skippydiesel

Is "Quick Charge 3" (QC3 standard specified for SE2 charge cable) a desirable feature ?

"...........it may be how you or your browser first access the site" JUST FOUND IT !! - My apologies , there all the time. 😈

Hi Danny, Good technical article - unfortunately does not address 12V chargers. All my 240V chargers seem to "do the job" . Either supplied with the device or purchased separately after considerable research. My interest is in chargers in the aircraft. I have several devices in my aircraft SE2, iPad mini, back up Garmin GPS, that would benefit from a reliable in aircraft charger. The Garmin has its own charger , plugged into a dedicated "cigarette" style plug - all good. The SE2 is now connected to a Guardian aircraft USB-A supply. (Check out Guardian Avionics for crazy cost https://guardianavionics.com/) The iPad used to be connected to another Guardian charger (located on the back of the iPad dock/holder) that no longer seem to be compatible with the iPad. It wont charge the iPad but will charge a phone - go figure! Have tried "known good" cable to no avail. I will not be purchasing another Guardian product - now looking for a reliable 12 V car style charger. I know getting a good, reliable charger is a bit of a lottery but would like to reduce the odds. For instance - should I try for a charger that delivers more amps than required ? Is a charger with "Quick Charge 3" worthy of consideration? Is a charger delivering 2.4 amps "better" than one delivering 2.1 amps? (By better I mean generating less heat, possibly more reliable as system not operating near max) 😈

Hi Burnie, Is it "better" to have a charger that can deliver more amps than required? I ask because I notice that some car chargers get quite hot. I assume this is because they are "working" near/at capacity - is this correct? I have always assumed that an electrical system that generates heat is to be avoided - next step being fire. 😈

If its not "on the menu" how will the customer/reader know its available?? The loss of Engine/Electrical/Airframe is major loss of a very valuable technical resource, that most of us will access from time to time. Much as I enjoy the "talk fest" component of the Forum, I value the technical advice/feedback very much more. I would ask Forum management to reinstate the above technical headings. 😈

With little understanding, I tend to favour (testing) systems with specifications that appear to have/cope with higher loads. There are only a few small/cheap USB-A testers that go over 3 amps. So far price contenders range from Mouser, Eaton Tripp, $ 11.42 to Big W, Eversame, $80.00 HELP! 😈

I will investigate acquiring a USB-A to USB A volt/amp meter (any recommendations?) From about $10 - $100++AU -Most cost effective???😈

Where have all the valuable Engine/Electronics/Airframe threads gone?😈

Thanks gents. I will investigate acquiring a USB-A to USB A volt/amp meter (any recommendations?) 😈

For existing & aspiring Sonex owners ,there is a new Sonex Forum https://sonexpilots.org/ 😈

Econamy Cruise is 130 knots True. My understanding is one charge is good for about 12 hrs. I will want the SE2 to be operational/ charged when approaching more congested airspace. I am trying to come up with a strategy to keep my SE2 charged, in the unlikly event that I need to resort to camping - no 240V wall socket to charge the SE2 overnight. Pmccarthy's strategy will address my concern, as long as no damage to the SE2 😈

What is a " 2.4 outlet" - V, amps? No problem with the SE2? Does it get to full charge? OR just maintain charge OR slowly loose charge?? Does the SE2 get hot? 😈

Further: It would seem some people do charge their SE2 from aircraft power. Its not clear to me that they do this (or not), while the unit is being used ie transmit/receive. I suspect my SE2 will not operate while being charged - circuit protection? My UCB-A charge ports do not remain on, when the aircraft is shut down , so there is no way to charge the SE2 overnight. If my Guardian Avionics delivers what it claims (above) it should have enough power to charge the SE2 I have written to Guardian Avionics asking - do both USB A outlets deliver 2.7 amps/5 VDC Output OR is the 2.7 amps/5VDC the total delivery - as seem to be common, with USA supplier's, these days - no response. Helpful comments welcome😈

Underwood, Skyecho is rather odd in its charging requirements. There is a very full thread on Charging in the Flyer Forum here: https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=119153&hilit=sky+echo+Charging It's long but don't skip this post in particular: https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1864496#p1864496 Thanks Underwood, It took some reading and I probably only understood a fraction of what was being discussed back & forth. What I took away: Avoid charging my SE2 in the cockpit. If I must charge in cockpit, do so with SE2 OFF and then only from a USB-A source delivering more than 1 Amp, using the correct USB-A to C charge cable. The reason for my question is simple - I intend to tour in my Sonex. Opportunities to charge my SE2 from a 240V source may be limited. My Sonex is fitted with a Guardian Avionics, Panels mounted, Dual USB-A, 2.7 amps/5 VDC Output / For 9 - 48 VDC Systems - with my limited understanding, this should be able to charge the SE2, should no 240V system be available.

Further: It would seem some people do charge their SE2 from aircraft power. Its not clear to me that they do this (or not), while the unit is being used ie transmit/receive. I suspect my SE2 will not operate while being charged - circuit protection? My UCB-A charge ports do not remain on, when the aircraft is shut down , so there is no way to charge the SE2 overnight. If my Guardian Avionics delivers what it claims (above) it should have enough power to charge the SE2 I have written to Guardian Avionics asking - do both USB A outlets deliver 2.7 amps/5 VDC Output OR is the 2.7 amps/5VDC the total delivery - as seem to be common, with USA supplier's, these days - no response. Helpful comments welcome😈

Probably a temporary effect, due to hydrocarbon damaging the surface of the "rubber". If you want to extend the life of "rubber" like materials use a good quality silicon. Note: There are a lot of poor quality silicon sprays on the market.😈

It would seem the AC-50 believers l are unwilling to critically examine the validity of their faith. Of course that is what faith is all about, the suspension of critical examination. Blueadventures thinks I am the sick one Note: I have nothing for/against AC-50 or for that matter WD40, another supernormal product (or so the marketing department would have us believe).😈

I rest my case - bad design/flight testing. Should never have come to lumps of metal on the engine to correct the problem. Half descent aircraft manufacturer would have supplied new extended engine frame & cowling to suit😈

Adding ballast, seems to me , to be a cheap & nasty cop out for bad design. Carrying weight, that does nothing other than correct W&B, impacts negatively on TO/Climb performance and fuel consumption. Other than a whole of airframe redesign, why not move the engine forward.??😈

"CONTAINS NO WATER,SILICON,TEFLON OR WAX" Sound like a BS statement. Cant speak for free water but emulsions & suspensions in water (the water is the carrier/transporter) have been around for ever and in general have a good reputation, where appropriately used. Silicon is a known and usually durable water/moisture replant. Teflon ?? Wax - A number of corrosion inhibiting wax products are available. For the most part they are excellent long lasting corrosion inhibitors. They do this by excluding water and air (O2). Dry to a soft finish are "self healing" ie scratch it and it will "flow" back to cover the scratch. I have used Tectyl 506 for about 30 years (not yet in an aircraft) - Exposed to weather will last may be 2-3 years, in cavities at least 20++ years. 😈

With reference to: It pays to wash your plane occasionally! "do not let some lubricants get between two surfaces like sheets of aluminium / skins and ribs etc because the reduction in friction may cause the two surfaces to start moving slightly and wear.." Given the aforementioned enthusiastic testimonials to the lubricating efficacy of AC-50. What comments would you make??😈

Interesting that the person applying, what looks to be an aerosol mist of ACF-50, into the aircraft wing, is not wearing PPE. A future damaged health claim against this employer and the maker/supplier of ACF-50 perhaps?😈

One of the great things about this Forum is what you learn - aviation, non aviation & the quality of the debate (for the most part)😈

From the above comments, I am starting to think that underground transmission is in fact a viable option; Farmers would be less likly to appose well berried cables. The attrition rate on Ag pilots would be reduced. Safer for all above ground critters, including homo sapiens No blight on the scenery No sparking of fires No lightening/wind/sunspot outages Likly reduced maintenance costs and increased service life of cables Just have to get over that slow return on capital mindset.😈

"......do not let some lubricants get between two surfaces like sheets of aluminium / skins and ribs etc because the reduction in friction may cause the two surfaces to start moving slightly and wear...? Interesting observation. Seems to me that most, if not all, spray on corrosion inhibitors, specifically for aviation and others used, have lubricating qualities. Some even claim to benefit from good penetrating /wicking ability. I got all excited about applying some sort of corrosion inhibiter to my Sonex , before its first flight. Didn't do it, largely as a result of this Forums advice😈