What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Please don't do this

Panel Wiring

I wholeheartedly support the idea of documenting your wiring with a spreadsheet. It has many advantages: 1) It is much easier to keep up to date than a schematic; 2) It is searchable for finding things; 3) It is much more compact than a huge schematic; 4) If you are starting from avionics, it is easier to add/integrate the rest of the plane's electrical wiring in the same data base.

Regarding access and the pain of being upside down under and behind the panel, of course removable panel sections help, though not for the connectors at the back of a radio stack. But, another thing to consider, and I am amazed how we don't see this done much, install all your exiting wiring in such a way that it can allow panel movement, and hinge the whole panel at the bottom. Mine is that way, and when it's time for mods it swings back to a 50 degree angle and I sit comfortably on seats or the spar and work away over the top of the panel.

One more thing - I don't understand the comments about the heavy connectors on the Garmin display - The are tightly screwed to the back of each unit mating connector and have great integrity, and in a flying installation, the cables most likely would get supported and tied off anyway. What else did anyone expect to do to "support those heavy connector"?
 
My first wiring behind the panel started out reasonable, but evolved into a rat's nest after 15 years, although not as bad as the OP's picture. After 15 years, I redid the entire electrical system, at least all of it between the firewall and the panel. I vowed that I wasn't going to climb under the panel again for making modifications, etc. I built the entire avionics wiring harness while sitting in the aircraft seats. This picture shows how every single avionics harness come through a central "node". I wanted to be able to pull any connector off from something and bring it out aft of the panel, should I want to add/change something. The view is towards the 10 o'clock position, with the connectors out of the picture's lower left. This is not the final product, lest someone notes that things are not tied down enough:

ACtC-3eCRfA6lRh6ofmZmbCE127c5L37T361LxxBUwuPhz3_2o6w0k_Qt6QIctNecxAGTYSJ-5ShTVBV0Rm7kong288EXSSyysePeYHIn2RbbAQdeMAkpsbv3eu_Y7JpwoILzEFekzobRVXmG3AmCsiFfQwyXQ=w800


Another view which shows the long bundles:

ACtC-3cpGAgqUfEQn5kXHpDQmhGxLDdTfrZrK3uj707hqOsmD7XupLngin_32KJomCcnukpFyBbQld4JRyI8UzRoRpbOoCIdeD4pvXLZrqGfQEkakMhnlYKIqtAmJ4PiMRHLJ3sCJXou4KYgv2EP_83MiQT8TQ=w800


I do not seem to have a picture of the bundles in final position, but without the EFIS in place.

This scheme might have added a few pounds of wire, but it is worth it.
 
The electrical wiring 'diagram' that came with my airplane is not a traditional line drawing. It is actually an Excel spreadsheet with a full listing of every line and where it goes 'from' and 'to'. Each 'from' and 'to' connection is simply the plug/switch/connector name and pin number.


This is essentially how our controls engineers do industrial wire pull schedules. The wiring diagrams show terminations on I/O cards, terminal blocks, field junction boxes, field instrumentation and final control elements, etc. Then the wire pull schedules are created, filling large spreadsheets with the details, and in the process generating the wire labels. So each circuit is named with its origin and termination (which are references to locations on the wiring diagrams, not the actual terminal point), and sometimes codes that indicate gauge and other information. It's very comprehensive, and just by looking at the wire label you can very quickly find the appropriate drawing number. It's just a lot of work to do up front, but it helps troubleshooting and maintenance down the road tremendously.
 
If anyone did name the shop, they run the risk of running afoul of DR's rules - since it's possible that this shop is an advertiser on VAF. That might be considered vendor bashing.

I do agree that many of us rely on word-of-mouth for decisions on where to have work done and that knowing would be beneficial.

When one group considers you a saint, it's hard to convince people otherwise - but these pictures are pretty telling in my view. I'd be embarrassed if I had done work like that, even though I'm just a novice. I'd be beyond mad if I'd paid a "pro" shop to do this.

I was waiting to read the entire thread to make the same comment then I found yours. It's easy to call out a shop but it can get you banned on the forum so bad shops and companies keep doing the same thing over and over. I know I complained once here about one of the advertisers and got flamed. Over a year later and I keep reading they're still doing the same thing. As long as they only read the cheerleader posts they'll never change.
 
The electrical wiring 'diagram' that came with my airplane is not a traditional line drawing. It is actually an Excel spreadsheet with a full listing of every line and where it goes 'from' and 'to'. Each 'from' and 'to' connection is simply the plug/switch/connector name and pin number. While I do know how to read and follow lines on an electrical schematic, I've found this Excel database approach to be much easier and flexible and I'm convinced that this is the way to go in the digital age.
And I'm really grateful that the previous owner/builder provided such good documentation, apart from making electrical maintenance much easier, I have also learned a lot from it that I can apply to my RV project!

From my perspective a to/from list offers little/no help when troubleshooting or trying to figure out the "big picture" of the system architecture.

The organization of the 'lists' are tough as well as many things go multiple places so if you try to list it by LRU you have tons of repeated items.
I've seen them done that way and even tried it once but gave up as it was just not clear at a glance what did what.

I'll take a good system schematic any day.
 
On the strength of this thread I ordered Ausman's book and started reading it yesterday.

I've spent the last 25 years in telecom, and while I sold my soul to the dark side (sales engineering) I was a field technician for the first 10 years or so.

What strikes me as interesting is that the major concepts of wiring the aircraft are not that dissimilar from wiring up a large phone system. I'm finding the idea of wiring my own stuff not as scary as I initially thought - although some of this is also encouragement coming from Carl, too. :)

I used to know how to lace cable runs in ceilings and electrical rooms and I recall enjoying it. Wonder if I still do....

Anyway. I'm looking at options for upgrading my panel - have talked with Stein, Aerotronics, AFS and a couple of locals to get my head wrapped around costs, ideas, etc. I am thinking I may opt for having a panel pre-wired to itself, but handling the rest of the installation myself. I'm not sure yet.

The idea of something like AFS's ECB or Vertical Power is very appealing in some ways.
 
A lot of good discussion on documentation, and pros/cons on using schematics. Some thoughts:
- Block diagram component drawings are great for understanding what talks to what.
- Documenation of what wire runs go where (e.g. to left wing, to tail cone, etc.) is well worth the time.
- For those of us that have fully removeable panels, the most critical documentation is what pin does what on each connector. This includes the GTN-650 (or whatever) tray. This element is absolute gold when it comes time to upgrade or modify something.
- After helping and an RV-14A building wire his plane using the Van’s wiring kit I was frustrated on how hard the provided schmatics proved to be in practice. You want to know what pin goes to where you need patience and a piece of paper to take notes (especiially when trying to figure out the plethrua of unneeded Molex connectors that are part of the wiring kit). After that experience, combined with replacing some wire runs with shielded wire, I decided the next RV-14 (if there is one) would not use the Van’s wiring kit.

On panel strategy. I recommend your first step is to decide what stays in the plane and what comes out with the panel. The RV-10 has a nice lower apron for mounting switches and breakers for stuff that does not feed the panel (master(s), lighting, boost pump, etc.). The RV-8 also has this capability using the two panel “wings”. Combine this with all the panel interconnection wire in that comes out with the panel (radios to audio panel, a power connection for panel component breakers, etc.) and you greatly simply the connectors needed to do all this. Once the panel is out you have full access to the stuff still in the plane (e.g. remote mounted radio and XPDR, EMS, ARINC, switches, breakers, etc.).

The hard rule is “never on your back with your head under the panel”.

Below photos are how I did this in my RV-8. The RV-8A and RV-10 followed the same approach.

Carl
0395565-B-B3-CE-45-F1-A943-2-B87-A5-E79126.jpg

0013-E904-0-D20-49-ED-8-B34-AEFE57-F1-F519.jpg
 
Guys, a mess like the one Vic posted is a not a skills problem. An avionics rat nest is a function of care, not knowledge, so don't be intimidated. The job is mostly "connect A to B" exactly as shown in the device manual. The dozen or so new skills are easy. The rest is neatness.

Education and recreation. You can do it.
 
schematic software

What software are folks using to draw up their system schematics? I find Van's harness diagram for the -14 to be barely usable, on the computer screen or when printed on A size paper. That mega-PDF really requires a large format printer to be legible, and even then it would be a pain to trace the wires across a giant printout. I'm considering using a PCB design package such as Eagle, with one connector per page.

Would anyone care to post an example of the excel spreadsheet approach?
 
What software are folks using to draw up their system schematics?

I went with visio to do the drawings .. all B sized (11x17) pages so that I can easily print then and put them in a binder.

Even though I have lots of experience with schematic capture / PCB layout packages, I opted for a pure graphic schematics since 1) entering in all the connector details is a PITA, and 2) I wanted the drawings to look nice (schematic capture packages are not known for their attractive output)

However, if I had to do it over, I'd either go through the effort to use the CAD tools, or go thin and do the spreadsheet version.

The key benefit of these two options is that you get a nice, maintainable netlist of all the connections .. this is the only real thing you need when you go to wiring the plane. The CAD tools will also track components and connectors, etc, so you can generate a maintainable list of what to order when the design is ready to cut wire.

Like mentioned above, the wiring process is pretty easy once you master a few simple skills, but I found it to take alot longer than expected to plan the routing, label all the wires, lace, terminate, and test. Patience is key, but it is WAY easier the doing fiberglass work!

Also, a pro-tip: Buy a roll of lacing cord and learn to lace your wires instead of using cable ties. Once you learn how, you'll never go back.
 
lacing

...
Also, a pro-tip: Buy a roll of lacing cord and learn to lace your wires instead of using cable ties. Once you learn how, you'll never go back.
One idea that I liked is to use zip ties during the phase that you are adding and deleting wires, then, when "done" replace them with lace. I like lace, and have used it when I know I'm "done", but it is a bit slower than zip ties. Another tip I read: when the temporary zip ties are on, don't cut the ends off - they will get revenge and cut you. :D
 
The thing i dont like about the wiring on the Garmin’s demo panels are the unsupported connectors. Heavy Connectors should never be left dangling on reL aircraft.

Amen!

Several of the posted pictures here of 'nice' work seem to have longer stretches of unsupported wires than I would like to see. Perhaps I should re-calibrate what I think is acceptable.

No one has commented on my point that a service loop can not do its intended purpose if it is well-supported. Katie-B said that you should be able to pull a device out far enough to disconnect it -- but that means that there is a minimum of twice that distance of unsupported wire bundle. That also does not address devices that install from the back of the panel with a D-sub connection in the back of the device. The wire bundle from that device either has to have another connector somewhere 'easy' to get to, or it has to have a service loop long enough to pull out the whole panel far enough to get to the back -- about 18" of service loop, unsupported.
 
One more thing - I don't understand the comments about the heavy connectors on the Garmin display - The are tightly screwed to the back of each unit mating connector and have great integrity, and in a flying installation, the cables most likely would get supported and tied off anyway. What else did anyone expect to do to "support those heavy connector"?

It is just the "supported and tied off" detail that is missing that people were commenting on.
 
Amen!
The wire bundle from that device either has to have another connector somewhere 'easy' to get to, or it has to have a service loop long enough to pull out the whole panel far enough to get to the back -- about 18" of service loop, unsupported.

I compromised. I left a service loop, but after avionics installation I went under the panel on my back, coiled and/or bundled the loop, supported by the subpanel, using zip ties. For service I have to go back under with diagonal cutters and clip the zip ties, but that’s still a lot easier than trying to unscrew the connectors under the panel.
 
I compromised. I left a service loop, but after avionics installation I went under the panel on my back, coiled and/or bundled the loop, supported by the subpanel, using zip ties. For service I have to go back under with diagonal cutters and clip the zip ties, but that’s still a lot easier than trying to unscrew the connectors under the panel.

Cannon plugs are pretty easy to unscrew and re-assemble blind. I have no two identical connectors in the 'bridge' to the panel, so you can't plug the wrong ones together.
 
This was exactly my philosophy when putting together my panel .. one common connector area for all electrical connections to the panel environment. It takes easily less than 10 mins to pull the panel .. pull 5 connectors and the pitot/static lines and air vent tubes, uncrew, and lift!

20180304_154044-M.jpg

I really like Bill's approach here. Mine is similar in concept, but falls miles short in execution. Having the bridge connectors all in one place and supported on a little sub-panel is really nice. One thing I think is important though is to use different size (pin count) or different gender of connectors so no cable can be plugged into the wrong place.

The one short-coming I have found is that if I want to just take my EFIS/EMS out, and not pull the whole panel, I have to crawl under and remove the two big D-sub connectors off the back of the EMS. When I asked why they didn't use a tray to support the connectors, like a radio or transponder, they said, "just use a service loop". Well, back to my original point/question about how to support the service loop. Bob Turner pretty much answered it - -you have to tie it up, and then crawl under to cut it loose if you want it to allow a device to come out.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the extra work/materials/failure points, and decrease in reliability are worth it to make the panel removable.
When you take out the big screen/screens, access behind the panel is excellent.

The less connectors the better (NONE should be the goal), especially when it comes to data lines, CAN busses and audio signals.

Big Mil spec. connectors seem cool but in reality, if you ask me, they are just a PIA and create more problems.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the extra work/materials/failure points, and overall decrease in reliability are worth it to make the panel removable.
When you take out the big screen/screens, access behind the panel is very good.

Disagree. Thoughtful layout provides the confidence this much needed capability does not add failure risks. The panel sitting on the bench to maintain or modify is worth this small extra effort.

Big Mil spec. connectors look cool, they make you feel like you have a real airplane, in reality, they are just a PIA and create more problems.

Fully agree - and they tend to be very clunky.

Carl
 
I don't think the extra work/materials/failure points, and decrease in reliability are worth it to make the panel removable.
When you take out the big screen/screens, access behind the panel is excellent.

The less connectors the better (NONE should be the goal), especially when it comes to data lines, CAN busses and audio signals.
...
This was what I was aiming for with my panel. With the smaller RV-8 panel it can sit on your lap once the screws are removed, and you have good access behind it. My panel is very simple and basic without any "deep" avionics. Trig radio and transponder with very shallow panel-mounted remote heads.

The other thing I was thinking is that if my panel is removed from the aircraft and put on the bench, what will I do with it? I can get 12v to it of course, but can't do much more since all the interesting stuff is still in the aircraft. Those with lots of stuff in the panel that work together could find more value in bench testing than I would.

If I have forgotten something after removing the panel and sitting with it in my lap, I just cleco it back in place and go get the missing item. Takes about 30 seconds to put it back in place. My service loops are pretty thick, but they sit nicely on the crossbar back there and don't move much. I could wrap a velco strap around them if they start to move out of place due to turbulence or a rough landing.

I tried to avoid unnecessary connectors, but didn't fully succeed. I misjudged one wiring harness and had to add an embarrassing extension of about 1 foot to match up to my service loop requirements.
 
I don't think the extra work/materials/failure points, and decrease in reliability are worth it to make the panel removable.
When you take out the big screen/screens, access behind the panel is excellent.

The less connectors the better (NONE should be the goal), especially when it comes to data lines, CAN busses and audio signals.

Big Mil spec. connectors seem cool but in reality, if you ask me, they are just a PIA and create more problems.

Certainly different perspectives depending on the type of avionics/equipment, and on the airplane type.

My whole panel is old-school round instruments and radio stack, except for a Dynon D-120 EMS. In the RV-8, it is essentially impossible to do anything without taking the panel out. Since the airplane has been flying, the panel has been out probably 4 times. Twice for static leaks, and a couple of times to install additional things. I have had ZERO electrical issues of any kind, so I'm not concerned about the reliability of my system. I use good craftsmanship in installing connectors, and I don't think they are any more prone to failure than the connector on the back of each device. Part of the reliability comes from having everything well tied down and supported and strain-relieved. Mine is not pretty, but it isn't a rat's nest either.

I can't imagine sitting with that heavy panel full of round instruments in my lap while I work in there.

I agree Canon plugs seem clunky, and that is why, at the time, I used five D-sub connectors with light plastic back shells. With WJB's approach of mounting the bridge connectors on a small subpanel, I would switch to Canon plugs. The trick would be finding a good place to mount that little subpanel.
 
Last edited:
My service loops are pretty thick, but they sit nicely on the crossbar back there and don't move much. I could wrap a velco strap around them if they start to move out of place due to turbulence or a rough landing.

You mean you have big service loops of wires, just sitting there, teetering on top of the cross bar? YIKES! What happens to them at negative g?

This is kind of why I keep asking about what people do with service loops. I just couldn't imagine having a coiled bundle of wires just hanging/laying in there. I have everything restrained so it can't move, which pretty much negates the function of the service loop. So I'm asking how people do it.
 
PowerPoint is the software I used

Many have asked what software can be used to document the wiring runs in the aircraft. Here is an older thread I put up that goes over my design and build with photos tec.. The software is MS PowerPoint. Very easy to use. I go into the planning process and build in the thread.

Post #5 in the thread has sample drawing. The entire file is available on a Google drive link later in the thread.

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=152279
 
You mean you have big service loops of wires, just sitting there, teetering on top of the cross bar? YIKES! What happens to them at negative g?

This is kind of why I keep asking about what people do with service loops. I just couldn't imagine having a coiled bundle of wires just hanging/laying in there. I have everything restrained so it can't move, which pretty much negates the function of the service loop. So I'm asking how people do it.

Steve, in my case, I simply put a few big zip ties appropriately on the service loops. They are easy to get at once the efis is out. I'd worry a lot more about vibration, especially something that might resonate, than plus/minus g's, given the low cycle counts in the latter.
 
Steve, in my case, I simply put a few big zip ties appropriately on the service loops. They are easy to get at once the efis is out. I'd worry a lot more about vibration, especially something that might resonate, than plus/minus g's, given the low cycle counts in the latter.

Well, that is kind of what I am asking. How do you get your efis out with the service loop tied down? Seems like the very first step is to crawl under and cut the ties loose on the efis cable service loop. Similar to what Bob Turner said. I guess that wouldn't be so bad. Maybe plan ahead for two "service loop retention points" that are pretty easy to see and reach under the panel?

A wire bundle formed into a loop that is flopping around in +/- g's puts a fair bit of bending moment into the connector on the back of the device, and/or works the connection a little, each time. It won't take many cycles to degrade that connection.

Folks, please understand, I'm not trying to make a fuss. I'm trying to learn about how people do service loops, because I just could not see a way that was satisfactory to me. Perhaps I need to recalibrate what I think is reasonable restraint on wire bundles. Perhaps there are tricks (like just two big zip ties or velcro straps holding a stack of loops down at two points to some structure?, or maybe some kind of elastic support that allows enough stretch to pull a box out?) Perhaps it would be helpful to see some photos of 'stowed' service loops as they sit when in in flight.

This thread about a rat's nest of wiring seems like a good spot to discuss this, because service loops are obviously one of the approaches to avoiding rat's nests.
 
A wire bundle formed into a loop that is flopping around in +/- g's puts a fair bit of bending moment into the connector on the back of the device, and/or works the connection a little, each time. It won't take many cycles to degrade that connection.

ts.

I disagree. If the bundle is tightly bundled and well secured to the backshell , there should be zero strain on the connectors. Just the tight wire bundle flexing and the thin strand copper should support that. Tight bundles help to add rigidity by sharing the load and minimizing flexing.. With a sevice loop, i do believe it is critical that backshells with properly sized wire supports are used. However proper D sub shells are available that do this.

My service loops are tight with zip ties and they are very rigid nd don’t like to flex or bend. I have confidence that they are not moving around.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Also, good backshells with silicon friction tape wrapped around the wire bundle and mechanical clamping provides excellent strain relief and keeps the crimped pins and sockets unaffected by flight loads. Not saying the installer might place a wire inside the backshell under tension and pre-load during assembly. But flight loads won't get past the silicon friction taped and clamped strain relief area. Mil spec multi-stranded nickle-plated copper aircraft wire with tefzel insulation can take a beating.
 
I disagree. If the bundle is tightly bundled and well secured to the backshell , there should be zero strain on the connectors. Just the tight wire bundle flexing and the thin strand copper should support that. Tight bundles help to add rigidity by sharing the load and minimizing flexing.. With a sevice loop, i do believe it is critical that backshells with properly sized wire supports are used. However proper D sub shells are available that do this.

My service loops are tight with zip ties and they are very rigid nd don’t like to flex or bend. I have confidence that they are not moving around.

Larry

I think you misunderstand me Larry and Jim, I'm talking about the entire assembly applying a bending moment to the connector interface, and the mating bulkhead connector in the device having to react that moment, usually with just two screws at the 'neutral axis' mid-plane of the connector. I am not concerned about the strain relief for the wires into the backshell and up to the connector - that I have plenty of confidence in.

I think if you were to grab your backshell and pull up and down with just a little force, you might feel the connector interface to its mate 'work'. Unless it is really tightly seated and the retention screws are really tight. BTW this is a real advantage to Cannon plugs - with the threaded retention collar. And the mating Cannon socket can withstand a lot more moment in its attachment to its mounting plate too.

So - are your service loops just suspended in space relying on their own stiffness?
 
service loops

...

So - are your service loops just suspended in space relying on their own stiffness?
Mine are - they are of course fully supported at each end, not very long, and movement won't cause stress on any connectors, but you are right - this is something to look into to make sure that movement there won't cause any surprises. My idea, not yet tested, is a velcro strap securing the loops to the crossbar, which would be easy to access sitting in the cockpit.
 
I wholeheartedly support the idea of documenting your wiring with a spreadsheet. It has many advantages: 1) It is much easier to keep up to date than a schematic; 2) It is searchable for finding things; 3) It is much more compact than a huge schematic; 4) If you are starting from avionics, it is easier to add/integrate the rest of the plane's electrical wiring in the same data base.

I don't have a wire book, so can't comment on that, but I think it's very useful to create a schematic regardless (actually, several schematics...buss, engine, lighting, network, whatever...). I think they're very useful for debugging problems. As a simple example, I have lighted rocker switches for everything...in the ON position, the light should be on, and off when the switch is off. One day, I turned on the Master and the Alternator switch also lit up. That's odd...how can that be?

A quick look at the schematic told me exactly where to look. Following the wires I figured something must be wrong with the alternator, allowing it to backfeed the switch light. A quick check on the appropriate leads on the alternator showed that an internal diode had failed, confirming the diagnosis. Alternator R&Red under warranty.

Sure, you could figure that out with a wire book, but it was a very quick debugging task with a schematic.
 

Attachments

  • Engine Schematic capture.JPG
    Engine Schematic capture.JPG
    88.6 KB · Views: 179
I think you misunderstand me Larry and Jim, I'm talking about the entire assembly applying a bending moment to the connector interface, and the mating bulkhead connector in the device having to react that moment, usually with just two screws at the 'neutral axis' mid-plane of the connector. I am not concerned about the strain relief for the wires into the backshell and up to the connector - that I have plenty of confidence in.

I think if you were to grab your backshell and pull up and down with just a little force, you might feel the connector interface to its mate 'work'. Unless it is really tightly seated and the retention screws are really tight. BTW this is a real advantage to Cannon plugs - with the threaded retention collar. And the mating Cannon socket can withstand a lot more moment in its attachment to its mounting plate too.

So - are your service loops just suspended in space relying on their own stiffness?

In the case of D-subs, there are 4-40 stand-offs with a flat, parallel surface. The connector shell has a flat edge, with the hole that is designed to mate flush with the stand-off. This creates a relatively secure joint. That flush edge material is close to .50" steel and quite rigid. The 4-40 screw holds these parts together. As long as the screw is installed with enough torque, the only condern is that the device manufacturer used a rigid enough area for securing it's d-sub connector to the frame.

Sure, these are not like 1/8" parts bolted together and a bit of movement can be observed, due to leverage. However, that does not mean that movement is indicative of future failure, nor does it mean that the actual interface is moving/shifting. To make this relevant to your background, consider all of the aluminum skin parts that are constantly flexing in flight. Not everything needs complete rigidity to survive.

Just one man's opinion.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.. maybe I should add a chapter to the Wiring Guide about the importance of bolting avionics to the airframe. :rolleyes:
 
Got me thinking of a recent find... here's a picture of an AHRS mounted in sponges, mounted in a Tupperware container, which was mounted behind the panel. This was from a VFR Sonex project at the local airport. Needless to say, we replaced this setup.

IMG-2246.jpg
 
Got me thinking of a recent find... here's a picture of an AHRS mounted in sponges, mounted in a Tupperware container, which was mounted behind the panel. This was from a VFR Sonex project at the local airport. Needless to say, we replaced this setup.

IMG-2246.jpg

Yeah, I would say that the attitude reference information from that box is going to be a little 'soft'.
 
Got me thinking of a recent find... here's a picture of an AHRS mounted in sponges, mounted in a Tupperware container, which was mounted behind the panel. This was from a VFR Sonex project at the local airport. Needless to say, we replaced this setup.

Hey, at least he marked the sponge "Forward" :)

I'd have to at least take it up once just to see how well this "system" actually performed, for s**ts and grins LOL!

My Lord, the things people come up with...
 
Got me thinking of a recent find... here's a picture of an AHRS mounted in sponges, mounted in a Tupperware container, which was mounted behind the panel. This was from a VFR Sonex project at the local airport. Needless to say, we replaced this setup.

IMG-2246.jpg

Looks like whoever put it there was giving the instructions printed on the module a college try.
 
nail clippers

I've been cutting my zip-ties with nail clippers. They put a very slight curved cut on the end in stead of two sharper corners - not rounded very much.
 
Got me thinking of a recent find... here's a picture of an AHRS mounted in sponges, mounted in a Tupperware container, which was mounted behind the panel. This was from a VFR Sonex project at the local airport. Needless to say, we replaced this setup.

IMG-2246.jpg

Let's see now, the primary purpose of a sponge is to retain water.

Nope! No chance of corrosion here. The sponge will pull all moisture away from the module. Right?
 
Got me thinking of a recent find... here's a picture of an AHRS mounted in sponges, mounted in a Tupperware container, which was mounted behind the panel. This was from a VFR Sonex project at the local airport. Needless to say, we replaced this setup.

IMG-2246.jpg

hahahahaha

What in the sam h-e-l-l were they trying to accomplish?!?

At least they marked the sponges direction to ensure it went back in the same way each time. lol
 
Last edited:
Let's see now, the primary purpose of a sponge is to retain water.

Nope! No chance of corrosion here. The sponge will pull all moisture away from the module. Right?

Next time: Pack the unit in desiccant beads, not sponges. Problem solved!
 
Let's see now, the primary purpose of a sponge is to retain water.

Nope! No chance of corrosion here. The sponge will pull all moisture away from the module. Right?

The sponge approach is all wrong. He shoulda used white rice, of course! :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top