Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1920
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

 	  Quote: 	
		  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? 	


I have never heard anyone recommend not having a master switch.  There needs to be some way to shut off power.

  Many have recommended not having an avionics switch, which is an unnecessary single point of failure.

Joe

_________________
Joe Gores

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:30 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

 	  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? 	


   No . . . in fact, shielding of headset and microphone

   wires is of little if any demonstrable benefit. Shielding

   breaks certain form of noise propagation that doesn't

   exist behind modern panels . . . and few legacy panels.

   You could wire headsets with bare, twisted pair and microphonee

   with twisted trios (assuming a PTT wire) and save yourself

   a lot of fuss with shielding.



   But if you choose to extend already sheiled wires, a simple

   splice between signal and shield conductors is fine. You

   don't need to add a shielding 'cocoon'. We often take

   shielded wires through connectors with separate pins

   carrying the shield(s) . . . with perhaps as much as

   3" of the vulnerable wire running 'unshielded' through

   the connector . . . not a problem.  



 

   Bob . . .     [quote][b]

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:41 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Okay….now I understand.  Was not comprehending how you could NOT have a Master Switch.  So without an avionics, switch, you have to individually switch on or off all electronics once the master switch is turned on.  



M. Haught 

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jun 21, 2015, at 8:27 PM, user9253 <fransew(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

> 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?

 

 I have never heard anyone recommend not having a master switch.  There needs to be some way to shut off power.

  Many have recommended not having an avionics switch, which is an unnecessary single point of failure.

 Joe

 

 --------

 Joe Gores

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443881#443881

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:07 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

On 6/21/2015 8:00 PM, Robert L.       Nuckolls, III wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		         

       

         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 . . .     	
     As I said in my follow on post after Mark, I AM trying to do my     planning.  I am new at this and don't have Mark's experience with     other machinery, so I need all the help I can get.  I have a set of     the same contactors, and was planning on installing them as Mark     has.  What is the problem with the starter contactor right next to     the battery contactor?  Other than a vague idea of what I want on     the panel, I have not a clue as to how to get to the point of     "putting grins on the flying-fuzz when they sign off on my     rebuild"?   But that is my purpose.  

     

     So....how do we arrive at the wire book?  What do I need to do to     bring this process along get the "coaches" engaged?  

     

     M. Haught 

     

     

      	  Quote: 	
		         

               	  Quote: 	
		  

	
     	
     

       	 		 			 				 			 		 		 			

 				This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 				

www.avast.com 			 		 	       [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:24 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

At 02:38 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Bob - 



 Markâ€™s system is well beyond â€œopportunities for considerationâ€ ……but I am following his path th 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. 	




   Okay, the skeleton wire-book I published for Mark

   is the baseline document for doing the best we know

   how to do for your project.

  	  Quote: 	
		   



 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 â€œStartâ€ position to do away with the box / push button system that was originally under the pilotâ€™s seat.Mark used a Master Switch for his syster - 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 â€œapprovedâ€ for my project with a minimum of problems with the FAA, and yet, have an up to date system with modern components. 	


   Understand. But the 'master switch' discussion was

   NOT about the DC Power Master switch, clearly shown

   in the baseline wirebook. What you don't find is

   an avionics master switch . . . which was birthed

   from poor understanding of the physics. All those

   NAVCOM 300's we killed at Cessna were NOT spike-bit

   by starters . . . starters do not generate spikes

   of radio killing proportions . . . and RTCA knows

   it. In fact, the legacy 'spike test' conducted under

   DO-160 contains very little energy . . . about the

   equivalent of a gnat sneeze compared to say, alternator

   runaways . . . 



   The radios were being killed by soggy batteries

   allowing engine cranking to drag the bus down to 

   6-7 volts combined with transistors of the era

   being exceedingly vulnerable to a phenomenon

   called 'second breakdown'. Conditions imposed on

   our NC300's prompted the unhappy event on dozens

   of radios on delivery aircraft. The AV Master switch

   was a knee-jerk band-aid . . . the value of which

   disappeared a few years after we started putting

   them in airplanes. 



   See  http://tinyurl.com/q5uzw78



   If you find an 'avionics master' mentioned in ANY

   installation manual for avionics, I'd like to know

   who published it. For the past 40 years, EVERY company

   I've contacted about that feature had to confess,

   "We don't think it's needed either . . . it's just

   that everybody has been doing it for decades . . ."



   ANY piece of hardware qualified to DO-160 can easily

   stand off the ravages of everything the aircraft bus

   can throw at it. Starter spikes don't exist . . . I've

   tracked the elusive starter-spike on everything from

   C150 to BeechJets . . . they are not there.



   Start with the draft wirebook. Craft your questions

   based on the existence or absence of some feature

   about which you need more understanding. As the

   educational process moves forward, we'll edit

   those drawings to match the best-we-know-how-to-do

   for your project.



   For Mark, we're limited to combing out a few big

   tangles . . . his system is pretty much cast in

   concrete.



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:34 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

 	  Quote: 	
		  For example:   I have the same contactors for my project,  (one for starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) 	


    Okay, the contactor of choice for starter

    duty looks more like this . . .



   



   These devices have been common to the automotive

   industry for decades and feature low area, high

   pressure contacts much more suited to withstanding

   starter inrush currents due to their higher closing

   pressures and low mass to minimize bounce.



   Location of choice is on the firewall where the

   BAT terminal of hte contactor becomes the distribution

   point for bringing battery+ wire to the bus.



   Although, mounting under the seat is only

   slightly inconvenient. But I DO recommend

   the alternative form factor . . . it's much

   better suited to task and will have diode

   suppression built in.



 



 

   Bob . . .     [quote][b]

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:56 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Great article, provides me with the first goals for my system, and a very good understanding of the logic.  I have already been studying the wire book pages.  Will print out each one and start making note and additions of my specific components, plus compare them to the original schematic.

Question one is:  you seemed skeptical about mounting the two contractors side by side right at the battery as Mark did.  Why is that not desirable and what are the problems?  

M. Haught

Sent from my iPad



On Junhttps://www.flypadmount.com 21, 2015, at 9:23 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

[quote]

   Okay, the skeleton wire-book I published for Mark

   is the baseline document for doing the best we know

   how to do for your project.

  	  Quote: 	
		  

	


   See  http://tinyurl.com/q5uzw78



   



   Start with the draft wirebook. Craft your questions

   based on the existence or absence of some feature

   about which you need more understanding. As the

   educational process moves forward, we'll edit

   those drawings to match the best-we-know-how-to-do

   for your project.



     Bob . . . 	  Quote: 	
		  

	
[b]

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:18 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Sent from my iPad



On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

[quote]   	  Quote: 	
		  For example:   I have the same contactors for my project,  (one for starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) 	


    Okay, the contactor of choice for starter

    duty looks more like this . . .



   



   These devices have been common to the automotive

   industry for decades and feature low area, high

   pressure contacts much more suited to withstanding

   starter inrush currents due to their higher closing

   pressures and low mass to minimize bounce.



   Location of choice is on the firewall where the

   BAT terminal of hte contactor becomes the distribution

   point for bringing battery+ wire to the bus.



   Although, mounting under the seat is only

   slightly inconvenient. But I DO recommend

   the alternative form factor . . . it's much

   better suited to task and will have diode

   suppression built in.



 



 

   Bob . . .      	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:22 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Okay.....found one the B&C site plus located your article on the use of diodes.  The B & C has diode built in and is PMA.  Grounds from mounting surface. 

Thanks!  

M. Haught



Sent from my iPad



On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

[quote]   	  Quote: 	
		  For example:   I have the same contactors for my project,  (one for starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) 	


    Okay, the contactor of choice for starter

    duty looks more like this . . .



   



    	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:46 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

At 08:41 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>



 Okay….now I understand.  Was not comprehending how you could NOT have a Master Switch.  So without an avionics, switch, you have to individually switch on or off all electronics once the master switch is turned on.  	


   as you do with any appliance that is not

   intended to be operated 100% of the time.

   The core idea to be considered is whether

   or not there is value in making sure any

   particular device is OFF during any particular

   phase of aircraft operation . . . 



   The Avionics Master was created based on the

   notion that radios were prone to go belly up

   due to supposed spikes from the starter . . .

   which turned out to be brown-out events and

   not spikes.



   Adding the switch reduced the risk of pilots

   killing radios that were not well crafted to

   withstand the brown-out event . . . a condition

   that disappeared from the marketplace a few

   years after the avionics master became deeply

   entrenched in the aviator's psyche.



   Some still argue that it's useful to reduce

   loads on the battery while cranking . . . again

   a condition built on the performance of marginal

   batteries miserably maintained.



   If you're SVLA battery is watched as closely

   as you check your tires, oil, brake fluid,

   fuel and nicks on the prop, then there's no

   reason to 'relieve' cranking loads. The

   avionics are a tiny fraction of cranking loads

   and insignificant in the grand energy calculus.



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:10 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

And with having only a comm radio       (Icom) and a transponder (Sandia), and a panel mount for an iPad,       there is only 3 items to be added to the before start up       checklist.  The Pacer I flew (now the one Mark is rebuilding) had       no avionics master, radios are already a part of my checklist       habit.  

       

       What regulator do you recommend - I had installed a Zefftronics on       the old Pacer due to a chronic problem with the old Ford Type       regulator.  Could never get one to last more than 6 or 8 months.        Bought the first 2 from aircraft supply stores (read pricy) and       the last two from auto supply stores,( read crappy rebuilds) ,       which I suspect was also the problem with the aircraft supply       units, just with 3 times the markup.  The Zefftronics made the       charging system trouble free with gel cell batteries lasting 5       years, and only changing  them because of their age or       accidentally leaving the master switch on in sub zero temps,        killing the battery.  But generally, I took very good care of my       batteries.  The Zeftronics is now over $350.  

       

       I see now that I should have been following the list closer, as       many of these things have likely been discussed on here.  My plate       has stayed too full as of late, and now these topics are front an       foremost in what I need to accomplish.  

       

       M. Haught 

       

       On 6/22/2015 8:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		         At 08:41 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:

               	  Quote: 	
		  -->           AeroElectric-List message           posted by: "H. Marvin Haught"           <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> (handainc(at)madisoncounty.net)

           

           Okay….now I understand.  Was not comprehending how you could           NOT           have a Master Switch.  So without an avionics, switch, you           have to           individually switch on or off all electronics once the master           switch is           turned on.  	
       

         as you do with any appliance that is not

         intended to be operated 100% of the time.

         The core idea to be considered is whether

         or not there is value in making sure any

         particular device is OFF during any particular

         phase of aircraft operation . . . 

       

         The Avionics Master was created based on the

         notion that radios were prone to go belly up

         due to supposed spikes from the starter . . .

         which turned out to be brown-out events and

         not spikes.

       

         Adding the switch reduced the risk of pilots

         killing radios that were not well crafted to

         withstand the brown-out event . . . a condition

         that disappeared from the marketplace a few

         years after the avionics master became deeply

         entrenched in the aviator's psyche.

       

         Some still argue that it's useful to reduce

         loads on the battery while cranking . . . again

         a condition built on the performance of marginal

         batteries miserably maintained.

       

         If you're SVLA battery is watched as closely

         as you check your tires, oil, brake fluid,

         fuel and nicks on the prop, then there's no

         reason to 'relieve' cranking loads. The

         avionics are a tiny fraction of cranking loads

         and insignificant in the grand energy calculus.

       

                

             Bob . . .                   	  Quote: 	
		  

	
       	
     

       	 		 			 				 			 		 		 			

 				This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 				

www.avast.com 			 		 	       [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:19 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

At 10:54 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  Great article, provides me with the first goals for my system, and a very good understanding of the logic.  I have already been studying the wire book pages.  Will print out each one and start making note and additions of my specific components, plus compare them to the original schematic.

 	


   bingo!



  	  Quote: 	
		  Question one is:  you seemed skeptical about mounting the two contractors side by side right at the battery as Mark did.  Why is that not desirable and what are the problems?  	


   Okay, from the perspective of a clean-piece-of-paper

   installation on a homebuilt aircraft, we try to

   position items in the airplane to minimize numbers

   and lengths of wires.  The first goal is battery

   contactor next to battery, starter contactor next

   to the starter.



   In the case of your refurb, the original battery

   and starter controls were crew operated switches

   one the seat stringer under the pilot's knees

   and the battery was under the passenger's seat.

   It's not illogical to REPLACE those switches

   with contators located more or less in the same

   locations as the original switches.



   I would write my proposed 337 up to move the

   starter contactor to the firewall but if you

   wanted to utilize as much of the factory stock

   architecture as possible . . . locating

   the contactors like Mark did is perfectly

   logical. The style of starter contactor

   problematic . . . while the Lamar 'works',

   upgrading it's technology will improve service

   life an reduce risk of sticking the contactor.



   By the way, what starter are you contemplating

   for this airplane?



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

handainc(at)madisoncounty
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:26 am Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Well, this discussion is progressing nicely!  I spent the evening trying to decide if I am going to invest in a lightweight starter and alternator, or save several hundred dollars and use the serviceable original starter and generators that I have one had (have 3 or 4 of each, all in good working order).  Since this airplane is to resell, I think at this point, I am going to opt to use the original equipment.  This whole exercise is to turn a project in which I have money tied up into cash, while getting hours toward my mechanicâ€™s license (have tried to sell it for 3 or 4 years as a project with absolutely NO interest, even at give away prices).  I am treading water while waiting to see if the medical reform passes and is put into effect.  If so, my keeper project is another Pacer that will end up experimentalâ€¦..very little will be left of the original fuselage, new wing with a different airfoil, fuselage extension, and otherwise, pretty much your dream project on big tires.  Only 2 seat with large cargo space, built as lightly as possible.  

So your clean piece of paper installation will be the next step in project evolution, but for now, I want the experience of doing the 337, and hopefully, getting it approved fairly easily because it will be a valuable experience in the work I hope to do as a licensed mechanic in my retirement world.  So I like your second and third paragraph as if fits what I am trying to do, as well as being compatible with my thinking process.  I think the architecture choices should be driven by feedback from active mechanics as to the prevalent mind set of FAA inspectors - closed minds as to changes in architecture when reviewing 337â€™s in the approval process, or receptive with logical support, professional wire book and presentation.  If the former, Markâ€™s approach wins out - if the latter, firewall location of the starter contactor.  



I have the continuous duty Lamar contactor being delivered today, but the starter contactor was back ordered, so I canceled that order.  Will likely order the B&C starter contactor at $45 unless you have better and or cheaper alternative, and will do the same for the Battery contactor.  



M. Haught  	  Quote: 	
		  On Jun 22, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

  At 10:54 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  Great article, provides me with the first goals for my system, and a very good understanding of the logic.  I have already been studying the wire book pages.  Will print out each one and start making note and additions of my specific components, plus compare them to the original schematic. 	
   bingo!  	  Quote: 	
		  Question one is:  you seemed skeptical about mounting the two contractors side by side right at the battery as Mark did.  Why is that not desirable and what are the problems?  	
   Okay, from the perspective of a clean-piece-of-paper   installation on a homebuilt aircraft, we try to   position items in the airplane to minimize numbers   and lengths of wires.  The first goal is battery   contactor next to battery, starter contactor next   to the starter.   In the case of your refurb, the original battery   and starter controls were crew operated switches   one the seat stringer under the pilot's knees   and the battery was under the passenger's seat.   It's not illogical to REPLACE those switches   with contators located more or less in the same   locations as the original switches.   I would write my proposed 337 up to move the   starter contactor to the firewall but if you   wanted to utilize as much of the factory stock   architecture as possible . . . locating   the contactors like Mark did is perfectly   logical. The style of starter contactor   problematic . . . while the Lamar 'works',   upgrading it's technology will improve service   life an reduce risk of sticking the contactor.   By the way, what starter are you contemplating   for this airplane? 

   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]

mmoyle

Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 10
Location: Platinum, Alaska

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:19 am Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

Panel is almost ready to instal.  Dimmer pot for the Ei hardware should be here today.  Head set jacks extended.  A few zip ties remain.  On the subject of stuck starter solenoids.  On my list of pros and cons for locating the starter contactor under the seat... How easy is it to get at if I need to whack it with something or disconnect it from the battery?  Deciding the trade off... More wire up the firewall to a solenoid location accessible with the cowl open.  Or deal with pulling the seat.



  Marv and I spoke yesterday about the avionics master.  When the PM3000 and the Sandia transponder was installed.  The avionics guy told Marv and I to pull the breakers for them before starting the engine.  Don't recall the reason.  If the battery is nearly dead, low voltage....start contactor just asking to be stuck.  Or brown out.  A good battery shouldn't pull down below 10.8 volts under a load.  What if it does due to poor health or some other reason.  Being in the middle of now where.  Many many times waiting for the temperature to reach 25 below zero before the first flight.  Decided the avionics master is a good thing for me. 

Some of the other decisions I made... Perhaps due to drain bramage....but.  Decided to go with the Ei amp shunt on the alternator. I'd rather know if the field voltage reduces as the battery charge state comes up after starting.  Or to discover the ampherage is greater than normal, indicating a possible battery problem.   Monitor the battery health with the voltage meter.

image.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

1.26 MB

Viewed:

12082 Time(s)

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:30 pm Post subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

At 12:19 PM 6/22/2015, you wrote:

 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>



 Panel is almost ready to instal.  Dimmer pot for the Ei hardware should be here today.  Head set jacks extended.  A few zip ties remain.  On the subject of stuck starter solenoids.  On my list of pros and cons for locating the starter contactor under the seat... How easy is it to get at if I need to whack it with something or disconnect it from the battery?  



    Normally, shuts off the battery master to stop     the fault . . . so that it can be dealt with in a   relaxed manner.   

 Deciding the trade off... More wire up the firewall to a solenoid location accessible with the cowl open.  Or deal with pulling the seat.



     Ideally, one chooses a starter contactor designed   to minimize the sticking phenomenon . . . THEN one   also MAINTAINS the battery in a condition that   (1) provides design-goal-driven endurance requirements   from which the happy condition (2) arises: Risks for   starter contactor sticking are significantly reduced.



 Marv and I spoke yesterday about the avionics master.  When the PM3000 and the Sandia transponder was installed.  The avionics guy told Marv and I to pull the breakers for them before starting the engine.  Don't recall the reason.



    I'll bet he doesn't have one . . . beyond the notion   that 'everybody does it' . . .

    Further, pulling a breaker is not accepted operational   practice . . . you won't find that behavior in any   TC aircraft POH. If shutting a thing OFF for cranking   operations is a good thing to do . . . then the reason   is probably NOT something you want to spend money on.



 If the battery is nearly dead, low voltage....start contactor just asking to be stuck.  Or brown out.  A good battery shouldn't pull down below 10.8 volts under a load.  What if it does due to poor health or some other reason.  Being in the middle of now where.  Many many times waiting for the temperature to reach 25 below zero before the first flight.  Decided the avionics master is a good thing for me. 



     BINGO! Routine preventative maintenance of the battery   is the time honored, demonstrated recipe for comfortable   completion of missions to PREDICTABLE compliance with design   goals while minimizing miseries. There is NO GOOD   REASON to be "in the middle of nowhere" with a   soggy battery . . . there are lots of bad reasons . . .    mostly founded in the owner/operators's less than   responsible attitudes toward battery maintenance. 

    Being short on fuel 'in the middle of nowhere' would get you   many raised eyebrows around a table of suds and pizzas . . .   sadly, being caught in-the-wild with a soggy battery   is all too often simply attributed to 'bad luck'.

    I suggest that it is easy to make it NOT so . . .



 

    Bob . . .     [quote][b]

addseo1115

Joined: 26 May 2015
Posts: 2

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:28 am Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

I have enjoyed with your posts.

Useful posts here.

Nice to be here.

mmoyle

Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 10
Location: Platinum, Alaska

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress

No smoke..... Every thing functions.... Haven't powered up the radio yet. I'd like to have an antenna connected before closing the breaker....  Marv gifted me The Bob's book.  Arrived in the mail today.  Another manual to digest....  Thank you Marv and Bob.  When I get to the Bearhawk harness I will be better edge-you-ma-kate'd.  One odd thing I found today.  Have installed a dimmer rheostat for the Ei components. The engine monitor dims nicely.....thing is the Ei USB power supply is opposite.  It gets bright as the engine monitor gets dim??. Don't know if I made a mistake...some ting Wong?  One question I've asked on the shortwing and Bearhawk group.... No answer.  Hour meter.  The Ei engine monitor is programmed with the actual total time on the aircraft.  Do I need a separate hour meter?   Not having fresh trout for dinner......

image.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

936.95 KB

Viewed:

12027 Time(s)

image.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

797.52 KB

Viewed:

12027 Time(s)

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:

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