Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - New role for the E-Bus?

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

New role for the E-Bus?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:18 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Bob, I can count on one hand the number of times I've disagreed with you, but this is wrong and dangerous.  I have dual coils on separate switches, so that I can test each one during a run-up.  One uses mechanical points, and the other electronic points.  They are both on for take-off and landing, but only one for cruise. 	


   You are quite correct, common sense calls for

   independent operability of redundant

   SYSTEMS . . .  I'm wrestling with a new

   computer build. Working to get all my

   apps to play nice in Win10.



   Sorry 'bout that. Had my head down the wrong

   rabbit hole when I penned that. My visual

   image during the response was that of

   assessing the failure of one coil in

   a two coil (waste spark) system. Thanks

   for the heads-up!



   The usefulness of an endurance bus went

   away with Z-12. Went you have two, robust

   engine driven power sources the likelihood

   of finding it necessary to complete a mission

   battery-only becomes one of those 10 to the

   minus bazillion risks.



   However, if one wishes to honor both (1) legacy

   crash safety goal of hitting the dirt with electrics

   max cold and (2) independent feeds for the engine,

   perhaps the E-Bus finds a new role in Z12 thusly:



 [img]cid:.0[/img]

   I think this comes close to some alternatives

   offered by others in recent days . . .

   

   The reduced reliability of the added relay and wiring

   is not a big concern because it's the 'backup'

   system. Further, it's easily checked for operability

   in pre-flight. Anytime the MAIN bus is up, the ENGINE

   bus is up. Finally, the main bus can be taken down

   without killing the engine. The normal feed path

   to the ENGINE bus has low parts count, no moving

   parts and high reliability factor.



   Let's thrash this around with a goal of offering

   a failure-tolerant energy source to a electrically

   dependent engine of any variety.



   I noticed that one SDS drawing I've looked at

   recently had 5A or smaller fuses for ALL feeders

   to their system. Really cool . . .



 

 

   Bob . . .

4128cc2.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

98.51 KB

Viewed:

12992 Time(s)

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:18 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Bob, I can count on one hand the number of times I've disagreed with you, but this is wrong and dangerous.  I have dual coils on separate switches, so that I can test each one during a run-up.  One uses mechanical points, and the other electronic points.  They are both on for take-off and landing, but only one for cruise. 	


   You are quite correct, common sense calls for

   independent operability of redundant

   SYSTEMS . . .  I'm wrestling with a new

   computer build. Working to get all my

   apps to play nice in Win10.



   Sorry 'bout that. Had my head down the wrong

   rabbit hole when I penned that. My visual

   image during the response was that of

   assessing the failure of one coil in

   a two coil (waste spark) system. Thanks

   for the heads-up!



   The usefulness of an endurance bus went

   away with Z-12. Went you have two, robust

   engine driven power sources the likelihood

   of finding it necessary to complete a mission

   battery-only becomes one of those 10 to the

   minus bazillion risks.



   However, if one wishes to honor both (1) legacy

   crash safety goal of hitting the dirt with electrics

   max cold and (2) independent feeds for the engine,

   perhaps the E-Bus finds a new role in Z12 thusly:



 [img]cid:.0[/img]

   I think this comes close to some alternatives

   offered by others in recent days . . .

   

   The reduced reliability of the added relay and wiring

   is not a big concern because it's the 'backup'

   system. Further, it's easily checked for operability

   in pre-flight. Anytime the MAIN bus is up, the ENGINE

   bus is up. Finally, the main bus can be taken down

   without killing the engine. The normal feed path

   to the ENGINE bus has low parts count, no moving

   parts and high reliability factor.



   Let's thrash this around with a goal of offering

   a failure-tolerant energy source to a electrically

   dependent engine of any variety.



   I noticed that one SDS drawing I've looked at

   recently had 5A or smaller fuses for ALL feeders

   to their system. Really cool . . .



 

 

   Bob . . .

4128cc2.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

98.51 KB

Viewed:

12992 Time(s)

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:59 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

[img]cid:.0[/img]

   P.S.



   Speaking of pre-flight, this arrangement

   would call for going to alternate feed

   and opening the master switch after engine

   start . . . of course this would reboot

   electro-whizzies on the main bus.



   

 

   Bob . . .

43923f9.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

98.64 KB

Viewed:

12992 Time(s)

johnbright

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 165
Location: Newport News, VA

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

Proposed SDS EFI+I engine bus preflight:



Close engine bus alternate feed relay from ship's battery.

Energize both fuel pumps.

Read battery voltage on SDS programmer.

Engine bus alternate feed has now been tested at 10 to 11 amps and if main bus did not power on the diode is not shorted.

Close battery contactor.

Open engine bus alternate feed.

If engine bus is still powered, diode is not open.

Close engine bus alternate feed relay.

_________________
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright@yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
N1921R links

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:17 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 02:41 PM 2/20/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com>



 Proposed SDS EFI+I engine bus preflight:



 Close engine bus alternate feed relay from ship's battery.

 Energize both fuel pumps.

 Read battery voltage on SDS programmer.

 Engine bus alternate feed has now been tested at 10 to 11 amps and if main bus did not power on the diode is not shorted.

 Close battery contactor.

 Open engine bus alternate feed.

 If engine bus is still powered, diode is not open.

 Close engine bus alternate feed relay. 	


   Sounds like a plan . . .



 

 

   Bob . . .

johnbright

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 165
Location: Newport News, VA

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:17 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: 	
		  



   I noticed that one SDS drawing I've looked at

   recently had 5A or smaller fuses for ALL feeders

   to their system. Really cool . . .

 

   Bob . . . 	




Hi Bob,



I would love to see that drawing because SDS recommends 10 A fuses for coilpacks and 15 A fuses for fuel pumps. The Walbro data sheet for the fuel pump shows 5.25 A per pump at 45 psi which is the SDS recommended pressure. SDS says the four cylinder coilpacks draw "just over 1 amp each in cruise at 2,400 rpm".



How about connecting the aux alternator to the battery?

Elec Schem 1 Batt 2nd Alt on Batt 4 cyl SDS EM-5-F rev A simple view.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

251.37 KB

Viewed:

12919 Time(s)

Elec Schem 1 Batt 2nd Alt on Batt 4 cyl SDS EM-5-F rev A simple view.jpg

_________________
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright@yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
N1921R links

Last edited by johnbright on Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:06 am; edited 7 times in total

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

John Bright,

I suggest that the engine bus relay coil be connected to the relay common terminal instead of the relay normally open terminal.

In other words, the relay coil should be powered by the battery, not by the main power bus.

_________________
Joe Gores

johnbright

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 165
Location: Newport News, VA

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  user9253 wrote: 	
		  John Bright,

I suggest that the engine bus relay coil be connected to the relay common terminal instead of the relay normally open terminal.

In other words, the relay coil should be powered by the battery, not by the main power bus. 	




Thanks Joe!... Silly error on my part. I fixed it.

_________________
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright@yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
N1921R links

dfritzj(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:31 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

Bob,

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see the diagram you posted on this (I get the "emacs" on the digest instead of a link).  That said, it sounds like what you're proposing would look an awful lot like the Z13/20 diagram that you toyed with several years back.  Would it provide the architecture we're looking for in this?



Dan



For context:



"....However, if one wishes to honor both (1) legacy

         crash safety goal of hitting the dirt with electrics

         max cold and (2) independent feeds for the engine,

         perhaps the E-Bus finds a new role in Z12 thusly:

      

      Emacs!

      

         I think this comes close to some alternatives

         offered by others in recent days . . ."

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:55 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

You can view Bob's diagram here:

http://forums.matronics.com/files/43923f9_149.jpg

_________________
Joe Gores

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:51 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Hi Bob,



 I would love to see that drawing because SDS recommends 10 A fuses for coilpacks and 15 A fuses for fuel pumps. The Walbro data sheet for the fuel pump shows 5.25 A per pump at 45 psi which is the SDS recommended pressure. SDS says the four cylinder coilpacks draw "just over 1 amp each in cruise at 2,400 rpm".

 	


   Let me see if I can dig that up again . . . I don't

   know if I saved it after discovery a ten or so

   days ago when we started this thread.



  	  Quote: 	
		  In order to meet FAR 23.1361 I add relays for the pumps and coils at the engine bus. 	


   How about configuring the engine bus as

   shown in.



  http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z01P2-Preliminary.pdf 



   Now you can run all engine loads through

   separate protection and panel mounted switches

   while still complying with the max-cold-

   during-worst-landings design goal. No

   at-the-bus disconnection necessary.



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  How about connecting the aux alternator directly to the battery? 	


   The reason for doing that in Z13/8 was to bypass

   the battery contactor thus eliminating that parasitic

   load during main-alt-out operations. Given that

   we're not offered a much more robust (30A) pad-driven

   alternator, such frugality is no longer useful. Hence,

   the Z13/8 architecture gives way to Z-12. Simpler

   and even holy-watered by the FAA!



   I've been gathering some of our thoughts over recent

   months into a proposed new Z-figure to replace

   Z13 and Z12.



 

   Bob . . .

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:00 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:57 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		     	  Quote: 	
		  

 Hi Bob,



 I would love to see that drawing because SDS recommends 10 A fuses for coilpacks and 15 A fuses for fuel pumps. The Walbro data sheet for the fuel pump shows 5.25 A per pump at 45 psi which is the SDS recommended pressure. SDS says the four cylinder coilpacks draw "just over 1 amp each in cruise at 2,400 rpm".

 	


 Â  Let me see if I can dig that up again . . . I don't

 Â  know if I saved it after discovery a ten or so

 Â  days ago when we started this thread.



  	  Quote: 	
		  In order to meet FAR 23.1361 I add relays for the pumps and coils at the engine bus. 	


 Â  How about configuring the engine bus as

 Â  shown in.



  http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z01P2-Preliminary.pdf 



 Â  Now you can run all engine loads through

 Â  separate protection and panel mounted switches

 Â  while still complying with the max-cold-

 Â  during-worst-landings design goal. No

 Â  at-the-bus disconnection necessary.



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  How about connecting the aux alternator directly to the battery? 	


 Â  The reason for doing that in Z13/8 was to bypass

 Â  the battery contactor thus eliminating that parasitic

 Â  load during main-alt-out operations. Given that

 Â  we're not offered a much more robust (30A) pad-driven

 Â  alternator, such frugality is no longer useful. Hence,

 Â  the Z13/8 architecture gives way to Z-12. Simpler

 Â  and even holy-watered by the FAA!



 Â  I've been gathering some of our thoughts over recent

 Â  months into a proposed new Z-figure to replace

 Â  Z13 and Z12.



 

 Â  Bob . . .

	
I'm on email delivery, and apparently I'm missing a significant % of forum posts.

I'm not following the 'FAR 23' issue with relays at the engine bus for downstream stuff. A fuse at the bus protects everything downstream of the fuse.

When I did failure analysis for my single battery/dual alt, electrically dependent alternative engine, it looked like any conventional arrangement of dual alts with control fed by the main bus and B leads *to* the main bus, would result in the loss of both alts if the master is turned off ('smoke in the cockpit'). I chose to route one alt's B lead directly to the engine bus, making it effectively a dedicated electrical power source for the engine, controlled via the engine bus. Goal was to preserve 'classical' engine independence, and not depend on the limited energy in the battery to complete the flight. There is still a cross-tie switch between engine and main buses, to maintain alt failure redundancy. Is there a problem with this approach?

Charlie

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:14 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 10:28 AM 2/21/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>



 Bob,

 Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see the diagram you posted on this (I get the "emacs" on the digest instead of a link).  That said, it sounds like what you're proposing would look an awful lot like the Z13/20 diagram that you toyed with several years back.  Would it provide the architecture we're looking for in this? 	


   That one is already outdated. Go here



  https://tinyurl.com/ukper7j



 



 

   Bob . . .

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:29 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

Bob,

2 Questions:

1. why is a 30A fuse upstream of a 5A breaker for alternator field?

2. why use a relay for the "clearance delivery" circuit? 





-Jeff

                  

                                                                    On Friday, February 21, 2020, 02:24:56 PM PST, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:                 

                 



                 



                   At 10:28 AM 2/21/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>



 Bob,

 Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see the diagram you posted on this (I get the "emacs" on the digest instead of a link).  That said, it sounds like what you're proposing would look an awful lot like the Z13/20 diagram that you toyed with several years back.  Would it provide the architecture we're looking for in this? 	


   That one is already outdated. Go here



  https://tinyurl.com/ukper7j



 



 

    Bob . . .

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

The 30 amp fuse protects the wire running from the bus to the circuit breaker.  

It replaces the fuselink in older Z figures.  If the over-volt module shorts out 

the circuit, hopefully the 5 amp circuit breaker will trip, but the fuse will not 

blow.  A smaller value fuse might blow before the circuit breaker trips.

-

One reason for using a relay is for remote control.  A relay can shut off the

electrical power close to the source instead of running an always hot wire into the cockpit.

Shutting off power at the source might prevent sparks after a forced landing.

_________________
Joe Gores

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:05 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I'm not following the 'FAR 23' issue with relays at the engine bus for downstream stuff.

 A fuse at the bus protects everything downstream of the fuse. 	


   The 'issue' concerns maximum circuit

   protection for always hot feeders. Classically,

   the FAA has holy watered 5A as a maximum.

   Which doesn't make much sense to me . . .

   There's a huge difference in energy released

   in a short wire downstream of fuses versus

   breakers and 14v vs. 28v.



   The legacy backstop was to add disconnect

   at the battery . . . relay, contactor etc.



  	  Quote: 	
		  When I did failure analysis for my single battery/dual alt, electrically dependent alternative engine, it looked like any conventional arrangement of dual alts with control fed by the main bus and B leads *to* the main bus, would result in the loss of both alts if the master is turned off ('smoke in the cockpit'). I chose to route one alt's B lead directly to the engine bus, making it effectively a dedicated electrical power source for the engine, controlled via the engine bus. Goal was to preserve 'classical' engine independence, and not depend on the limited energy in the battery to complete the flight. There is still a cross-tie switch between engine and main buses, to maintain alt failure redundancy. Is there a problem with this approach? 	


   Don't think so . . . but schematics speak

   far more clearly than words. Could you sketch

   your architecture and scan or photograph it

   for sharing?



   Sorry for the delay. Got a 'bug' last Friday

   night and I'm just now getting up and around. . .



 

 

   Bob . . .

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:23 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

On 2/24/2020 7:00 PM, Robert L.       Nuckolls, III wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		                 	  Quote: 	
		  

           I'm not following the 'FAR 23' issue with relays at the engine           bus for           downstream stuff.

           A fuse at the bus protects everything downstream of the           fuse. 	
       

         The 'issue' concerns maximum circuit

         protection for always hot feeders. Classically,

         the FAA has holy watered 5A as a maximum.

         Which doesn't make much sense to me . . .

         There's a huge difference in energy released

         in a short wire downstream of fuses versus

         breakers and 14v vs. 28v.

       

         The legacy backstop was to add disconnect

         at the battery . . . relay, contactor etc.

       

        	  Quote: 	
		  When I           did failure           analysis for my single battery/dual alt, electrically           dependent           alternative engine, it looked like any conventional           arrangement of dual           alts with control fed by the main bus and B leads *to* the           main bus,           would result in the loss of both alts if the master is turned           off ('smoke           in the cockpit'). I chose to route one alt's B lead directly           to the           engine bus, making it effectively a dedicated electrical power           source for           the engine, controlled via the engine bus. Goal was to           preserve           'classical' engine independence, and not depend on the limited           energy in           the battery to complete the flight. There is still a cross-tie           switch           between engine and main buses, to maintain alt failure           redundancy. Is           there a problem with this approach? 	
       

         Don't think so . . . but schematics speak

         far more clearly than words. Could you sketch

         your architecture and scan or photograph it

         for sharing?

       

         Sorry for the delay. Got a 'bug' last Friday

         night and I'm just now getting up and around. . .

       

       

                

             Bob . . .                      	
     Hi Bob,

     

     RE: the FAR23 issue, I was referring to a drawing posted earlier     that had multiple relays fed from a bus which itself was already     controlled. Most of the loads could have been handled easily by     switches.

     

     To separating the alternator feed-in locations:

     Is my thinking incorrect about having both alternators controlled by     and fed to the main bus? It seems that shutting off the master would     also shut off both alternators. To solve that....

     

     Attached is my MS Paint-abused rough draft, using cut/paste from an     Aeroelectric drawing.

     

     Both alts are internally regulated in this drawing (yeah, I know     that you're not a fan, but it's ~$150 vs ~$1000, and I won't be     randomly flipping alt switches in flight). 

     

     All engine related components, and one alternator, are fed     from/controlled by the (badly labeled) 'Main Battery Bus (Engine)'.     The correct name would be simply 'Engine Bus'. 

     

     Everything else, including the other alternator, is fed by the Main     bus. 

     

     As I said, this is very rough; any labels beyond the basic battery,     buses, alternators, and switching are 'artifacts' of the     cannibalized original drawing. 

     

     

     

     Charlie

2alt_draft.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

141.24 KB

Viewed:

13005 Time(s)

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:05 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

Charlie,

There is no reason to have the start push button connected to the engine bus.

The master contactor must be closed to crank the engine.  So the start button 

might as well be connected to the main power bus.

  If the bus tie switch happens to be closed while starting the engine, then 

starter current will flow through that switch.  If you must have that switch, 

then use a DPDT switch with half of the switch in series with the start push button.

Wire the DPDT switch so that when the bus tie is closed, the starter is disabled.

_________________
Joe Gores

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:20 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I'm not following the 'FAR 23' issue with relays at the engine bus for downstream stuff.

 A fuse at the bus protects everything downstream of the fuse. 	


   The 'issue' concerns maximum circuit

   protection for always hot feeders. Classically,

   the FAA has holy watered 5A as a maximum.

   Which doesn't make much sense to me . . .

   There's a huge difference in energy released

   in a short wire downstream of fuses versus

   breakers and 14v vs. 28v.



   The legacy backstop was to add disconnect

   at the battery . . . relay, contactor etc.



  	  Quote: 	
		  When I did failure analysis for my single battery/dual alt, electrically dependent alternative engine, it looked like any conventional arrangement of dual alts with control fed by the main bus and B leads *to* the main bus, would result in the loss of both alts if the master is turned off ('smoke in the cockpit'). I chose to route one alt's B lead directly to the engine bus, making it effectively a dedicated electrical power source for the engine, controlled via the engine bus. Goal was to preserve 'classical' engine independence, and not depend on the limited energy in the battery to complete the flight. There is still a cross-tie switch between engine and main buses, to maintain alt failure redundancy. Is there a problem with this approach? 	


   Don't think so . . . but schematics speak

   far more clearly than words. Could you sketch

   your architecture and scan or photograph it

   for sharing?



   Sorry for the delay. Got a 'bug' last Friday

   night and I'm just now getting up and around. . .



 

 

   Bob . . .

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:57 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

On 2/25/2020 10:06 AM, user9253 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Charlie,

 There is no reason to have the start push button connected to the engine bus.

 The master contactor must be closed to crank the engine.  So the start button

 might as well be connected to the main power bus.

    If the bus tie switch happens to be closed while starting the engine, then

 starter current will flow through that switch.  If you must have that switch,

 then use a DPDT switch with half of the switch in series with the start push button.

 Wire the DPDT switch so that when the bus tie is closed, the starter is disabled.



 --------

 Joe Gores

Hi Joe,
	




As I said in the reply to Bob, most of the loads in the drawing are 

'artifacts' of copy/paste operations from a basic AEC drawing to my 

Paint program. The only items of significance for our discussion at the 

moment are the two alternators and the way they connect to the system, 

vs connecting both to the main bus as shown in other AEC drawings.



I'll ponder the bus tie issue. The reason it's there is a convenient way 

to get alternator/battery to the main bus if there's a failure in the 

master control path causing the master contactor to open.



Thanks,



Charlie

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 1 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum