star will be a dedicated to the flush mount iPad Air (foreflight) and the Stratus 2. Radio is a Trig 6 watt unit, PS 3000 intercom, and the Sandia transponder. Vacuum gauge and a vertical card compass on top of the panel.
I've installed the battery under the left seat along with a continuous duty and intermittent duty solenoids. This is my first airplane rebuild, first airplane wiring harness. It doesn't mean I'm a newbie to concept, design and construction. Started out as a diesel mechanic for Diamond Reo, Mack Truck, Kenworth and IHC. More school, RA. Hanson Inc...have designed and built machines around the globe. Departed as the director of mining, general manager of the Goodnews Bay Platinum Mine and the President of Raylo C.A. a Venezuelan mining corporation. Back to school...primary care provider for IHS.....until the affordable care act.....did that in.
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmoyle
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 10
Location: Platinum, Alaska
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Progress as of yesterday. Remaining before installing the panel are the jacks for the PM3000, 2ea 1 amp shunt breakers, connecting the power supply to the Trig radio and PM3000
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.2 MB |
| Viewed: |
14257 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.05 MB |
| Viewed: |
14257 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmoyle
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 10
Location: Platinum, Alaska
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:05 am Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Battery mount.
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
776.46 KB |
| Viewed: |
14251 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
839.4 KB |
| Viewed: |
14251 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
840.45 KB |
| Viewed: |
14251 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
838.9 KB |
| Viewed: |
14251 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:58 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
At 11:57 AM 6/21/2015, you wrote:
Hmmmm . . . looks like your project has already
passed many opportunities for considered decisions.
When you published your diagram, I mistakenly
assumed you were in the planning stages . . .
Getting back to your original diagram, what
questions are as yet unresolved?
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:01 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
At 12:05 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Battery mount.
What are the functions of the two contactors?
|
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmoyle
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 10
Location: Platinum, Alaska
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:25 am Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Bob,
I was at the wiring the panel planning stage four days ago. Still pondering the mag ground at the ignition switch for the P-leads. The schematic shows grounding it to the airframe. The shortwing guys are talking about grounding per schematic, others not. I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? Something like metal foil then shrink tube?
The two solenoids are Lamar. One continuous duty. Is closed at the panel's master switch by completing the ground. The other is intermittent duty and is for the starter.
Mark
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:39 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Bob -
Mark’s system is well beyond “opportunities for consideration” ……but I am following his path on my PA22-20 project, so want to learn from what Mark has done, and get your input on designing a system for my project. Hence, I asked him to post what he has done. From his postings, and the responses from you and the group, I hope to learn what to do differently, as well as what to copy.
For example: I have the same contactors for my project, (one for starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) coupled with a Bendix ignition switch with a “Start” position to do away with the box / push button system that was originally under the pilot’s seat. Mark used a Master Switch for his system - I understand that you do not recommend a Master Switch because it is a single point of failure for the electrical system. In that case, how would the system be configured to do away with a Master Switch? Would the entire electrical system be activated from the ignition switch going to a L/R or Both Mag position? I am hoping this will generate a very productive discussion that results in an electrical system design that I can get “approved” for my project with a minimum of problems with the FAA, and yet, have an up to date system with modern components.
M. Haught
| Quote: | On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
At 11:57 AM 6/21/2015, you wrote: Hmmmm . . . looks like your project has already passed many opportunities for considered decisions. When you published your diagram, I mistakenly assumed you were in the planning stages . . . Getting back to your original diagram, what questions are as yet unresolved?
Bob . . . | Quote: |
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
class="">http://forums.matronics.com
class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:43 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
Four days ago, when we started this process, we were hoping for substantial feedback then, and the whole discussion stalled. Mark proceeded forward as best he knew how, as he is trying to move his project forward as efficiently as possible. I am still hoping to glean some do’s and don’ts from his experience.
M. Haught
| Quote: | On Jun 21, 2015, at 2:25 PM, mmoyle <moylemc(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Bob,
I was at the wiring the panel planning stage four days ago. Still pondering the mag ground at the ignition switch for the P-leads. The schematic shows grounding it to the airframe. The shortwing guys are talking about grounding per schematic, others not. I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? Something like metal foil then shrink tube?
The two solenoids are Lamar. One continuous duty. Is closed at the panel's master switch by completing the ground. The other is intermittent duty and is for the starter.
Mark
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443867#443867
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:02 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
|
|
At 02:25 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Bob,
I was at the wiring the panel planning stage four days ago. Still pondering the mag ground at the ignition switch for the P-leads. The schematic shows grounding it to the airframe. The shortwing guys are talking about grounding per schematic, others not. |
As you wish . . . but if your not into flipping a coin,
know that grounding p-leads at both ends creates
potential ground loops for both cranking currents
to flow in the shields.
| Quote: | I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? Something like metal foil then shrink tube?
The two solenoids are Lamar. One continuous duty. Is closed at the panel's master switch by completing the ground. The other is intermittent duty and is for the starter. |
Those particular starter contactors have poor
track records. They feature low pressure mating
surfaces . . . they're a slightly modified version
of the continuous duty contactor . . . we tried them
at Cessna in the 60's . . . pain in the arse . . .
Starter contactor right next to the battery contactor?
Forgive me, I thought we were at the planning stages.
The drawing you offered was not a wiring diagram but
a rough architecture . . . not unlike the Z-figures
in the book. Building a wiring diagram around an
architecture drawing takes some time, conversation
and thought. The wire book with understanding gleaned
from a team of guys who have been there done that goes
a long way toward putting grins on your flying-fuzz when
they sign off on your rebuild. You were already at the
top of the ski jump . . . a bit late to be getting input
from the coaches.
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
