From: extensionsystems@mindspring.com
Subject: Fw: COZY: Re: Alternator Questions
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:19:54 -0000

Funny thing happened a few years ago. I install a new alternator onto a
cessna. I found that the automotive decal had been covered by the aircraft
decal. When I made a call about this I was told that the old decal should be
removed.

Was it a counterfeit part?  I don't know, but it never gave any problems, &
came with the correct papers showing that it was the correct part for the
aircraft.

Brian Dempster


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed <Recipient list suppressed>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 3:53 AM
Subject: COZY: Re: Alternator Questions


>
>Hello.
>
>I've traded junk for junk with a couple of home-builders and one of
>the things I've picked up is an alternator of questionable parentage.
>It is 0 TSOH from an alternator shop, automotive with no labels.
>The guy told me that his partner got it with "aircraft diodes"
>(whatever that means).
>
>   Not much . . .
>
>It has a larger pulley on it from an AC generator.  I took it to an
>auto parts store shop and had it tested (good) and we determined
>that it is a 60 amp model similar to what was used on early 70's
>Fords (Mopar).  It has connections for Field, Stator, and Bat.
>
>  This is a real pig compared to the Nipon-Dienso machines
>  B&C is selling.
>
>Question 1:  It tested out OK, but when I measure the resistance
>from Field to Ground, I get a *very* low number, almost like a
>short.  Am I missing something?  What keeps this from popping
>the Field circuit breaker when you 1st turn on the master switch?
>
>  How low is low? Field resistance of a 14 volt alternator is
>  generally in the 3-4 ohm range. A digital multimeter might
>  read this low of a resistance accurately . . . very few
>  low cost analog meters will do it.
>
>Question 2:  In the auto diagram, the only thing they use the
>Stator connection for is to run the electric choke (?!?).
>
>  Yes . . . it applies heat to the choke's bi-metal actuator
>  ONLY when the engine is running.  If one simply hooked the
>  choke heater to the ignition switch, it would begin to heat
>  up even if the engine were not running.
>
>I asked "Are you sure they don't mean choke as in filter?"
>The guy seemed sure this was the carburetor electric choke.
>
>  Correct.
>
>If so, does the Stator need to be connected to anything?
>
>  No . . .
>
>Question 3:  The fan is of course backwards.
>
>  Don't worry about it. It's a centrifugal fan and is
>  only slightly affected by direction that the vanes are
>  pointing . . . in fact, if you check out the blower
>  in your furnace, you'll find that the blades on the
>  blower point FORWARD with respect to rotation.
>
>With the baffling in my cowling, both the front of the starter
>and the alternator will be in the high pressure cool air and
>the rear of each in the low pressure hot air.  In normal
>operation the fan would be trying to suck hot air against
>the cowling pressure.  Sense there is some cooling pressure
>even when the plane is just taxiing and the cool air will
>blow from front to rear, do I need a fan at all?
>
>  Yes. Leave the existing fan in place. You may want
>  to reduce pulley size so that you can get full output
>  at taxi RPMs . . .
>
>
>       Bob . . .
>
>                       ////
>                      (o o)
>       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
>       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
>       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
>       <  Your source for brand new    >
>       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
>       =================================
>          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:03:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Fw: COZY: Re: Alternator Questions

Note that all (or nearly all) automotive and maybe aircraft alternators on Lycomings (and maybe more) use a backward to normal 
rotation thread on the nut holding the fan and pulley on. This means the pull of the belt will be in the direction to unscrew 
the nut. Use good locktite on the nut. Requires some heat and maybe a impact wrench to get off.

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:41:40 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: COZY: Re: Alternator Questions

At 05:03 PM 9/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Note that all (or nearly all) automotive and maybe aircraft 
alternators on Lycomings (and maybe more) use a backward to normal 
>rotation thread on the nut holding the fan and pulley on. 
This means the pull of the belt will be in the direction to unscrew 
>the nut. Use good locktite on the nut. Requires some heat and 
>maybe a impact wrench to get off.


  B&C uses Locktite #271 (red) on their alternator pulley
  nuts and installs the nut with an impact wrench. In thousands
  of installations, inadvertent nut loosening has never been
  an issue.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:27:58
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: How to Handle Wire Shielding?


>> Everything is pretty straight forward in the
>> basic VFR panel, but I keep running into second guessing what to do with
>> wire shields.   
>
>EVERY WIRE IS AN ANTENNA. Whether it be a transmitting ( makes emissions)
or a
>recieving antenna ( picks up emissions). 
>
>Shielding is used to reduce emissions from the transmitting wire and to
provide
>blocking from outside sources for the recieving wire. ( Could actually be the
>same wire but hang in there.
>
>Example - Remember the old twin lead TV antenna wire ( I know, it's still
being
>used). Remember how it would pick up the ignition noise from a passing car or
>how you could tune out unwanted signals and ghosts with aluminum foil?
Thats why
>they went to coaxial ( shielded ) cable, now you don't have problems with
>outside noise sources.

  Sorry, but not true. The old twin-lead feedline was ballance TRANSMISSION
  LINE which was quite free of coupling to the outside world both as
  a radiator and receiver of energy. Ignition noise from passing vehicles
  was brought in through the ANTENNA which was designed to pick up stuff
  from the air.  Twinlead was more difficult to work with than Coax but it
  had lower losses. 

>Every wire that passes current is a radiator of magnetic energy. The speed
and
>amplitude of the current change is what dictates the amount of magnetic
energy
>released ( broadcast ), so to keep this energy from getting into your
soup, put
>a grounded barrier around it, then it's basically tin-canned.

  NOT if it's a TRANSMISSION LINE . . . meaning that for every electron that
  ventures one way on the feedline, the companion electron is headed the
  other way and tightly coupled to it . . . as in televions twinlead, coax
  cable, twisted pair cables, etc. Shielding does NOT mitigate magnetic
  coupleing, only electro-static coupling. I designed a prop synchronizer
  some years ago that detected engine phase angle by measuring the MAGNETIC
  field around a SHIELDED spark plug wire . . . the field was quite strong
  and easily detected outside the shielding.

>There is nothing wrong with grounding both ends of a shield but what you
created
>by doing so is actually a ground wire that may or may not be cause for
problems
>later on if problems pop up with the normal grounding system, this means
that a
>lot more current flow could be returning via the shield than it can handle
and
>"POOF"! You may get to see some smoke! 

  POOF is pretty common in my experience . . . it happend to shielded
  p-lead wires on two airplanes during my 6-month tenure as an airport
  owner about 10 years back. Shielding should be used only if the
  manufacturer of the equipment you are installing recommends it. Their
  installation instrucitons should be quite specific as to how the shields
  are treated. There is NO HARD FAST RULE . . . it depends on what noise/
  propogation mode/victim combination is being addressed. The biggest
  chapter in my book is on electrical noise . . . dealing with electrical
  interference between systems on an airframe have been some of the most
  vexing problems of my career.

  A guy called me about ten years ago and described a very agressive
  shielding and filtering activity on his airplane that took lots of
  hours, dollars and added pounds to his airplane. After reading the
  list list to me I asked, "Gee, I can't think of anything you NEED,
  do you have a noise problem?"  "No," sez he, "I haven't flown the
  airplane yet."

  The moral is, start with good practice for architecture. Single
  point ground blocks, avoiding the use of airframe and/or engine
  mounts to carry battery, alternator or starter currents. Shield
  the p-leads by grounding shields to magneto housing at engine end
  and using shield to provide a ground at the switch end - but don't
  ground switch to anything behind the panel. Shield strobe light
  wires per manufacturer's instructions. Shield any other wires per
  manufacturer's recommendations. Mount microphone and headset jacks
  so that they are INSULATED from a metalic airframe. Interestingly
  enough, I've wired lots of headset and microphone jacks with twisted
  pair/trio wire and NO shielding with no problems.

  Observation of some simple rules for design and initial installtion
  will make the chances of future problems very remote. Don't add
  filters and/or sheilding, "'cause it sounds like a good idea."
  If a noise problem arises in the future, you'll need to identify
  source, propogation mode, and victim before deciding how to
  attack the problem. The most common addition of useless shielding
  was on alternators for the purposes of reducing noise in the 
  ADF. The guys at Cessna threw on some shielded wire, added some
  filters, flew the airplane and pronounced it good. When I asked
  if the shielding helpped, they said "you bet!"  Actually, nobody
  tried it without the sheilding and the filter was REALLY doing
  all the work. None the less, tons of shielding material has been
  added to tens of thousands of airplanes since.

  Before you throw the book at a noise problem, drop us a note. 
  Let's size the task and pick the right tools.






       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:36:46
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: LIVING with aircraft batteries


>A few years back I did some research into batteries for an underwater
>propulsion device and I learned that the number of cycles that you got
>out of a battery decreased with the percent discharge of the cycles.  So
>I am wondering what the effect on battery life is when you discharge it
>to 5-10% of its capacity.  Is that the only way to test the battery?

   It's true that a battery's life is improved by limiting the 
   depth to which you discharge it on each cycle. For example,
   it's not uncommon to find a battery rated for say 100 cycles
   at 95% of rated capacity and several thousand cycles at 5%
   of capacity per cycle. In the ideal situation, a vehicle battery
   is needed only to start an engine . . . perhaps 1 to 3% of
   capacity and it will indeed run for a very long time for a
   lot of "cycles".

   Testing a battery for it's true capacity does require a deep
   discharge cycle . . . pehaps one every six months or so and
   I wouldn't do the first one until the end of one year. The
   level of "abuse" to the battery compared to other strains
   on its longevity in service is pretty small. I think it's
   more important to know the battery's capacity IS than to
   worry about squeezing a few more weeks of service out of
   it.

Another reader comments ...

"...KNOW ( by measurement)..."

Care to expand, perhaps with particular reference to voltmeters and/versus
ammeters. I'm sure I've seen reference to which of these is the best to
install, but over time I've got confused.

  The conventional wisdom for installing electrical instrumentation
  on an airplane DOES NOT include a practical means for measuring
  capacity. If it were my airplane, I'd have an alernator load 
  meter and a good voltmeter (0.1 volt resolution) but this is
  only part of the task. Having no other tools aboard, I'd pick a
  nice day/VFR cross country to shut off the alternator, kill the
  main bus, turn on the essential bus alternate feed path and watch
  the voltmeter.  The goal is to have 10.5 volts or BETTER on the
  bus for duration of fuel aboard.  30 minutes out from
  a long range destination, I'd turn the alternator back on and
  recharge the battery. If the bus voltage is fading at a rate
  suggesting that you wouldn't make the field with energy remaining,
  then I'd suggest the battery be swapped out.

  Now, if you never make long trips or you never fly at night or
  the airports you use are non-tower, non-busy fields . . .
  perhaps one may settle for less than full-fuel-endurance and keep
  the battery in in longer. The important thing is to KNOW how
  good the battery is and get rid of it when no longer capable
  of meeting your mission.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:46:11 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Use (of Nightsun lites) with an alternator power source

I checked out this product on several websits . . . please don't
spend a lot of bux purchasing these things for adaptation to
airplanes.

The bulbs used in their fixtures are plain vanilla halogen
spot/flood devices not unlike the one you'll see at

http://www.aeroelectric.com/exh.jpg

These bulbs have built in reflectors and come in a wide
variety of wattages and beam spreads. The 12V rated lamps
are used by the thousands in product displays in stores
and are quite inexpensive.  One might also consider using
a common automotive headlamp like the one I show at

http://www.aeroelectric.com/4352.jpg

This lamp is 55w, very compact, the right shape for leading
edge incorporation and a whold lot less expensive than the
Nightsun products.

The respondant's concerns about "regulation of the vehicle"
shows lack of knowledge of how things are supposed to work.
It's true that a bulb's life varies strongly with voltage.
For example, running a bulb a 95% of its rated value doubles
the life, 105% of rated value halves the life. HOWEVER,
given that these bulbs are designed for thousands of hours
service in high duty cycle service like storefronts should
mitigate the builder's concerns for service life . . . especially
since the 4509 lamp used in tens of thousands of certified
ships has a service life on the order of 10-20 hours!

Check out the light bulbs I've suggested above and do some
poking around on your own in the lighting sections of hardware
stores and automotive suppliers . . . 

       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:06:17 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Comic book on coax connectors . . .

There was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about "screw on"
connectors for coax antenna cable and some of us got our tongues 
wrapped around our eyeteeth and couldn't see what we were saying.
I've just published some pictures of various BNC style connectors
with a link from the "what's new" box at our website. Interested
builders are invited to click on:

http://www.aeroelectric.com


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:17:13 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: RE: Light

>Any thoughts on how many watts it takes on average for a small plane to be
>able to light up the runway on approach and landing?  I like Bob's idea of
>the 50w 4352s for the wings, a total of 100w.  (Got to keep the math simple)
>What about a third light (100w?) in the nose for a total of 200w?  Where are
>the best places to mount lights in the wing - out towards the tips or in
>closer?  In my old C-130 days, we had a light that rotated down from the
>bottom of the wing to point forward.  After landing, you flip the switch and
>to rotated back up into the wing.  Could this be done on a Kitfox?  Anyone
>with experience on what is the minimum amount of light needed to make it
>worthwhile in the first place please step forward.
>

   I tried this experiment a few years back while we owned an
   airport complete with J-3 Cub:  I took an ordinary sportsman's
   lantern (6v, 0.8a bulb for a grand total of 4.8 watts!) and
   duct-taped it to the strut so that it pointed in the right
   place for looking ahead in a wheel landing attitude. I can
   tell you that this light was entirely adequate for performing
   a series of touch-n-go's in the Cub long after the sun went
   down.  If I needed to build a minimum energy system (perhaps
   wind generator powered?) for night landings in the Cub,
   a pair of 5w fixtures on each wing would be quite useful
   and doable.

   Adequate lighting has very little to do with watts, it has
   to do with what you can see. If you fly off of runways in the
   bush and expect to crow-hop over an occasional deer or
   possum on the runway, then a few kilowatts of police-
   hellicopter klieg-lights may not be enough.  If you need to
   accomplish reliably controlled landings on a runway that
   is already outlined in the little row of bulbs down each
   side, then it can be a whole different story (the runway
   lamps on our airport were 8 watt sewing machine bulbs!).

   Piling on the watts and lumens may be satisfying in some
   respects. I'll suggest that we're building the best airplanes
   that have ever flown. Part of being "best" means optomizing
   hardware to the task while considering temperature
   rise, power consumption, installation ease, utility, 
   cost/performace ratio, etc.  We who have roots deep in
   the certified aircraft world bring a lot of baggage with
   us when it comes to sorting out what's useful versus
   what's found on the heavy-iron birds we learned in.
   
   Right here in these forums is where we sort through the
   pieces and parts to see what's really useful while
   hopefully eliminating all things from the hard-to-do pile.



       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:29:43 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Potential heating problems with suggested lamps . . .

Been getting a lot of questions concerning the two lamps
I illustrated as possible candidates for landing lights
on airplanes. I thought I'd elaborate for the group's
benefits. To date, I'm not aware of anyone who has installed
the 4352 an airplane. I had a Kitfox or Avid builder builder
put a pair of the little spotlights in the underside of each
wing to provide peripheral vision clues during landing and
he reported this arrangement to be satisfactory to his
needs.

Folks are still asking about heat. A few minutes ago
I conducted a very subjective experiment. Went out in
the driveway and hooked a 4352 to my van battery with
the engine idling. Again, just pointing the thing
around the neighborhood, I reaffirmed my first impression
that ONE of these lamps would suffice to land an airplane.
After three minutes, the lamp was too hot to touch for
more than a few seconds near the rear of the housing
where the connector penetrates it and on the large top and
bottom flats.

The mounting rim was quite easy to hold in the fingers.
Holding one's hand out in front would produce a too
warm to stay there after 30 seconds or so. My impression
is that a piece of lexan over this bulb is in no danger
of overheating.

If one installed a 4352 in EACH wing and used a wig-wag
circuit for collision avoidance, the heat energy from 
each bulb goes down by a factor of 2 'cause it's on
half the time. Total system power is the same as for
one lamp since only one bulb is on at a time. In the
final seconds before flare, you could run both bulbs
continuously for the actual landing.

This seems like a good way to (1) have dual bulbs
so that you'll always have one if the other burns
out, (2) very effective recognition lighting, (3)
110 watts of "landing" light on a energy budget nearly
equal to one 55 watt lamp, (4) buy new lamps at
K-mart for a fraction of the cost of clasical "aircraft
quality" landing lights.

If someone will dope out the mechanical details of
mouting these in their particular project and send
me drawings/pictures. I'll publish them on our website.



       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:43:34
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Question

At 06:38 PM 10/20/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Bob, I recently bought a copy of the AeroElectric Connection and think
>it's a great resource...I have one question and I'm sure it's in the
>book somewhere (I just can't find it), but what is the difference
>between an Essential Bus and the other power distribution buses?
>
>Thanks for the primer!
>


  You're welcome. I'm pleased that you find the work useful!

  Not much . . . bus structures can be divided up for
  a variety of reasons. The items powered from any particular
  bus will have something in common. For example, a fuseblock
  or row of breakers might be feed from the always hot side
  of a battery contactor to supply needs of dome lights, clocks,
  engine hour-meters, electronic ignition, . . . any item that
  you want to have powered EVEN IF the rest of the electrical
  system is shut down.

  In the case of an ESSENTIAL bus, I encourage builders to
  consider the electrical items most useful in getting to
  intended destination.  These must certainly include minimal
  lighting, primary nav radio, turn coordinator, a voltmeter
  and perhaps engine boost pump. The goal is to define a very
  low energy budget for utilizing a finite amount of energy
  on board in terms of battery capacity.

  I discourage calling it an EMERGENCY bus . . . if airplanes
  are properly designed and operated, electrical emergencies
  don't happen. This is why we have an ESSENTIAL bus - to
  keep an electrical event from becoming an EMERGENCY. Some
  builders still call it their "avionics" bus and include
  the now outdated "avionics master" switch in the normal
  feed path. Note however that the essential bus in my drawings
  have two, independent power pathways to get electrons to the
  most needed devices.

  Hope this helps . . .


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:10:53 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:Alternators 


>Why don't you want an automotive alternator with a built in voltage
regulator?
>There are many homebuilts that fly with these. I have one myself-bought it
for
>$100- its out of a Chevy Spectrum- 60 amp and very small. I have  2 1/2 years
>and 300 hrs on it now with no problems.


 I'm pleased that your experience with built in regulators has
 been positive. However I'll ask that you please review:

 http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/bltinreg.pdf

 http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/failtoll.pdf

 http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/crowbar.pdf

 http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/bleadov.pdf

 Fly comfortable . . .


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:34:46 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Strobes:Mini Xenon Strobe


>Heads-up, J C Whitney has a mini xenon strobe rated at 1,000,000 cp,
>12V,
>
>1/2 amp. 60 fpm, lexan lens, weatherproof housing, 1000 hr. life.
>
>I think this would qualify for aircraft use if above is true.
>
>$64.95.  interesting?


Conventional wisdom suggests that we avoid hassles and just go
buy the TSO/PMA/STC item . . . HOWEVER, it just may be that
your local bearer of government holy water would consent to
the needed sprinkle if:

Borrow a photo flash light meter from a friendly photographer.
My personal favorite is the Gossen Luna Pro. Set up to measure
flash output in the direct radiation mode (little white plastic
window closed).

Find a few airplanes with high-dollar, already blessed
strobes on them and make some measurements using the hand held
flash meter. Use a yardstick to hold uniform distance from the
strobe head and make 8 measurments on the cardinal compass points
in the horizontal plane. Repeat for 30 and sixty degrees above
and below horizontal.

Get some data on several installed, certified systems.

Do the same thing with your proposed bootleg strobe. The lightmeter
readings should be equal to or greater than those for the certified
installations.

Gross calibration of the lightmeter is not an issue . . . you're
using it to compare one product with several others . . . we're
looking only for readings equal-to-or-greater.

When it comes time to sell your proposal to the cognizant
authority, you'll have DATA to justify your proposition that the
substitute strobe meets the spirit and intent of the rules
and is therefore suited for use on an amateur built airplane.

Yes, some of you may be anticipating some questions that could
require some additional effort but give this a try for the
first pass. If push comes to shove, I'll help with more detailed
and tighter controls on the tests . . . but if your inspector
is the least bit inclinded to favor good logic, this first pass
I've suggeseted may be enough . . . 


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: "Capps Family" <cappsfan@ameritech.net>
Subject: COZY: Strobes:JC Whitney Part Number
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:24:28 -0500

Sorry about that group, here's your part number, and Whitney's URL.
I am told this product comes in 4 colors, the part number listed is
for clear.

Order any Web site product while online or call them with your order
at 312-431-6102.

Part#   126947B

http://jcwhitney.com/shoponline/


Larry
===============================

Snip"

> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:30:48 -0500 you wrote:
> >To All;
> >
> >Heads-up, J C Whitney has a mini xenon strobe rated at 1,000,000
cp,
> >12V,
> >
> >1/2 amp. 60 fpm, lexan lens, weatherproof housing, 1000 hr. life.
> >
> >I think this would qualify for aircraft use if above is true.
> >
> >$64.95.  interesting?
> >


From: "Capps Family" <cappsfan@ameritech.net>
Subject: COZY: Strobes:Mini Xenon Strobe
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:30:48 -0500

To All;

Heads-up, J C Whitney has a mini xenon strobe rated at 1,000,000 cp,
12V,

1/2 amp. 60 fpm, lexan lens, weatherproof housing, 1000 hr. life.

I think this would qualify for aircraft use if above is true.

$64.95.  interesting?


Larry

Larry A. Capps   #829
cappsfan@ameritech.net
Naperville, IL



Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:40:32 -0500
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: RE: electrical problem

>Did you happen to notice the ammeter while in the air.  If it is showing a
>high rate of charge after a 'lap' or two around the pattern, then I'd look
>at your battery.  A dying battery will pull a lot of current from the
>alternator.  If this is the case, then all the current from the alternator
>will heat up the circuit breaker until it trips.

   Batteries with a shorted cell change from a 12v to a 10v battery
   and will indeed draw lots of extra current while being "charged"
   from a 14v bus. Shorted cells result from a pile-up of flakey,
   conductive material shed from the plates . . . which normally
   fall harmlessly to the bottom of the cell cavity. Back in the
   good ol' days, a deep pile of this flakey stuff would get too
   deep and short a cell.  There are a few, even more rare failure
   modes of the separators between plates that can produce shorted
   cells.  Shorted cells in modern flooded batteries is extremely
   rare and you woul notice it immediately in poor cranking performance
   and dim lights with the alternator off. Further, a battery with
   a shorted cell is likely to be so old that its useful service
   life is long since passed.

   Most (99.99%) of battery failures manifest themselves in poor
   cranking performance and what appears to be a very rapid recharge
   time after the engine starts. The time and amplitude of ammeter
   "charge" indication after startup is directly related to the
   battery's capacity and internal resistance. As capacity goes
   down, resitance goes up and apparent charging time and amplitude
   will both go down too.

   In the instance under discussion, I don't belive this is the case.

>A friend of mine replaced the left position light after crunching into a
>hanger door.  Got the part from the same make and model year complete with
>lamp.  Flew several months before going at night.  After that flight, he
>noticed the circuit breaker  for the nav lights had tripped.  Reset the
>breaker and thought nothing of it until the next flight.  'POP'
>
>He asked me to look into it.  We pulled the wingtip and looked for chaffed
>wires; nothing.  Looked at the holder, clean.  Then looked at the lamp.
>Nothing note worthy.   Looked at the right side.  Nothing out of the
>ordinary their either.
>
>Then I noticed something; then left lamp was a 26 watt lamp.  The right was
>a 20 watt lamp.  Assuming that all nav lights were 20 watts in a 12 volt
>airplane, that makes 5 amps.  The nav light breaker is a 5 amp breaker.  Add
>6 watts to the mix and you 5.5 amps.

>The circuit breaker would not pop right away.  It took about 15 minutes for
>it to get hot enough to trip.

   The breaker was undersized . . . the minimum breaker size for nav
   lites in a 14v airplane is 7.5 amps. Breakers and wiring used
   to plumb the system should be selected with enough headroom
   to INSURE NO NUISANCE TRIPS . . . I've written before about
   breakers designed to nuisance trip in the form of a 60A breaker
   on a 60A alternator . . . the writer has just identified another
   one.

       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 07:48:47 -0800
From: Marc Parmelee <Marcna@concentric.net>
Subject: COZY: Control Vision Heads up

I have a heads-up for any of you using the Control Vision Exp-bus and
the Vance Atkinson/Steve Wright nose wheel lift.  I had a nose wheel
circuit failure on the Exp-bus last week that could have caused a lot of
damage.  Luckily I was trying to lift the nose wheel when on the ground
and not trying to land.  I just spoke to Tim at Control Vision and he
informed me that the diode for the gear circuit failed.   The Control
Vision 11 amp circuit can not handle the rated 10 amp load of the
gear.   After talking with Steve Wright and Wayne Lanza I have decided
to install a separate 10 amp circuit breaker for the gear.  If I have to
do it over again I just might order Wayne Lanza's power system.

Marc Parmelee

From: JHTanstaaf@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:10:25 EST
Subject: Re: COZY: Cockpit lighting

In a message dated 11/5/99 8:20:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
robert.donatz@precisionint.com writes:

<< Before my trip my friend gave me a sample of a flashlight
 he had just built up. It had red and green LED light bulbs in it. WOW, what
 a difference! It was like going from "formatted to fit your screen" to
 letterbox. Suddenly I could see the rest of the story on the charts. I will
 never go back to plain old red again.  >>

I believe Jim Weir had a column in one of the past year's Kitplane magazines 
on how to wire one of these flashlights yourself. If you can't find the 
issue, you can usually get a msg to Jim on rec.aviation.homebuilts newsgroup.

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:19:17 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Flux remover


>Here's an unsolicited tip for you and everybody building the microencoder.
>Don't use flux remover. The stuff that I had from Radio Shack in the can
>with the little brush on the end just smears stuff around and makes a big
>mess.  After talking with RMI, I used lacquer thinner (the same ole stuff
>you clean your spray can out with, I used medium drying, but they say any
>kind is OK).  You REALLY flush the board with this, and the flux comes off
>easily.  The only caution is to not leave the stuff on there for very long
>(don't let it soak).  Then just blow it off the surface.

   I'll let you all in on another "secret" board cleaner product.
   Wall-Mart stocks a carburetor cleaner that's like most of the
   other carburetor cleaners . . . lacquer thinner in an aerosol
   can. Of the three brands in my local store, they range in price
   from $2.50 down to $0.88 . . . as near as I can tell, they're
   all the same stuff . . . We buy the 0.88/can by the case and
   have been using it for board cleaning for the past 15 or so
   years.

   Wash off liberally then use hair dryer on LOW to evaporate both
   thinner and WATER that shows up as condensed humidity when the 
   board cools under evaporation of the thinnner.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:11:25 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Electrical Noise


>Bob, does this mean that if I want a turn co-ordinator I should plan a noise
>filter from the begginning?


   No, please don't add a filter just 'cause someone else
   has reported a problem . . . you only need to do this IF
   your sure your situation is identical to the other guy's.

   A builder called me about 10 years ago and spent about
   5 minutes describing all the shielding and filtering he'd
   done on his airplane and then asked, "What else do I need?"

   I asked, "Gee, I dunno, what kind of noise problem do you
   have".

   "Oh," sez he, "No problem, I haven't flown the airplane
   yet."

   He had hours, dollars and pounds invested in noise abatement
   techniques that vast majority of which he probably didn't
   need.

   If your T/C is a KNOWN antagonist, meaning that a number
   of people have the same make and model and fixed a noise
   problem by adding a filter, then it's a good bet that you'll
   need it also. But lacking that kind of situation, don't
   hang filters on things until a problem manifests itself
   and you've identified source, propogation path, and victim.
   (See chapter on Noise Abatement in my book).

>Also, does the Navaid autopilot/turn co-ordinator need one too?

   I've not heard of anyone needing to filter the Navaid. (Has
   anyone else out there been aware of a Navaid noise problem?)

>Can two devices share the same noise filter?

   Sometimes . . . but remember that a single power source
   for two devices makes them vulnerable to single points
   of failure for both devices. One device craps and takes
   out the fuse for both.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:28:46 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Wire Sizing (was Another How To Page)


>I feel like I'm sending an e-mail to the two experts . . . so here goes . .

  Hey, it's nice when there's more than one doctor in town when
  your looking for answers . . . 

>Bob and John . . . what is recommended where you want to be able to do a
>wiring disconnect (for example, tail light going into fuselage . . . nav
>lights going into wing ribs).  What do you use, where do you get it . . .
>and if it needs a crimping tool, what do you recommend?  I know this is
>basic, but you can save me a bunch of reading.
>Thanks in advance,

  Are your talking about wing roots, etc? Do you plan folding or
  removable wings?  I know of very few certified ships that have
  had wings removed even once in their 30+ year lifetimes. Unless
  you PLAN to open and remate electrical connections a lot, then
  run solid wires through the area. Put service loops in of about
  6" of wire so that if you ever DO pull the wings, you have slack
  to accomodate butt splices . . . the single most reliable means
  for rejoining an opened wire.

  For wires at fixture locations, again, the butt slice is the
  #1 choice for dealing with single wires. The likelihood that
  you're going to cut out and replace a splice more than once
  over the lifetime of the airplane is very small.

  Nav lights are unique in terms of power distribution. They
  are two amps each and you could wire with 22AWG wire for each
  bulb but you have to breaker the system for total loads of
  6+ amps. This means that you have to use a 7A breaker/fuse
  as a minimum which drives wire size to 20AWG. If it's a composite
  airplane, using 18AWG will get you a little more light at the
  lamps 'cause the round trip is longer for power and ground . . .
  and 18AWG wire in nav light circuits wouldn't be out of line.
  Stay with a 7A fuse.

  Does this help?


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:13:11 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: BOB: Two Alternator Power Distribution Diagram

>Looking at your diagram, if you have an over voltage 
>condition won't you open both field fuses?  In this 
>fault your no better than having one alternator.  Or 
>did I miss something?

   Very good question! With the OV protection systems
   of yesteryear, the condition you suggest would happen.
   A single overvoltage condition would trip both alternators
   off line. IF one uses the B&C regulators, they've
   been fitted with selective trip circuitry . . . the
   ov protection KNOWS if his alternator or some other
   source is responsable for the ov condition. Only the
   failed system is tripped off line.

   If you build up a dual alternator system using automotive
   regulators and my crowbar ov modules, you will indeed
   trip both alternators off at the same time . . . you
   reset the breakers for one system at a time and only
   once to decide which is the failed system. In either
   case, you still have the reliability of two alternators,
   you don't have the convenience of automatic failure
   diagnosis.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:40:54 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Crimp, Solder or Both?

At 08:31 AM 11/19/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Robert,
>Do you recommend soldered connections always or are crimped ones
>satisfactory.
>
>Eric


  Funny you should ask. I've JUST uploaded an updated article
  I published about 4 years ago in Kit Aircraft Builder. Please
  download:

  http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/terminal.pdf

  . . . the short answer is leave your soldering iron in
  the toolbox. Take the time to understand what crimped
  terminals are about, how to use the tools for applying
  them and selecting terminals for use on your project.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:20:32 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Wire Sizing (was Another How To Page) 

At 12:12 PM 11/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>     Bob:
>     
>     RE:"Unless you PLAN to open and remate electrical connections a lot, 
>     then run solid wires through the area."
>     
>     I take issue with your choice of words here.  I think you meant to say 
>     this:
>     
>     "Unless you PLAN to open and remate electrical connections a lot, then 
>     run CONTINUOUS wires through the area."
>     
>     I think someone might misconstrue your original message and think that 
>     you are recommending putting solid instead of stranded wire in.  You 
>     aren't recommending solid wire are you?  :)
>     
>     Bob Misterka

  Point well taken. Yes, CONTINUOUS runs of STRANDED wire
  are the technique and materials of choice.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:19:17 EST
Subject: Re:  COZY: Crimp, Solder or Both?


In a message dated 11/19/99 6:09:40 PM, you wrote:

>  http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/terminal.pdf
>
>  . . . the short answer is leave your soldering iron in
>  the toolbox. Take the time to understand what crimped
>  terminals are about, how to use the tools for applying
>  them and selecting terminals for use on your project.

To add my two cents worth: This is very good advice. If you solder wires, the 
solder wicks up the copper strands and they become solid conductors. A little 
shaking or vibration and they fracture. If you ever have an opportunity to 
see the way they built the space shuttle avionics, you will find they used a 
rotating laser head to cut away the insulation on the wires (because 
mechanical strippers can nick the wires and induce a failure later) and then 
they crimped on the connectors or terminators. Works at Mach 27.

Regards

From: "Ron Larock" <rlarock@mediaone.net>
Subject: COZY: crimp solder
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:26:26 -0500

. . . the short answer is leave your soldering iron in
>  the toolbox. Take the time to understand what crimped
>  terminals are about, how to use the tools for applying
>  them and selecting terminals for use on your project

In the Mercury to Apollo days of NASA, there were alot of solder joints,
many more than in the Space shuttle. At Pratt and Whittney, we took a "NASA
soldering course".

The purpose was to make a light solder joint that was very strong. The
joints worked very well and if done properly, are fine. The solder joints
got to the moon and back and I believe there were some pretty good mach
numbers in those missions.

Soldering is good as long as you do it right.

As far as stripping, in those days, we burned off the insulation.

Ron Larock

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:17:45 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Gear driven alternator


>I'm thinking about installing a B&C gear driven alternator in my RV-6A.  The
>AS&S catalog gives a brief description.  It says that it is an 8 amp unit.
>Limited feedback from the List indicates that it is reliable.  My
>plane-to-be will be day, VFR with a radio, turn & bank indicator,
>micro-encoder and transponder.  I would use this as my only alternator.  I
>have two questions.  Am I crazy, or is this workable?  Can I get information
>about the B&C alternator on the internet?

  Sure. Day vfr loads is exactly what the SD-8 was designed for.
  That was B&C's first product that came on the market about 18
  years ago to support Ez builders with some day/vfr electrical
  system. There are MANY sport bi-planes flying with an SD-8
  as sole source of power.

  The SD-8 has evolved to a 10 amp machine . . . all in all,
  a robust, light and reliable alternative to more conventional
  alternator/battery systems.

  For more info, call B&C at 1.316.283.8000


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:14:34 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Two Alternator Power Distribution Diagram

Several builders asked me to describe the single battery/two alternator
system that B&C just STC'd onto the Bonanazas and soon to be on the
C-210.  With enhancments for adding electronic ignition and essential
bus, I've posted the document in our update/errata files at:

  http://www.aeroelectric.com/errata/errata.html

BTW . . our new server hardware out in Colorado has been having
heartburn  . . . AGAIN. Thanks to listers for the feedback. As I've
just uploaded the new drawing and checked it for downloadability,
I think everything is working for now.

Given that the components for this installation are FAA/PMA/STC
approved, they're now strong candidtates for installs under a 337
in other aircraft.




       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:40:05 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: re: FWD question . . 

>> An alternator puts out dirty current, which some electronics can not
>> handle, but by running it through
>> a battery cleans it up.  So if you lost your battery, 2 alternators could
>> be a whole lot of nothing.
>> But with 2 batteries you have 30 hours or more of reserve if you lost
>> your alternator.
>> 
>> No two alternators!

>Bob......What's your opinion on this

  Yeah but . . . . repeat after me, "I solomly swear that I will
  do my best to observe the laws of physics and conduct maintenance
  on my airplane to live well INSIDE the envelope of operations
  for the equipment installed."

  There is no reason for anyone to LOOSE a battery. If you flog
  it until it doesn't crank the engine for the 4th or 5th time,
  don't do periodic capacity checks or fail to replace it 
  periodically to insure minimal levels of servicability, -AND-
  you suffer from the "if-it's-good-for-50K-Cessnas, it's-gotta-
  be-good-for-my-airplane" syndrome, then indeed, 20 alternators 
  wouldn't do you any good. Let's reveiw the facts and physics:

  (1) Most alternators do indeed need SOME form of battery on line
  not so much for cleaning up "dirty current" as for stabilization
  of the alternator/regulator's voltage regulatrion servo-loop
.
  About 20 years ago, I designed the FIRST linear regulator to go
  on a TC aircraft (A-36 Bonanza) who's dynamics were tailored to
  the production alternators so that no-battery operation was
  guaranteed. In fact, the alternators used on the Bonanzas of
  that time would SELF start if you shut down all bus loads to
  the bare minimum. We worked diligently to achieve and ultimately
  succeeded in putting a system on the Bonanza that would run without
  a battery.  The avionics of the era also ran fine . . . some
  airplanes would experience an increase in alternator whine in
  the audio, but the systems functioned.

  (2) The amount of battery needed for usable alternator output
  is pretty small . . . I've asserted many times that at least
  one half of all SE aircraft flying today have a failed battery
  on board. In spite of the fact that batteries got the engines
  running, their capacities are too low to be of practical utility as
  a standby source of energy . . . none-the-less, those batteries
  are serving well to get an alternator up and running in a
  satisfactory manner . . . else the guy would not be flying.

  (3) Let us agree that there is ALWAYS going to be a more-
  than-minimally acceptable battery aboard with respect to
  alternator needs. Therefore, with two alternators one may
  resonably consider (a) running a battery to a lower capacity
  than with one alternator since its reserves are no longer
  depended upon for sustained flight out to the endurance of
  fuel and (b) lighter, lower capacity batteries can be considered
  purely for their ability to crank and engine and stabilize
  an alternator.
 
  (4) And last, let's design sytems such that no single
  failure causes all alternators to become disconnected from
  a supporting battery -OR- we design sytems that will run
  without a battery on line. The PM alternators are one example
  of power sources that will run after a battery disconnect.
  The Rotax PM alternators like to have a fat capacitor (20,000+
  uFd . . . about 1.5" diam x 3" long) attached across the output
  for smoothing. The B&C SD-8 would be similarly pleased to
  deliver useful energies after the battery goes away if you
  include an electrolytic capacitor in the system.

  The gentleman's assertions are based upon conventional wisdom
  and experience with certified aircraft systems. TC aircraft
  have poor system architecture and we've identified a tendency
  toward poor preventative maintenance with respect to care and feeding
  of batteries. In light of the demonstrated reliability of modern
  non-certified alternators and the deduced reliablity of a
  properly maintained RG battery, ALL of our concerns learned
  from half a century of aircraft design and operation at the
  pleasure of government simply evaporate.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: Ian Douglas <douglasi@sympatico.ca>
Subject: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:20:21 -0500

Hi Folks,

Does any one know why I can not run solid lines (alu. or copper), wrapped 
and bonded into the side of the fuselage (just under the control rods) or 
the centre duct that would carry oil to the oil cooler in the nose (to warm 
the feet on those -30 degree days) and also act as the conduit for my 
battery power to the starter?  Other than the added weight of the oil and 
lines?  I figure that a 3/8" dia solid tube with a thick wall aught to be 
able to handle both the power transmission and oil pressure.  I can put 
ground clamps onto the tube with a conductive epoxy as a secondary measure 
to ensure power transmission.  I plan to epoxy the lugs to the firewall and 
the forward bulkhead.  My biggest concern would be the tube taking the 
compression and tension forces where the glass should be (I did not look up 
elasticity for glass and metal materials yet but if the metal has more 
"stretch" than the glass I should be OK as it would not become a primary 
structure).  The other option is to build it as a fixed at the firewall 
only member with full float at the other end.

Ian Douglas
MKIV #0069

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:33:43 -0500
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways

The next aircraft I build will have a thin wall copper pipe running about
an inch above the lower longeron and flowed into the foam and under the
glass.  The purpose of the pipe will be for grounding the electrical system
and as a conduit through the airplane.  I also plan on inbedding a string
of straws to act as a conduit for the brake lines, and the rudder cables.
A solid AL 1/2" line will also be inbedded in the foam for the vacuum line.
 The goal will be to eliminate anything from transitioning front to back
within the crew area.  No wires, lines, hoses, or cables in the crew
compartment.  This will take alot of forward thinking, but should not be a
problem.

I would not tranmit current along a tube carrying a flamable liquid.  Why
would you put an oil line in running forward in the first place?  Have you
considered using a pressure transducer?  One potential problem with the oil
line in the foam is heat.  The foam will melt at temperatures the oil will
reach.  This will be minimized because there is no flow in the line.  It
will also be a pain to bleed the oil pressure line to the gage.  the only
reason I can think of for running an oil pressure line forward is if there
is no electrical system on the airplane.

Paul
Long EZ 214Lp



At 11:20 11/22/99 -0500, Ian Douglas wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>Does any one know why I can not run solid lines (alu. or copper), wrapped 
>and bonded into the side of the fuselage (just under the control rods) or 
>the centre duct that would carry oil to the oil cooler in the nose (to warm 
>the feet on those -30 degree days) and also act as the conduit for my 
>battery power to the starter?  Other than the added weight of the oil and 
>lines?  I figure that a 3/8" dia solid tube with a thick wall aught to be 
>able to handle both the power transmission and oil pressure.  I can put 
>ground clamps onto the tube with a conductive epoxy as a secondary measure 
>to ensure power transmission.  I plan to epoxy the lugs to the firewall and 
>the forward bulkhead.  My biggest concern would be the tube taking the 
>compression and tension forces where the glass should be (I did not look up 
>elasticity for glass and metal materials yet but if the metal has more 
>"stretch" than the glass I should be OK as it would not become a primary 
>structure).  The other option is to build it as a fixed at the firewall 
>only member with full float at the other end.
>
>Ian Douglas
>MKIV #0069
>
>

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:08:58 -0500
Subject: Re: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways
From: "Paul Comte" <pcomte@thepark.net>

Ian wrote:

> Does any one know why I can not run solid lines (alu. or copper), wrapped
> and bonded into the side of the fuselage (just under the control rods) or
> the centre duct that would carry oil to the oil cooler in the nose (to warm
> the feet on those -30 degree days) and also act as the conduit for my
> battery power to the starter?

Well, If the oil wasn't conductive and inflammable I'd consider it.  I would
also be concerned about possible electron flow doing a EDM number on the AL
engine case...

Maybe just the ground side?

Paul Comte
Milwaukee,WI

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:02:06 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways

>Does any one know why I can not run solid lines (alu. or copper), wrapped 
>and bonded into the side of the fuselage (just under the control rods) or 
>the centre duct that would carry oil to the oil cooler in the nose (to warm 
>the feet on those -30 degree days) and also act as the conduit for my 
>battery power to the starter?  Other than the added weight of the oil and 
>lines?  I figure that a 3/8" dia solid tube with a thick wall aught to be 
>able to handle both the power transmission and oil pressure. 

  <SNIP>

How much weight would you expect to save? 2AWG wire weighs
4 ounces per foot.  A run of say 9' from nose to firewall
saves you about 2.5 pounds.  If you think the weight savings
is worth the hassles, I would use copper tubing only. Solder
lugs to each end for making electrical attachment. I wonder
if 3/8 is big enough . . . not from an electrical perspective
but for flow.  Are you sure that you're going to get any 
amount of useful heat from a forward mounted oil cooler?

Fire hazards are nil. Making good electrical connection to
the tube is the area of concern. As long as there is NO
possiblity of arcing causing the tube to be opened and
for oil to escape, there's no reason a tube can't do both
tasks. A 2AWG wire has a cross section of about .05 square
inches. For a 3/8" tube to have similar cross section 
a .05" thick wall is needed.

The addition of pieces and parts in the ground system drives
up groundpath resistance (see recent article on grounding
posted to our website).  I just don't see a lot of advantages
just to save the 2.5 pounds.


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: "norm doty" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Electric starter cable
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:27:27 -0500

alum cable isnt a good idea, it stress cracks very quickly and work hardens
even quicker, thats why its not used for automotive wiring or internal house
wiring anymore.
norm


From: Ian Douglas <douglasi@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: COZY: Re: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:46:02 -0500

Thanks for all of the input.

I have seen a number of Velocities (the AeroCanard as well) with the nose 
oil cooler and thought it would be an added benifit for me in the North 
(Canada).  Wendel hit it with the inspection guys that would have to use AC 
manual.  Chances are since it is not approved it would not get very far.

Anyone that can start an oil fire in a 1/4 dia tube filled with oil and no 
air has my admiration (next to impossible to do).  Since one of the guys 
not far from me finished his Velocity this spring, I'll wait for winter to 
see how the oil cooler works for keeping his feet warm on those cold winter 
days.  I still have lots of other things to finish...  Bob is right, for a 
2.5 lb savings, I'll run the required cables and lines if they prove to be 
advantageous.  I still have to see if the battery needs to move, anybody 
remember if Nat left the battery in the back when he had the Franklin 
engine installed?  Nat?

Ian Douglas

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:14:03 -0600
From: Michael Pollock <michael.pollock@wcom.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Re: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways

Ian Douglas wrote:

>I have seen a number of Velocities (the AeroCanard as well) with the nose
>oil cooler and thought it would be an added benefit for me in the North
>(Canada).

Hello Ian,

I have one of those oil coolers in the nose of my Velocity.  I also have one
in the rear of the plane due to hot oil temperatures.  We ran both teflon
lines down the same side duct run and I believe the heat is transferring
between the lines.  The rear oil cooler corrected the heat problem.
However, the nose oil cooler, used as a heater, does not work too well below
around 35 degrees F.  I suppose I could figure out a way to take air from
the cabin and feed it through the cooler instead of the outside air and it
would work better.  That would entail using some type of blower to push or
pull the cabin air through the cooler. I am going to use Nat's heater design
on the Cozy because I have never had any problems with certified planes with
that configuration.

Michael.Pollock@wcom.com
Flying Velocity N173DT
Building Cozy MKIV #643


Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:44:57 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways

>Don't take this post wrong, I personally don't like the idea but I'm still
>going to play devil's advocate with you.  8-)
>
>> 1. Electricity and a petroleum product, not a good mix.
>
>Oh, you mean like all those submersible fuel pumps in cars now?  The ones
>that blow up all the time?
>
>> 2. Vibration hardens copper and makes it brittle, the only way to keep it
>> from happening is to periodically heat treat it to restore softness.
>Bottom
>> line: future oil leak in the making.
>
>Or to minimize the vibration to begin with by embedding it in foam and
>glass.  It could take quite a long time for it to get brittle if properly
>supported like this.
>
>> 3. It is quite possible that you could cool the oil too much with the
>extra
>> distance and that can cause problems (can't think of specifics right now,
>> but cold splashed on hot, not good, causes cracks).
>
>I thought that was what the vernatherm was for?  To control the amount of
>cooling done to the oil.

   Very good gentlemen! As Fox Mulder says, "the truth is out there".


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:31:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: COZY: Re: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways

Was said <an oil fire in a 1/4 dia tube >

The thought of fire with tubes and oil cooler in the passenger area wasn't such an issue, as hot oil (close to or more than 
the temperature of boiling water) spraying, dripping, or puddling wher human flesh was near. The Ez's don't offer much room to 
escape.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:40:03 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Using oil lines for a battery cable.

  Earlier this week, there was a little bit of discussion
  about combining an oil line with a ground system in
  a canard pusher aircraft.  The line was to bring warm
  oil forward for use as a cabin heat source. The writer
  wondered if the same line could be used as an electrical
  conductor to replace a 2AWG ground wire.

  I could see how it might be done. The potential hazard
  would arise from the single point of contact between
  the liquid carrying tubing and the electrical connection
  to that tubing. If that joint, and the one adjacent to
  it were of impecable integrity, then no electrical arcing
  and subsequent damage to the liquid carrying component
  could occur due to poor conduction, overheating and
  arcing.

  I could see a copper strap looped around the tubing at
  some appropriate location, soldered to the tubing and
  formed into a tab where a wire could be bolted on
  to carry electrons off to a destination separate from
  the oil.

  I suggested that the technique might save 2.5 pounds
  in the total weight of the airplane and further that
  the builder consider the trade off between the ease 
  and confidence of a tube and wire installation versus
  taking on the task of making sure the dual use
  installation was technically sound.

  I expected to get a flood of mail about this . . .
  I have received a few responses that run in this
  general flavor:

>I've been mechanicing for a while and the general formula is to keep the
>electrical and fluid lines seperate. It introduces to many oppurtunities for
>sparking which would creat hot spots that would put holes in the tubing.

  Understood. That philosophy operates under the assumption that
  sparking and arcing WILL occur. If one designs a system wherein
  arcing CANNOT occur, then the system is intrinsically safe.

  For example, certain potential electrical energy levels are
  ALLOWED inside a fuel tank because we understand the physics
  that supports combustion and/or explosions. Saturated vapors
  cannot combust due to lack of oxygen, ignition cannot happen
  below certain energy densities within an explosive atmosphere,
  etc. Automobiles have depended on these simple truths for
  over 60 years and we've yet to see the ass-ends of cars
  being blown off by their fuel gages.

  Bureaucratic posturing and rewriting of the laws of physics
  to support TWA 800 soothsayers not withstanding, there are
  ways to bring potentially hazardous substances into close
  proximity with potentially antagonistic phenomenon with comfort.
  It's like defining the weight and ballance envelope for an
  airplane, stay inside and your future is bright, venture outside
  and risks multiply rapidly.

  Rules of thumb, general formulas and other sage advice don't
  have to consider anything except the stature of the authors,
  their power to promote them, and our willingness to accept them.
 
  The amateur built airplane arena is one of the few places 
  left were politicians and bureaucrats have yet to take a 
  strangle-hold on philosophy and technology. In this venue, 
  no idea is unworthy of consideration under the light and 
  magnifying glass of physics.

  Personally, I'd have no problem fabricating such a system
  and flying it with confidence. An amateur builder may want
  to solicit the aid of one experienced in the mechanical
  skills of putting the parts together. He might even consider
  backing off the oil line and using the vacuum line (if
  he's unfortunate enough to need one) to do the dual task.

  I took on this issue to illustrate the precious value of
  the freedom we have to do good science on our airplanes.
  I'm sure I came off a bit wild-eyed a few days ago when
  I responded to someone's query about an FAA inspector's
  request to do a detailed weight and balance document for
  an amateur built airplane. It's not that doing such a
  document is a BAD idea, but it's not necessary from a
  regulatory perspective. Nor does it have much value in
  the future operation of the airplane . . . perhaps an 
  exercise with EDUCATIONAL value but certainly no more.

  The requestor may have been genuinely interested in 
  advancing the builder's understanding of airplanes. No
  matter what HIS/HER motivation, should some future up-n-
  coming bureaucrat find reference to or even a copy of such
  a document in an FAA file, there's an opportunity for
  an educational exercise to take root and grow up as
  a requirement.

  Ben Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of
  Independence allowed as how, "We should all hang 
  together or most certainly we shall all hang
  separately." The future of our craft and right to
  practice it is delicately balanced on our ability
  to "hang together."   Fly comfortably my friends 
  but be watchful for the noses of camels circling 
  our collective tent . . .


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: "Wendell Best" <wbest@zianet.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:14:38 -0700

Hello,
    This is some of the things that instantly pop into my mind:
1. Electricity and a petroleum product, not a good mix.
2. Vibration hardens copper and makes it brittle, the only way to keep it
from happening is to periodically heat treat it to restore softness. Bottom
line: future oil leak in the making.
3. It is quite possible that you could cool the oil too much with the extra
distance and that can cause problems (can't think of specifics right now,
but cold splashed on hot, not good, causes cracks).
4. 1200 cold cranking amps! All that amperage running through an oil filled
conduit is not good aside from the fact that the copper tubing would not
carry the current. Take a look at your battery cables and see how thick it
is. Now imagine it flattened out to 1/16 of an inch and turned into a tube.
Now you are looking at a copper tube that is in excess of 1" in diameter.

Suggestions:
1. Braided insulated battery cables for your battery.
2. If you install your oil cooler in the nose use rubber hose that is
pressure rated more than adaquately for your oil system with fittings (no
hose clamps). This will give you greater flexability, dependability and an
easier time in installation.
3. If your using a air cooled engine it doesn't take to long for the muffler
to heat up on those cold mornings and start cranking out some heat into the
muffler heat box. With either idea you will be lacking one critical
component, air flow on the ground (at least with a pusher configuration). In
the air the heated air off the muffler should be adaquate and will make your
oil system much simplier.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Douglas <douglasi@sympatico.ca>
To: cozy_builderscanardcom <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:20 AM
Subject: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways


> Hi Folks,
>
> Does any one know why I can not run solid lines (alu. or copper), wrapped
> and bonded into the side of the fuselage (just under the control rods) or
> the centre duct that would carry oil to the oil cooler in the nose (to
warm
> the feet on those -30 degree days) and also act as the conduit for my
> battery power to the starter?  Other than the added weight of the oil and
> lines?  I figure that a 3/8" dia solid tube with a thick wall aught to be
> able to handle both the power transmission and oil pressure.  I can put
> ground clamps onto the tube with a conductive epoxy as a secondary measure
> to ensure power transmission.  I plan to epoxy the lugs to the firewall
and
> the forward bulkhead.  My biggest concern would be the tube taking the
> compression and tension forces where the glass should be (I did not look
up
> elasticity for glass and metal materials yet but if the metal has more
> "stretch" than the glass I should be OK as it would not become a primary
> structure).  The other option is to build it as a fixed at the firewall
> only member with full float at the other end.
>
> Ian Douglas
> MKIV #0069
>

From: "JStricker" <jstricke@russellks.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:11:16 -0600

Wendell,

Don't take this post wrong, I personally don't like the idea but I'm still
going to play devil's advocate with you.  8-)

> 1. Electricity and a petroleum product, not a good mix.

Oh, you mean like all those submersible fuel pumps in cars now?  The ones
that blow up all the time?

> 2. Vibration hardens copper and makes it brittle, the only way to keep it
> from happening is to periodically heat treat it to restore softness.
Bottom
> line: future oil leak in the making.

Or to minimize the vibration to begin with by embedding it in foam and
glass.  It could take quite a long time for it to get brittle if properly
supported like this.

> 3. It is quite possible that you could cool the oil too much with the
extra
> distance and that can cause problems (can't think of specifics right now,
> but cold splashed on hot, not good, causes cracks).

I thought that was what the vernatherm was for?  To control the amount of
cooling done to the oil.


John Stricker

jstricke@russellks.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to
be a vegetarian"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendell Best" <wbest@zianet.com>
To: "Ian Douglas" <douglasi@sympatico.ca>; "cozy_builderscanardcom"
<cozy_builders@canard.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways


> Hello,
>     This is some of the things that instantly pop into my mind:
> 4. 1200 cold cranking amps! All that amperage running through an oil
filled
> conduit is not good aside from the fact that the copper tubing would not
> carry the current. Take a look at your battery cables and see how thick it
> is. Now imagine it flattened out to 1/16 of an inch and turned into a
tube.
> Now you are looking at a copper tube that is in excess of 1" in diameter.
>
> Suggestions:
> 1. Braided insulated battery cables for your battery.
> 2. If you install your oil cooler in the nose use rubber hose that is
> pressure rated more than adaquately for your oil system with fittings (no
> hose clamps). This will give you greater flexability, dependability and an
> easier time in installation.
> 3. If your using a air cooled engine it doesn't take to long for the
muffler
> to heat up on those cold mornings and start cranking out some heat into
the
> muffler heat box. With either idea you will be lacking one critical
> component, air flow on the ground (at least with a pusher configuration).
In
> the air the heated air off the muffler should be adaquate and will make
your
> oil system much simplier.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ian Douglas <douglasi@sympatico.ca>
> To: cozy_builderscanardcom <cozy_builders@canard.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:20 AM
> Subject: COZY: Solid oil lines as electrical path ways
>
>
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Does any one know why I can not run solid lines (alu. or copper),
wrapped
> > and bonded into the side of the fuselage (just under the control rods)
or
> > the centre duct that would carry oil to the oil cooler in the nose (to
> warm
> > the feet on those -30 degree days) and also act as the conduit for my
> > battery power to the starter?  Other than the added weight of the oil
and
> > lines?  I figure that a 3/8" dia solid tube with a thick wall aught to
be
> > able to handle both the power transmission and oil pressure.  I can put
> > ground clamps onto the tube with a conductive epoxy as a secondary
measure
> > to ensure power transmission.  I plan to epoxy the lugs to the firewall
> and
> > the forward bulkhead.  My biggest concern would be the tube taking the
> > compression and tension forces where the glass should be (I did not look
> up
> > elasticity for glass and metal materials yet but if the metal has more
> > "stretch" than the glass I should be OK as it would not become a primary
> > structure).  The other option is to build it as a fixed at the firewall
> > only member with full float at the other end.
> >
> > Ian Douglas
> > MKIV #0069
> >

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:55:01 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Solid State Strobe?!?!

Yesterday afternoon I saw a prototype of a red flashing
beacon sent in to Raytheon for evaluation. The light emitters
were an array of about 50 high intensity RED leds. The
total power draw of this beacon at 28v was .3 amps.
A 14v model would be .6 amps. Aside from the usual
glass dome over the lamps, there was only a small lump
on the bottom of the fixture to provide a housing for
flasher electronics.

As I watched the demonstration, I wondered if the intensity
and color requirements were being met but all-in-all,
the prototype was impressive. I've been pondering the
possibility of doing something similar on amateur built
airplanes. Xenon filled tubes, 300v power supplies, whining
noises in the headsets and $600 beacons need to go the
way of the dodo bird.

We may have witnessed the seeds of fulfillment of that
wish. Stay tuned.




       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:59:56 -0500
From: John <jmillington@enter.net>
Subject: Re:COZY:Solid State Strobe?!?!

I am designing my own winglet tip lighting system. I have used high
power LED's for illumination purposes in other projects before, mostly
in laser trimming systems in thick-film electronics assemblies. We
replaced high powered EKE type lamps (150W)  with a samall array of the
most powerfull LED's that we could find. Our specific application was
extremely well suited to the mono-chromatic content of the LED's. After
testing arrays made up of clusters of LED's of various different visible
wavelengths (color), we settled on an array of 12 orange LED's with a
total power consumption of a whopping couple of watts. Power was a small
wall-type plug-in tranformer instead of the 110AC to the original lamp.
The LED's haven't failed yet and it has been more than 5 years now. The
original lamps had to be replaced almost monthly.
  The point of this is that I am planning on using LED blocks that
attach to the top of each winglet. Both red and green LED's are
available that would surely pass the requirements for lighting. I know
that some states are using them for both the red and green on the
stop-lights. I plan on also adding white LED's to slave to my "strobe".
I intend to have all of the illumination completely embedded into the
airframe with no external bumps.
   My biggest project right now is to find the ideal combination of
epoxy, micro-beads, and other particulates to create a "block" of light
that will give me the right even light distribution and structural
integrity. I want to end up with a "block" of  totally enclosed
translucent epoxy with a power plug embedded in the side.
John A Millington


Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:27:38 -0500
From: Jim Sower <jimsower@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: COZY:Solid State Strobe?!?!

This whole thing sounds like a terrific idea.  On thing though:  I would be
careful about knocking myself out getting 360 deg visibility.  A little over
180 deg on position lights is all that's necessary.  Remember that
(particularly in IMC conditions) you don't want flashing lights dazzling the
pilot and causing vertigo.  That's why no position lights on virtually any
airplane are directly visible to the pilot.  That's why you turn off your
strobes and rotator in IMC.  Flashing position lights that are too bright
could be a real hazard.
Just a theory,        Jim S.

John wrote:

> Guys,
> My vision ideally would be to replace the entire top and bottom of the
> winglets with a lightweight block (of course Green and red versions). They
> would mate with the winglet in the same way that a cellular phone battery
> usually mates. Then with have two captive fastener screws to trun to lock
> the unit in place. Engaging the connector. I have been playing with
> different material combinations to give an even light distribution across
> the entire surface (the whole block glows evenly). While still maintaining
> maximum Candelas of illumination to get through. I have found that the
> unit will be light as all get out. Microbeads seem to work well in
> diffusing light. They also have the added benefit of light weight.
>     I have pretty much settled on trying to develope a set of two units
> per side, considering the requirements for visibility from all 3
> dimensional angles.
>    Any suggestions would be great. I have been playing with a few
> different types of LED's and different internal board layout schemes. A
> simple two sided single vertical mounted board is probably going to work
> well. By using stand-offs when mounting the LED's, you can aim the LED's
> to get 360 degree visibilty.
>   I haven't done any official testing of output levels to compare to the
> FAR requirements yet, but I don't think that intensity will be a concern.
> These LED's get pretty damn bright. The nice thing is that these super
> bright LED's still only use 20 milliamps of current.
>     Doing some small scale mass production of these modules could probably
> be as easy as making up a set of molds and simply mixing the
> epoxy/particulate mixture and mounting the "stuffed" P.C. boards into the
> molds and then pop out the completely self contained light modules.
> Already in the shape of the winglet tip. (an aluminum plate would be
> embedded into the base of the assembly). Just install the mounting bolts
> and fly.
>    Maybe this would be a good opportunity for someone that is familiar
> with the FAR and any other legal issues concerned in this kind of lighting
> scheme.
>    I would be interested in maybe making kits of these if there would be
> interest in the Cozy/EZ community.
> How about some brainstorming on the idea.
>
> SWrightFLY@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 11/25/99 8:19:01 AM Central Standard Time,
> > jmillington@enter.net writes:
> >
> > << I want to end up with a "block" of  totally enclosed
> >  translucent epoxy with a power plug embedded in the side. >>
> > John.....Great Idea...........I will be glad to test one for you in my

From: "John Slade" <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY:Solid State Strobe?!?!
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:41:28 -0500

>This whole thing sounds like a terrific idea.
agreed.

>That's why no position lights on virtually any airplane are directly
visible to the pilot.
but it might be nice to have one small indicator light visible so you can
confirm that they're on. Maybe a perspex bar with an angle cut.

John Slade
Cozy MKIV #757, http://kgarden.com/cozy


From: nostromo56@home.com
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:54:44 -0600
Subject: Re: COZY:Solid State Strobe?!?!

Guys,
My vision ideally would be to replace the entire top and bottom of the
winglets with a lightweight block (of course Green and red versions).
T



YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO DO THIS AS THE STROBE OR LIGHTS ON THE TOP OF
THE WINGLET WILL PRODUCE MASSIVE SCATTER BACK ON ALL  TOP SURFACES OF 
THE AIRCRAFT.  THAT MEANS YOUR GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE CANARD
SURFACES
BOUNCING BACK LIGHT RIGHT INTO YOUR EYES EVERY FLASH.  IF YOU BUILD 
A SHIELD THAT STOPS THE LIGHT FROM BOUNCING OFF THE UPPER SURFACES
THEN YOU WONT MEET THE FAR'S AS FAR AS AN AIRCRAFT BELOW YOU SEEING
YOU. THE POSITION OF THE LIGHTS THAT NAT SHOWS (AND LONG E-Z'S) IS
JUST                                                                      
RIGHT FOR NIGHT FLIGHT AS FAR AS EFFECTING THE PILOTS VISION.

VANCE ATKINSON TECH COUNSELOR.  N43CZ

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:07:47 -0500
From: Rob Cherney <cherney@home.com>
Subject: Re: COZY:Solid State Strobe?!?!

(Sorry for the previous e-mail which contained HTML tags)

 >At 09:45 AM 11/27/99 -0500, John wrote:
 >Guys,
 >My vision ideally would be to replace the entire top and bottom of the
 >winglets with a lightweight block (of course Green and red versions).

I looked at this a couple of years ago.  The first problem I see is that in 
order to place the unit on the top of the winglet, the installation 
requires running wires parallel to the COMM antenna.  This will disrupt the 
antenna radiation pattern and perhaps spoil the RF characteristics (i.e. 
"the match") to the transmitter.  You would be better off with the lights 
off the end of the wing like the typical installation of a NAV marker light.

 >  I haven't done any official testing of output levels to compare to the
 >FAR requirements yet, but I don't think that intensity will be a concern.
 >These LED's get pretty damn bright. The nice thing is that these super
 >bright LED's still only use 20 milliamps of current.

As a start, you can go to the general requirements which are here:

http://www5.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=19742421&FAR/part_23/section_ 
23.1385.html

More specifically, the light intensity requirements are here:

http://www5.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=19742421&FAR/part_23/section_ 
23.1391.html

Back when I looked at it, I calculated the number of LEDs required using 
the brightest units available two years ago.  I attempted to find the 
optimum combination of focus (different LEDs have various half-power 
angles) vs. the number of LEDs required.

The biggest problem was with the blue/green color LEDs.  The best ones at 
the time were made by Nichia in Japan (still are, as far as I know).  They 
were made with a transparent synthetic sapphire substrate that allowed the 
light from the back side of the LED to be reflected toward the front.  But, 
they were about $8 each, and I needed about 40 of them to meet the 
FARs.  One could buy a lot of light bulbs for the same amount of money.  By 
now, they might have gone down in price or up in efficiency.

Perhaps I was taking too narrow a look at the FARs.  The light output of 
the Nichia LEDs looks great to me, and from a qualitative point of view, 
they look much brighter than a filtered bulb.  I think this is because they 
are nearly monochromatic in their spectral content.  From a quantitative 
perspective, however, it would be difficult to prove that they meet the FARs.

You might consider running the LEDs beyond their rating and play a 
statistics game with their lifetime.  After all, the LEDs would only have 
to survive hundreds of hours rather than hundreds of thousands of 
hours.  This might allow you to use a more reasonable number of units on 
each wing.

I am still interested in making this work.  Let us know of your progress.

Rob-
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Robert Cherney                      Home Phone: (410)465-5598     |
|Ellicott City, Maryland                 e-mail: cherney@home.com  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:58:10 -0800
From: "J. D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Solid oil lines as electrical path ways

Hi Paul,

> Paul Krasa wrote:

> The next aircraft I build will have a thin wall copper pipe running about
> an inch above the lower longeron and flowed into the foam and under the
> glass.  The purpose of the pipe will be for grounding the electrical system
> and as a conduit through the airplane.

    I did this up both sides of my floor from the fire wall to the nose where
the battery is - works great!
    I also ran a tube from the leading edge of the strakes forward to just past
the instrument panel in the wall just in case I wanted to ever run wires from in
behind the instrument panel, down the leading edge of the strake(s), out to the
wing (would use less wire too).

> I also plan on inbedding a string of straws to act as a conduit for the brake
> lines, and the rudder cables.

    I used Nylaflow tubing in the walls to run my rudder cables.
    I wouldn't use straws.  I used a larger ID plastic tube (from Home Depot) as
a conduit to run my 1/4" OD aluminum brake lines in (don't use Nylaflow for
brake lines either).

> A solid AL 1/2" line will also be inbedded in the foam for the vacuum line.

    I used a large ID plastic line in the wall on one side.  Left it long on
both ends to cut to length later.

> The goal will be to eliminate anything from transitioning front to back
> within the crew area.  No wires, lines, hoses, or cables in the crew
> compartment.  This will take alot of forward thinking, but should not be a
> problem.

    Great idea.

> The only reason I can think of for running an oil pressure line forward is if
> there is no electrical system on the airplane.

    Concur.  And/or fuel line too.


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 10:19:55 -0500
From: Rob and Carla Kittler <rkck@mindspring.com>
Subject: COZY: switches

I've been looking for some locking mini bat toggle switches. In ther
various catalogs there are SPDT switches but I'd like to obtain several
SPST switches.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Happy holidays to one and all
Rob Kittler

Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 10:29:16 -0500
From: STEVE HALL <SHALLFLY@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Nav Lights

Has anyone used or know anything about the "Aeroflash"
Nav/Strobe light kits??? They sell for $418 in "AS" (156-0049-12v)
compaired to $650 for the "Whelen" lights (11-03000) in the same catalog!!

Thanks

Steve

Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:51:22 -0500
From: "Edmond A. Richards" <EdRichards1@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Nav Lights

Steve Hall wrote:
>>>Has anyone used or know anything about the "Aeroflash"
Nav/Strobe light kits???<<<

Steve,
A lot of this stuff looks good while your building.  But when you actually
get in there to fly you will want the most reliable parts you can get.  I
agonized over the cost of the lights (and lots of other things) for a long
time before I broke down and bought the Whelen's.  I believe it was the
right choice for the sake of reliability.

Just my opinion.

Ed Richards

Cozy mark IV  #88

Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 14:32:30 -0800
From: "J. D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: Switches

Hi Rob,

> I've been looking for some locking mini bat toggle switches. In ther
> various catalogs there are SPDT switches but I'd like to obtain several
> SPST switches. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    I assume you mean a Lever Lock SPST toggle switch(?), which Mouser has.

    Contact Mouser Electronics at (800) 346-6873, and ask them for their
free catalog.  They also have their catalog on a free CD.
    Their web site is:  http://www.mouser.com  , and their e-mail is:
sales@mouser.com  .
    I have a lot of other switch catalogs too, if Mouser doesn't work out
for you.
    HTH.


Infinity's Forever,

            JD

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 16:36:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: switches

SPDT (Single pole, double throw) switches are really two SPST (Single pole, Single throw) switches put together with a common 
pole (terminal) and actuator. Use the SPDT as SPST, use the center and one of the side connections. If the hole that the 
switch goes into is keyed, then need to pick the side connection that will result in the off position results in the handle on 
the correct side. If its a plain round hole, then just turn the switch in the hole a 180 degrees if the handle doesn't pint 
the correct way. Usually (NOT ALWAYS) the terminal that is closed is opposite side that the handle is pointing. The other 
terminal to use is the middle. The double throw switches come in momentary contact, and center off varieties. For the SPST 
application, you do not want center off, and probably not momentary.

Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 17:13:39 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: switches

At 10:19 AM 12/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I've been looking for some locking mini bat toggle switches. In ther
>various catalogs there are SPDT switches but I'd like to obtain several
>SPST switches.
>Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Happy holidays to one and all
>Rob Kittler
>

  I have a few, high quality (Cutler-Hammer) switches that
  were salvaged from some working equipment several years
  ago. If you don't mind cleaning out the solder termials
  on the back before you mount them, you might find them
  suited to your needs. Take a peek at our catalog page:

  http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/catalog.html

  They're in the the first two items at the top of the
  catalog index in the Consignment and Limited Quantity
  Specials.


       Bob . . .

       http://www.aeroelectric.com



Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:05:45 -0500
From: Bill Theeringer <Composite_Aircraft_Accessories@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Switches

Hi Rob;

> I've been looking for some locking mini bat toggle switches. In ther
> various catalogs there are SPDT switches but I'd like to obtain several
> SPST switches. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

JD gave you the probably the best info for geting the switches.  Is there
any particular reason that you want SPST versus SPDT?  If you are only
going to need only the SPST arrangement then the SPDT should work perfectly
for your purpose, and they are virtually identical physically.

Bill Theeringer
N29EZ

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 11:06:10 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Nav Lights

Ed,

    re "I agonized over the cost of the lights (and lots of other
things) for a long
time before I broke down and bought the Whelen's.  I believe it was the
right choice for the sake of reliability."

    I agree.  The Whelen system in the MKIV is the same one I used in a
LEZ which was built and flown in '83.  The strobe system had sat idle
for about 6 years and after recharging the diodes with 9 volts over
night, it has worked without fault.

dd



From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:57:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Nav Lights

The Whelan "Comet Flash" is well worth. The 4 quick flashes really attract the eyes.

From: "D. Rothrock" <rdrock@gte.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] alternator possibility?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:57:36 -0500


Ken wrote:
>
>Also look at the Kubota estate tractors.  I have their 40A on my Long,
>and is basically the same one as sold by B&C, with internal reguator.
>B&C adds required bracketry and removes the reguator in their production
>units..............
>
Ken,
Did you stick with the internal regulator? Is there any reason you can think
of to remove the internal regulator and install a separate regulator? And
finally, Was there anything special (different) required to mount the
alternator?
Thanks, Don  rdrock@gte.net



From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:47:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [c-a] alternator possibility?

I use a Delco CS-121 series alternator at 78 amps. I use a B&C regulator, and remove the internal alternator to provide 
overvoltage protection. But now I see details to build overvolt protection available, might have gone that way today.

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:53:39 +0000
From: Blake Mantel <blakem@tiac.net>
Subject: COZY: Nav Lights - VARIAC

"Edmond A. Richards" wrote:

> Steve Hall wrote:
> >>>Has anyone used or know anything about the "Aeroflash"
> Nav/Strobe light kits???<<<
> Steve,
> A lot of this stuff looks good while your building.  But when you
actually
> get in there to fly you will want the most reliable parts you can
get.  I
> agonized over the cost of the lights (and lots of other things) for a
long
> time before I broke down and bought the Whelen's.  I believe it was
the
> right choice for the sake of reliability.
>
> Just my opinion.
> Ed Richards
> Cozy mark IV  #88

Power Supplies:
Purchased some equipment from one of my friends since he was getting out
to the business. So I have two extra power supplies that were intended
for fire service, but have more than adequate power output for aircraft
use.

These are the older dual flash units (60 double FPM) but a four outlet,
20 joules per head, model. This means it will fire two lights at 40J or
four at 20J. (or one at 40J and two at 20J - depends on how you wire the
lights up).

The unit is physically similar to Model - 90080 which can me seen at
http://www.WHELEN.com/avpowr.htm, except it came from a rack system and
will need some simple additional aluminum vented enclosure fabricated.
They have all the standard connectors, and high/low power toggle to help
from blinding
yourself in IFR.


VIARIAC's:
Went to Pratt & Whitney's surplus store today - finally got some
competition for you guy's over in Washington at that old Airframe job
shop! And saw a little rack mounted unit that had three Variacs mounted
in it. What they were using it for I have no idea but I needed one
Variac so I purchased it and don't need the other two.

They are Powerstat model 21's 0-140V and 4.5A made by the powerstat
company right here in Bristol, Connecticut. As with the strobe power
supplies they were rack mounted and will need a simple enclosure to
prevent yourself from getting electrocuted or similar.
;-O oww!

Blake
Cozy Mk IV #8 - canoe

--
CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS
HABEBUNT.
(When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults....)
Triumph Tiger Motorcycle page at: http://www.tiac.net/users/blakem/
My Email address is altered due to the prevalence of bulk Email senders.

To send me mail remove the two *'s before the TIAC.NET.


Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:50:21 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Zenith-List: Nav light grounding


>> I'm building a 701 but the answer should apply to a 601 as well.  Do I
>> need to run a separate ground wire to my wing and tail nav lights and
>> strobe power supplies (mounted in the wing tips) or can I rely on the
>> aluminum airframe and pick up the tail light ground from the rear
>> fuselage and also put a wire between the wing structure and fuselage, to
>> assure no loss in the wing bolts, for the wing lights and strobes?

>The airframe is a good enough ground. Only concern is the corrossion caused
>by electric current (there should be information about this in the
>archieve).

   This caveat has a very tiny support in the laws of
   physics.  IF a joint is likely to corrode due to any
   chemical stress OTHER than flow of electrons through
   a ground, then the stresses are increased by causing
   a flow of electrons across the joint.

   In actual practice, I've never seen it happen nor have
   I found any other individual who has seen it happen and
   properly indentified the physics that caused the problem.
  
   The amount of time that any lighting or pitot heater is
   turned ON compared to the total lifetime of an airframe
   makes this a trivial concern.

>I participated on a workshop during Sun'n Fun last year. The guy told us,
>that there will be some corrosion when using the airframe as a ground, but
>it will be insignificant. The only ground cable that is really needed is
>from the starter (again, that was his opinion).

   "Some" corrosion isn't a quantified statement. If he's
   talking about stuff you might find with a microscope in 
   a poorly assembled joint then we can agree that "some"
   corrosion will occur. If you've bolted everything together
   werein all electrical and mechanical joints are gas tight
   then no corrosion will occur . . . ever.

   The strongest grounding concerns deal with voltage
   drop due to poor ground pathway selection and dependence
   upon mechanical joints for integrity of the electrical
   system. Starter current and battery charging pathways
   are the most critical because they are the highest currents
   in the system (200A for some starters, 60A for lots of
   alternators).

   A bond strap between crankcase and a firewall ground
   stud is a good thing. A healty wire connection between
   battery minus and the same ground stud is another good
   thing.  Using this ground stud as the gathering point
   for all electrical goodies behind the panel is a good
   thing. If you've come this far, the use of airframe to
   ground a few outlying components like nav lights, landing
   light, pitot heat and strobes is a perfectly sensible
   thing to do.

       Bob . . .

       http://www.aeroelectric.com



Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:43:09 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Nippon-Dienso 50 AMP Alternator

>
>I was told by a number of people that the problem with an internal regulator 
>is that once they are running they cannot be shut down by removing the power 
>from the regulator, this was not correct - pull the power from the regulator 
>and the Alternator stops, I verified this on two different installations.

   The "little" wire going into the back of most internally
   regulated alternators is indeed a control wire that applies
   a bias to transistors in the regulator to turn the alternator
   on and off . . . this is a digital signal that comes out of
   the engine's systems control computer so that the computer can
   turn the alternator on after the engine is running well on a
   cold morning . . . let it get going before loading it down
   with the alternator.

   If the regulator fails, it can create a direct connection from
   field to the alternator's output terminal . . . the classic
   runaway problem. Removing the ON command from the little wire
   has no control over this failure mode. Hence our recommendation
   for the external relay in series with the alternator's b-lead
   show in wiring diagrams on our website.

>A local flying club had an Alternator failure on their C-172, the output
lead 
>of the alternator shorted to the field lead.  All the avionics got smoked 
>along with a lot of wiring, luckily this happened on the ground. The circuit 
>breaker did not trip and was a flush model so there was no way to stop the 
>alternator :(

   OV conditions generally will not trip the 60A breaker . . . an
   ALL TOO COMMON misconception. That 60A breaker protects wires
   only.

>Show me where I am wrong but I don't think the B&C regulator and over
voltage 
>protection would have saved this? 

   No, it wouldn't. This airplane suffered from some pretty
   harsh conditions and poor inspections. I'd guess that
   it was NOT wired with tefzel wire either. I've heard of
   this happening before where the field lead comes through
   a common grommet with the alternator b-lead. This is another
   reason why I like the b-lead to get an 80 amp fuse on the
   panel so that the b-lead doesn't come through the firewall
   with ANY wires, much less the field wire.

       Bob . . .

       http://www.aeroelectric.com



From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: Chap 22, battery hold-down
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 14:07:14 -0600

I have the recommended battery from B&C.  One thing bothers me, I know it is
mostly paranoia but..  I don't like that missile behind my head.  I measured
below the spar. It don't fit unless some of the rear gear bulkhead is
trimmed away, about a half inch would do it. 

Has anyone mounted the 25 amp hour battery there or any other arrangements
in the rear?  

John Epplin    Mk4  #467

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:03:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 22, battery hold-down

Mine sets on top the spar, with a 0.016" x 1.25" stainless strap around with (4) AN3 bolts with fender washers (AN spec) the 
aft side of the firewall (0.016" stainless), and a .035" alum plate and AN washers forward. 

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: !RE: COZY: Chap 22, battery hold-down
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:19:55 -0600

Thanks all.  Nat's story concerning the Larson disaster pretty well attests
to the design.  As I said, paranoia mostly.  The tray is made per plans, the
mounting hardware will be per plans with the addition of a small angle on
top of the battery attached to the firewall to prevent vertical movement.
As usual, the plans are more than adequate!

John Epplin...


Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 11:13:14 -0600
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Circuit Breakers and Fusible Links

At 11:33 AM 8/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I've followed this thread with interest and learned a lot from it.  Thanks.
>Last night I was having a discussion with an A&P who suggested what might be
>an exception to the "fuses are better than breakers" theory.  A big jet over
>Seattle was having trouble getting the gear down. Selecting gear down would
>throw the breaker every time.  Apparantly the pilot got the gear to go down,
>by holding  the breaker in.  Perhaps a breaker would be better for the gear.
>On the other hand, perhaps the emergency gear handle (in our case a trusty
>sears socket wrench) is better than the fire risk.
>Any thoughts?


  Better late than never . . . found this item languishing in
  one of my to-do boxes.

  I think this story is bogus. Breakers for airplanes cannot be
  "held in" to keep the circuit closed. They might be repeatedly
  reset with each action getting more and more gear out into
  the breeze . . . given all of the redundancy built into air-
  liners, I'd bet there are a lot of better ways to get the
  gear down than to risk fire or other damage by poking breakers.

  I have an article wherein I suggest that the pumps and motors
  are the "seconday gear extension system" with lots of features
  that makes it more convenient to use. The socket wrench or other
  stone simple technology should be considered the "primary gear 
  extension system" where low parts count and independence from 
  all other systems on the airplane makes it the most likely to 
  work when you need it most.


       Bob . . .

       http://www.aeroelectric.com



