AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-oh
April 04, 2018 - April 25, 2018
>> retraction would break things.
>>
>> This feature was built into the legacy
>> 'bendix' drive. Starter motor acceleration
>> working against pinion gear mass would
>> drive it outward on the shaft by means
>> of a spiral groove on the shaft . . .
>> engine acceleration tending to over-run
>> the starter would drive the pinion back
>> from the ring gear with the same groove.
>>
>>
>> Emacs!
>>
>>
>>
>> There have been some hangar-tales of starter
>> pinions 'sticking' and back driving starters.
>> There have been cases of contactor sticking
>> keeping power on the starter thus maintaining
>> pinion engagement. But no back driving could
>> have occurred due to action of the clutch.
>> Had the motor been driven backwards at the
>> pinion to ring gear ratio, it would probably
>> have slung wires out of the armature and/or
>> stripped gear teeth.
>>
>> The same gear reduction of pinion-to-ring
>> allows starter armature to run at several
>> thousand rpm to generated 200 rpm at the
>> crankshaft. Okay, after engine start and
>> run at 1000 rpm, a back-driving situation would
>> spin the starter armature 10000 rpm plus?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
>> Groucho Marx
>> <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> <#m_-7793493755374373132_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho
> Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter SURGES |
Good to know I'm not the only one. Mine wouldn't start one day and I
started going through the manual. Check the condenser with this method it
said. Bad condenser. The guy at the NAPA store told me, "condensers never
go bad, you need a coil". No, I need a condenser. HA HA HA, kid doesn't
know anything about cars, does he. They all got a big laugh out of. Finally
got them to sell me a damn condenser. Put it in, started right up, took the
bad condenser back to NAPA and dared the guy to put it in his car. It
wasn't until I was on my way home that it occurred to me, why do you always
change points, plugs and condenser if the condenser never fails? Last time
I ever went to that store.
The manual also said to re-torque the head every 1300 miles. I found out
the hard way it was because the head gasket would blow at 1305 miles.
Still in all. I loved that car, I cut my teeth on it mechanically and I
love Alfas to this day. If I ever hit the Lotto I'm going to blow part of
it on a 1938 8C Mille Miglia. And a Tipo 51 Bugatti. The two most beautiful
cars made before WWII. IMHO, anyway.
Rick
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> Oh, Lucus. You buried the lead. And explained all the problems in one wor
d.
>
> Just so you know, it didn't get much better in the intervening 11 years;
> the '70 Spyder I owned housed a demon who made sure I never knew when it
> would start. Always turned over, but the bizarre and primitive
> electro-mechanical injection had a mind (or demon) of its own.
>
>
> On 4/4/2018 9:11 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Charlie, You're right, the starter was engaged and running but the minute
> the engine revved over starting rpm the engine was driving it, too. It's
> probably no surprise that the car had English electrics, a mix of Smith a
nd
> Lucas. Me experience with it was too many ghost problems. The horn began
to
> blow one night right as I was on my way out for a date. Disconnected the
> horn, went on the date and tried to get the horn working the next day.
> Reconnected it and nothing wrong. Never failed again. Then there was the
> night the passing lights started flashing on their own. Pulled the whole
> steering wheel off, went through it, couldn't find anything, put it back
> together, worked fine. Never failed again. As much as I loved the car I
> began to think of it as Mussolini's revenge. I didn't know about Lucas
> then.....
>
> Rick
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>> At 1st glance, I'd suspect there's a flaw in the analysis. If the switch
>> wasn't releasing, then the starter was still powered, regardless of whet
her
>> the engine could drive it or not. That would mean it was running the ent
ire
>> time the car was running, and starters are not designed for that. Given
the
>> obvious lack of knowledge about the car and limited expertise of the peo
ple
>> working on it, with that many service operations by those people working
on
>> it I'd find it difficult to pick any likely failure mode for the stuff t
hat
>> failed. Just one thought about the failure of the regulator: uninformed
>> installation of the battery, even once.
>>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On 4/4/2018 7:49 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> Bob, all, When I graduated high school back in the dark ages I had a 195
9
>> Alfa Romeo Giullietta Spider that had a nightmare starter system. First,
>> the electrical system was positive ground. That alone made things
>> interesting but the starter, or rather the starter switch was the flash
>> point of failure. Why? Because it had no spring return. You had to
>> physically turn the starter motor off or the starter would stay connecte
d
>> with the ring gear and the engine would drive the starter. I was warned
by
>> the guy who sold me the car and I only left it engaged once for a few
>> seconds. The grinding sound was kind of a give away and I got away with
it.
>> When I sold the car to my best friend I told him what I'd been told,
>> "Never, ever let anyone else drive this car". About four weeks after Dav
e
>> bought it, he let his step brother drive the car. He left the starter
>> engaged for the entire 10 miles he drove it. The next day, the battery w
as
>> dead. When checked, it had internal shorts and was junk. Dave bought a n
ew
>> Die Hard, the new thing in battery advertising, if not battery technolog
y.
>> It lasted a couple of weeks and Dave took it back to Sears. The battery
was
>> tested and failed. He got a new one. It too failed in short order. This
>> went on for FOUR batteries before the manager at the Arden Way Sears gav
e
>> my friend a full refund and refused to sell him any more batteries.
>> Somewhere in the mess the starter failed and was replaced, the generator
>> failed, the headlights would burn out on a regular basis and my friend
>> almost became my ex-friend. He was a poor college student trying to fix
the
>> car with suggestions from his dad and some mechanics he knew. Finally hi
s
>> folks loaned him the money to take it to a garage that worked on Alfas a
nd
>> they determined that the voltage regulator was fried, too. This had gone
on
>> for almost six months before he finally had the car back in a dependable
>> condition.
>> So my take is, yeah, drive the starter and turn it into a generator and
>> things are going to screw up in a major way.
>>
>> Rick Girard
>>
>> PS Probably the worst part came when Dave was finally able to enjoy the
>> car again he took it for a drive on a beautiful day. A truck in front of
>> him kicked up a stone that went right through the radiator. He pulled in
to
>> a service station and the engine rattled to a stop. The kid at the pump
>> popped open the hood and started filling the radiator before Dave could
>> stop him. Put a crack all the way across the roof of the number three
>> combustion chamber.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 03:46 PM 4/4/2018, you wrote:
>>>
>>> If the bendix gear is sticky, such that the engine is able to drive the
>>> starter, I could imagine that it could push a fairly high (albeit short
)
>>> number of joules back up the wire. Right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the 'Bendix' drive is gone. All starters
>>> use direct engagement solenoids.
>>>
>>> [image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Starter_mot
]
>>>
>>>
>>> A return spring retracts the pinion
>>> gear upon removal of power from the
>>> motor. In fact, electrical power to
>>> the motor is interrupted during the initial
>>> retraction so there is no torque being
>>> transmitted from motor to ring gear.
>>> At the same time, an overrun clutch
>>>
>>> * https://tinyurl.com/y7prvn7b *
>>>
>>> prevents the accelerating engine
>>> from back-driving the starter. If
>>> this clutch were not present, first
>>> motion of the engine during pinion gear
>>> retraction would break things.
>>>
>>> This feature was built into the legacy
>>> 'bendix' drive. Starter motor acceleration
>>> working against pinion gear mass would
>>> drive it outward on the shaft by means
>>> of a spiral groove on the shaft . . .
>>> engine acceleration tending to over-run
>>> the starter would drive the pinion back
>>> from the ring gear with the same groove.
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Emacs!]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There have been some hangar-tales of starter
>>> pinions 'sticking' and back driving starters.
>>> There have been cases of contactor sticking
>>> keeping power on the starter thus maintaining
>>> pinion engagement. But no back driving could
>>> have occurred due to action of the clutch.
>>> Had the motor been driven backwards at the
>>> pinion to ring gear ratio, it would probably
>>> have slung wires out of the armature and/or
>>> stripped gear teeth.
>>>
>>> The same gear reduction of pinion-to-ring
>>> allows starter armature to run at several
>>> thousand rpm to generated 200 rpm at the
>>> crankshaft. Okay, after engine start and
>>> run at 1000 rpm, a back-driving situation would
>>> spin the starter armature 10000 rpm plus?
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
=9D Groucho
>> Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo]
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>>
>> <#m_-5736806203088520134_m_-7793493755374373132_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-
4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>
>
> --
> =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
=9D Groucho Marx
> <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <ChasB(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warm Toggle Switch |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Warm Toggle Switch
At 09:21 AM 4/4/2018, you wrote:
> I went through several warm, hot, and/or shorted
> switches that operated my strobes. Tried several
> brands of switches all with the same results.
> Finally trouble shot the whole system and found
> a bad connector crimp on the positive wire that
> connected at the strobe power pack. Repaired
> same, and haven=99t had a switch problem since.
What were your observations for condition of
the materials at the failure . . . and do
you recall whether the failure was related
to materials, installation technique or perhaps
both?
You mentioned 'shorted' switch . . . were you the
builder who was experiencing fuse popping when the
strobes were turned OFF?
Bob . . .
=94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94-
Bob, et., al.,
I did have a popped fuse or so, but I don=99t think they were
related to the shorted switch. The shorted switch toggle itself was
electrified when either on or off. On various switches, I found loose
connectors, corroded and failed contacts, and in one case, the plastic
switch case was partially melted from the heat. Failures were probably
related to both materials and installation technique. I=99m not
sure all the problems were related to the bad strobe pack connection,
but fixing that seems to have solved the problems.
Charlie
RV-6A, N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com> |
Ah, Lucas, "The Prince of Darkness"... I had a '63 Austin Healy Sprite
that was graced with his presence... Converted to 12v Negative ground
"US standard" stuff when the engine was replaced... Cost some $$, but
less than the ongoing Lucas part-of-the-week club membership -
especially at "import prices"...
Jim Parker
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Starter SURGES
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, April 04, 2018 9:11 pm
Charlie, You're right, the starter was engaged and running but the
minute the engine revved over starting rpm the engine was driving it,
too. It's probably no surprise that the car had English electrics, a mix
of Smith and Lucas. Me experience with it was too many ghost problems.
The horn began to blow one night right as I was on my way out for a
date. Disconnected the horn, went on the date and tried to get the horn
working the next day. Reconnected it and nothing wrong. Never failed
again. Then there was the night the passing lights started flashing on
their own. Pulled the whole steering wheel off, went through it,
couldn't find anything, put it back together, worked fine. Never failed
again. As much as I loved the car I began to think of it as Mussolini's
revenge. I didn't know about Lucas then.....
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warm Toggle Switch |
Good Find Charlie;
Sure sounds like your switch did one of two things or maybe even BOTH:
1 - WELDED the contacts closed and/or,
2 - Mechanically Failed.
The mechanical failure could also have been due to the contacts being
Welded and when you flip the switch, the weld being stronger than the pivot
points of the switch... Ergo, the switch broke!
Question: Is the switch WHITE in color? Except for the burnt areas of
course?
Poor contact(s) ANYWHERE in the circuit increase current draw. The weak
point being the switch.
ARKENSPARK - - ARKENFARK
Hope my original post was helpful.
Barry
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Warm Toggle Switch
>
> At 09:21 AM 4/4/2018, you wrote:
>
> I went through several warm, hot, and/or shorted
> switches that operated my strobes. Tried several
> brands of switches all with the same results.
> Finally trouble shot the whole system and found
> a bad connector crimp on the positive wire that
> connected at the strobe power pack. Repaired
> same, and haven=99t had a switch problem since.
>
>
> What were your observations for condition of
> the materials at the failure . . . and do
> you recall whether the failure was related
> to materials, installation technique or perhaps
> both?
>
> You mentioned 'shorted' switch . . . were you the
> builder who was experiencing fuse popping when the
> strobes were turned OFF?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> =94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94-
>
> Bob, et., al.,
>
> I did have a popped fuse or so, but I don=99t think they were relat
ed to
> the shorted switch. The shorted switch toggle itself was electrified when
> either on or off. On various switches, I found loose connectors, corroded
> and failed contacts, and in one case, the plastic switch case was partial
ly
> melted from the heat. Failures were probably related to both materials an
d
> installation technique. I=99m not sure all the problems were relate
d to the
> bad strobe pack connection, but fixing that seems to have solved the
> problems.
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A, N11CB
> San Antonio
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Warm Toggle Switch |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
BARRY CHECK 6 wrote:
> Poor contact(s) ANYWHERE in the circuit increase current draw.
Generally speaking, this is incorrect. A poor contact increases resistance. Increased
resistance causes a decrease in current through a circuit.
The exception is an appliance using an internal switching power supply, which functions
as a constant power device, drawing whatever combination of voltage and
current it can manage to maintain the required output. This is most likely
to be seen powering modern avionics and high power LEDs (i.e. landing lights
and strobe drivers).
For everything else lighting circuits, motors, pumps, heaters and anything with
linear voltage regulation the resistance/voltage/current relationship must
follow Ohms Law.
Eric
P.S. On Internet forums, the use of ALL CAPS is considered equivalent to shouting.
If youre posting via email rather than the web interface where bold, italics
and underline are available, consider sparing use of *asterisks* before and
after words you wish to emphasize.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479127#479127
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Warm Toggle Switch |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I agree with Eric Page. Ohm's law rules. And generally speaking, a switch should
not get warm. If it does, it is either overloaded, defective (high internal
resistance), or its external connections have high resistance.
It is OK to use AC rated switches in airplanes. B&C Aero sells AC rated switches.
Hundreds of them have been installed in aircraft. Even if the DC rating
is not marked on the side of the switch, every switch can carry a certain amount
of DC current. Usually switch manufactures will test the DC ampacity of
their products and the results are published on their datasheets. When a switch
is already closed, it doesn't matter if the current is AC or DC. The issue
is what happens when the switch first starts to open (or bounces open while
closing). This is where voltage is important. When the contacts of the switch
first separate just a hair, an arc jumps across the opening. Since AC current
periodically drops to zero, the arc is quickly extinguished. But DC keeps
arcing as the contacts spread apart. That arcing damages the contacts. In order
to minimize arcing, the DC voltage needs to be reduced. Yes, switches need
to be derated when conducting DC. But one way to look at it is that the voltage
is derated, not the current. If two identical switches carry equal current,
one in a DC circuit and one in an AC circuit, the life expectancy of the switches
is equal provided that the DC circuit operates at a reduced voltage.
If the AC voltage is 115, a DC voltage of about 28 will result in equal switch
life. Most of home-built airplanes have 12 volt electrical systems. At that
voltage, a switch can carry more than its 115 VAC current rating, provided that
it is snap acting (opens quickly).
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479128#479128
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulation support for crimps |
HI Bob
>> M25036/T7928
What are these?
A
On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 05:18 PM 4/3/2018, you wrote:
> Its not something youve specifically recommended: google for krimptite and youll
see some examples of to what I was referring.
>
Okay. Found this .pdf that speaks to the
spectrum of Waldom termnials
https://goo.gl/XKMA71
The generic Krimptite devices are the bottom
of the features ladder. No insulation grip,
rolled, non-welded wire grips.
Next step up through the product line adds
insulation grips to the non-welded
terminals.
Next are uninsulated but more robust terminals
specifically designed for solid wire and wire
grips intended for facilitating 'pulls' of
wire thorough a conduit. Stationary applications.
Next step up are the AviKrimps . . . the Molex
offering to higher performance vehicular
applications (like airplanes). These are equivalents
to Tyco-Amp PIDG, Panduit PN series and others
designed to the spirit and intent of M25036/T7928
The next steps up the ladder are pretty self explanatory.
There's a 'high temperature' version of the un=insulated
ring terminals designed for use in products like heaters,
ovens, furnaces, etc where even companion wires are
expected to stand off extra ordinary environmental
temperatures . . . temperatures too high for legacy
insulation grips but un-necessary since the terminals
are not expected to perform under vibration.
One does not save much money with the use of terminals
outside the bubble of M25036/T7928 products. The uninsulated
Krimptite devises would reside outside that bubble.
Here's a quick run-down on acme of terminal technologies
with about 80 years of history on aircraft and similar
applications.
<973ee6.jpg>
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulation support for crimps |
Google is (sometimes) our friend:
https://www.google.com/search?q=M25036&oq=M25036&aqs=chrome..69i57&so
urceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> HI Bob
>
> >> M25036/T7928
>
> What are these?
>
> A
>
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 05:18 PM 4/3/2018, you wrote:
> > It=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s not something you=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ve
specifically recommended: google for
> =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93krimptite=C3=A2=82=AC and you=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2ll see some examples of to what I was referring.
> >
>
> Okay. Found this .pdf that speaks to the
> spectrum of Waldom termnials
>
> https://goo.gl/XKMA71
>
> The generic Krimptite devices are the bottom
> of the features ladder. No insulation grip,
> rolled, non-welded wire grips.
>
> Next step up through the product line adds
> insulation grips to the non-welded
> terminals.
>
> Next are uninsulated but more robust terminals
> specifically designed for solid wire and wire
> grips intended for facilitating 'pulls' of
> wire thorough a conduit. Stationary applications.
>
> Next step up are the AviKrimps . . . the Molex
> offering to higher performance vehicular
> applications (like airplanes). These are equivalents
> to Tyco-Amp PIDG, Panduit PN series and others
> designed to the spirit and intent of M25036/T7928
>
> The next steps up the ladder are pretty self explanatory.
>
> There's a 'high temperature' version of the un=insulated
> ring terminals designed for use in products like heaters,
> ovens, furnaces, etc where even companion wires are
> expected to stand off extra ordinary environmental
> temperatures . . . temperatures too high for legacy
> insulation grips but un-necessary since the terminals
> are not expected to perform under vibration.
>
> One does not save much money with the use of terminals
> outside the bubble of M25036/T7928 products. The uninsulated
> Krimptite devises would reside outside that bubble.
>
> Here's a quick run-down on acme of terminal technologies
> with about 80 years of history on aircraft and similar
> applications.
>
> <973ee6.jpg>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulation support for crimps |
Ah theyre products? It sounded like they were a specification.
On Apr 5, 2018, at 5:42 PM, Charlie England wrote:
Google is (sometimes) our friend:
https://www.google.com/search?q=M25036&oq=M25036&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
HI Bob
>> M25036/T7928
What are these?
A
On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 05:18 PM 4/3/2018, you wrote:
> Its not something youve specifically recommended: google for krimptite and youll
see some examples of to what I was referring.
>
Okay. Found this .pdf that speaks to the
spectrum of Waldom termnials
https://goo.gl/XKMA71
The generic Krimptite devices are the bottom
of the features ladder. No insulation grip,
rolled, non-welded wire grips.
Next step up through the product line adds
insulation grips to the non-welded
terminals.
Next are uninsulated but more robust terminals
specifically designed for solid wire and wire
grips intended for facilitating 'pulls' of
wire thorough a conduit. Stationary applications.
Next step up are the AviKrimps . . . the Molex
offering to higher performance vehicular
applications (like airplanes). These are equivalents
to Tyco-Amp PIDG, Panduit PN series and others
designed to the spirit and intent of M25036/T7928
The next steps up the ladder are pretty self explanatory.
There's a 'high temperature' version of the un=insulated
ring terminals designed for use in products like heaters,
ovens, furnaces, etc where even companion wires are
expected to stand off extra ordinary environmental
temperatures . . . temperatures too high for legacy
insulation grips but un-necessary since the terminals
are not expected to perform under vibration.
One does not save much money with the use of terminals
outside the bubble of M25036/T7928 products. The uninsulated
Krimptite devises would reside outside that bubble.
Here's a quick run-down on acme of terminal technologies
with about 80 years of history on aircraft and similar
applications.
<973ee6.jpg>
Bob . . .
===================================
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulation support for crimps |
Alec:
Here is a link to what they are:
https://www.google.com/search?q=M25036%2FT7928&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS749US749
&oq=M25036%2FT7928&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.1941j0j8&sourceid=chrome&i
e=UTF-8
Barry
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> HI Bob
>
> >> M25036/T7928
>
> What are these?
>
> A
>
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 05:18 PM 4/3/2018, you wrote:
> > It=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s not something you=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ve
specifically recommended: google for
> =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93krimptite=C3=A2=82=AC and you=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2ll see some examples of to what I was referring.
> >
>
> Okay. Found this .pdf that speaks to the
> spectrum of Waldom termnials
>
> https://goo.gl/XKMA71
>
> The generic Krimptite devices are the bottom
> of the features ladder. No insulation grip,
> rolled, non-welded wire grips.
>
> Next step up through the product line adds
> insulation grips to the non-welded
> terminals.
>
> Next are uninsulated but more robust terminals
> specifically designed for solid wire and wire
> grips intended for facilitating 'pulls' of
> wire thorough a conduit. Stationary applications.
>
> Next step up are the AviKrimps . . . the Molex
> offering to higher performance vehicular
> applications (like airplanes). These are equivalents
> to Tyco-Amp PIDG, Panduit PN series and others
> designed to the spirit and intent of M25036/T7928
>
> The next steps up the ladder are pretty self explanatory.
>
> There's a 'high temperature' version of the un=insulated
> ring terminals designed for use in products like heaters,
> ovens, furnaces, etc where even companion wires are
> expected to stand off extra ordinary environmental
> temperatures . . . temperatures too high for legacy
> insulation grips but un-necessary since the terminals
> are not expected to perform under vibration.
>
> One does not save much money with the use of terminals
> outside the bubble of M25036/T7928 products. The uninsulated
> Krimptite devises would reside outside that bubble.
>
> Here's a quick run-down on acme of terminal technologies
> with about 80 years of history on aircraft and similar
> applications.
>
> <973ee6.jpg>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Duperron <davedup10(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
I completed my RV-10 in July of 2015. I also have a Plane Power 60A main
alternator and a 30A alternator as the back up. And I am having the exact
same symtoms. Plane Power tells me I should be getting 14.3 to 14.5 volts
on the main and slightly less than that on the backup alternator. Should
the main alternator output drop below that of the backup, the backup will
take over. Fact is The main puts out 13.4V to 13.6V and the back running
by itself puts out about the same. Running both together might get me
13.7V. I bought a new 60A alternator and it did the same. I had both the
new and the old tested at a starter/alternator shop and they tested to
Plane Power specs at 14.5V. My power distribution system is a modified Bob
Knuckles Z-13-8 System. I have noticed there are other RV-10 owners having
the same issue. I am David Duperron 616-485-5555.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:29 AM, mhealydds wrote:
>
> I have an RV-10 that is about one year and one half old and have had a
> charging issue for at least a year of it. I have a Plane Power 60 amp
> alternator (and back-up Plane Power 30 amp alternator) with a Advanced
> Quick Panel System. Here is east has been going on....
> 1. My primary alternator never get adequate charge. It hovers around 12.5
> to 12.8 volts, sometimes to 13.2 or so, but never above 14 volts.
> 2. The primary alternator makes an whine when on.
> 3. The primary alternator shuts off intermittently (I see Amps of down and
> whine goes off) and then will come back on on its own later or sometimes
> will when I reset field switch.
> 4. I can sometimes get full charge (14.2) on ground with only some of
> avionics on (one EFIS, nav/strobes only).
> 5. My secondary alternator does not do all this. It works indicated.
>
> Here is what I have tried and checked...
> 1. Checked and adjusted belt tension on alternator.
> 2. Added alternator filter.
> 3. Checked continuity and tightness on all connections.
> 4. Changed and checked alternator ANL fuse.
> 5. Got completely new alternator and replaced it.
> 6. Changed terminal plug on alternator.
> 7. Been on phone with plane power numerous times and ruined through
> trouble shooting and can't seem to find and issue with alternator itself.
> 8. Have not had alternator checked but since I have two alternators doing
> same thing and both are basically new, I doubt that is the case, but
> possible.
> 9. Volt reading on EFIS and multimeter at AFS middle same and same on both
> EFISs
>
> Any thoughts on what else to check or fix. I feel like I am missing
> something obvious. The plane with run with with the 12.8 or so volts but
> that is not what it should be. Could it be AFS module (they don't thing so
> at AFS), battery, do I need larger gauge wire (I have 8 now). I just don't
> know know anymore and and stuck on my true amateur status.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=478108#478108
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
How and where are y'all measuring the voltage?
To begin troubleshooting, I'd get a decent digital voltmeter, and make
up a couple of long clip leads. Clip the negative directly to the
battery's negative terminal, and start testing with the positive
directly on the alternator's B-lead. Crank the engine & check voltage.
If normal, shut down, move the positive 'downstream' to the next joint,
and repeat. Be sure to check every transition; for instance, the B-lead
location should be checked on the stud itself, then on the ring terminal
that's crimped to the wire, then, if possible, on the end of the wire
itself. Then move on to the next joint.
Charlie
On 4/7/2018 7:15 PM, David Duperron wrote:
> I completed my RV-10 in July of 2015. I also have a Plane Power 60A
> main alternator and a 30A alternator as the back up. And I am having
> the exact same symtoms. Plane Power tells me I should be getting 14.3
> to 14.5 volts on the main and slightly less than that on the backup
> alternator. Should the main alternator output drop below that of the
> backup, the backup will take over. Fact is The main puts out 13.4V to
> 13.6V and the back running by itself puts out about the same. Running
> both together might get me 13.7V. I bought a new 60A alternator and it
> did the same. I had both the new and the old tested at a
> starter/alternator shop and they tested to Plane Power specs at 14.5V.
> My power distribution system is a modified Bob Knuckles Z-13-8 System.
> I have noticed there are other RV-10 owners having the same issue. I
> am David Duperron 616-485-5555.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:29 AM, mhealydds > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I have an RV-10 that is about one year and one half old and have
> had a charging issue for at least a year of it. I have a Plane
> Power 60 amp alternator (and back-up Plane Power 30 amp
> alternator) with a Advanced Quick Panel System. Here is east has
> been going on....
> 1. My primary alternator never get adequate charge. It hovers
> around 12.5 to 12.8 volts, sometimes to 13.2 or so, but never
> above 14 volts.
> 2. The primary alternator makes an whine when on.
> 3. The primary alternator shuts off intermittently (I see Amps of
> down and whine goes off) and then will come back on on its own
> later or sometimes will when I reset field switch.
> 4. I can sometimes get full charge (14.2) on ground with only some
> of avionics on (one EFIS, nav/strobes only).
> 5. My secondary alternator does not do all this. It works indicated.
>
> Here is what I have tried and checked...
> 1. Checked and adjusted belt tension on alternator.
> 2. Added alternator filter.
> 3. Checked continuity and tightness on all connections.
> 4. Changed and checked alternator ANL fuse.
> 5. Got completely new alternator and replaced it.
> 6. Changed terminal plug on alternator.
> 7. Been on phone with plane power numerous times and ruined
> through trouble shooting and can't seem to find and issue with
> alternator itself.
> 8. Have not had alternator checked but since I have two
> alternators doing same thing and both are basically new, I doubt
> that is the case, but possible.
> 9. Volt reading on EFIS and multimeter at AFS middle same and same
> on both EFISs
>
> Any thoughts on what else to check or fix. I feel like I am
> missing something obvious. The plane with run with with the 12.8
> or so volts but that is not what it should be. Could it be AFS
> module (they don't thing so at AFS), battery, do I need larger
> gauge wire (I have 8 now). I just don't know know anymore and and
> stuck on my true amateur status.
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Measure the main alternator field current and tell us what it is.
_
Is there an ammeter installed? If so, what does the ammeter say?
_
Where is the shunt located electrically speaking? Does it measure battery current
or alternator current or aircraft load current?
_
The vast majority of electrical problems are due to bad connections. Check every
connection in the alternator circuit.
_
Have you verified that your voltmeter is accurate?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479161#479161
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Have you determined the output voltage at the alternator, vs what you
see at the bus? I have the same 60 amp alternator on my RV-10, and
consistently see 14.3-14.5 on my Dynon EMS system. I'm suspecting you
have some resistance somewhere in the system that is decreasing your
voltage. I don't know if you have a voltage drop across your shunt (more
than the infinitesimal amount used to measure amps)? You say you changed
the ANL fuse. You need to know if there is any voltage drop across any
of the circuit between alternator and bus.
Does the lead from the alternator to wherever the first connection is
show 0.0 ohms? How about the rest of the way to your bus?
On 4/7/2018 5:15 PM, David Duperron wrote:
> I completed my RV-10 in July of 2015. I also have a Plane Power 60A main
> alternator and a 30A alternator as the back up. And I am having the
> exact same symtoms. Plane Power tells me I should be getting 14.3 to
> 14.5 volts on the main and slightly less than that on the backup
> alternator. Should the main alternator output drop below that of the
> backup, the backup will take over. Fact is The main puts out 13.4V to
> 13.6V and the back running by itself puts out about the same. Running
> both together might get me 13.7V. I bought a new 60A alternator and it
> did the same. I had both the new and the old tested at a
> starter/alternator shop and they tested to Plane Power specs at 14.5V.
> My power distribution system is a modified Bob Knuckles Z-13-8 System. I
> have noticed there are other RV-10 owners having the same issue. I am
> David Duperron 616-485-5555.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:29 AM, mhealydds > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I have an RV-10 that is about one year and one half old and have had
> a charging issue for at least a year of it. I have a Plane Power 60
> amp alternator (and back-up Plane Power 30 amp alternator) with a
> Advanced Quick Panel System. Here is east has been going on....
> 1. My primary alternator never get adequate charge. It hovers around
> 12.5 to 12.8 volts, sometimes to 13.2 or so, but never above 14 volts.
> 2. The primary alternator makes an whine when on.
> 3. The primary alternator shuts off intermittently (I see Amps of
> down and whine goes off) and then will come back on on its own later
> or sometimes will when I reset field switch.
> 4. I can sometimes get full charge (14.2) on ground with only some
> of avionics on (one EFIS, nav/strobes only).
> 5. My secondary alternator does not do all this. It works indicated.
>
> Here is what I have tried and checked...
> 1. Checked and adjusted belt tension on alternator.
> 2. Added alternator filter.
> 3. Checked continuity and tightness on all connections.
> 4. Changed and checked alternator ANL fuse.
> 5. Got completely new alternator and replaced it.
> 6. Changed terminal plug on alternator.
> 7. Been on phone with plane power numerous times and ruined through
> trouble shooting and can't seem to find and issue with alternator
> itself.
> 8. Have not had alternator checked but since I have two alternators
> doing same thing and both are basically new, I doubt that is the
> case, but possible.
> 9. Volt reading on EFIS and multimeter at AFS middle same and same
> on both EFISs
>
> Any thoughts on what else to check or fix. I feel like I am missing
> something obvious. The plane with run with with the 12.8 or so volts
> but that is not what it should be. Could it be AFS module (they
> don't thing so at AFS), battery, do I need larger gauge wire (I have
> 8 now). I just don't know know anymore and and stuck on my true
> amateur status.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=478108#478108
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=478108#478108>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
At 07:15 PM 4/7/2018, you wrote:
>I completed my RV-10 in July of 2015. I also
>have a Plane Power 60A main alternator and a 30A
>alternator as the back up. And I am having the
>exact same symtoms. Plane Power tells me I
>should be getting 14.3 to 14.5 volts on the main
>and slightly less than that on the backup
>alternator. Should the main alternator output
>drop below that of the backup, the backup will
>take over. Fact is The main puts out 13.4V to
>13.6V=C2 and the back running by itself puts out
>about the same. Running both together might get
>me 13.7V. I bought a new 60A alternator and it
>did the same. I had both the new and the old
>tested at a starter/alternator shop and they
>tested to Plane Power specs at 14.5V. My power
>distribution system is a modified Bob Knuckles
>Z-13-8 System. I have noticed there are other
>RV-10 owners having the same issue. I am David Duperron=C2 616-485-5555.
What size is the b-lead wiring from altenrator
to the bus . . . and where are you attaching
the b-lead feeder to the system? Just for
grins, try a temporary b-lead feeder directly
from alternator to the battery terminal of
the starter contactor . . . 6AWG or larger
is good.
The alternators in question SENSE 'bus
voltage' AT THE B-LEAD TERMINAL. Modern
internal regulators are quite accurate
and consistent.
As others have suggested, you first need
to know what the alternator's output voltage
is . . . given consistent results with two
alternators, odd are that the alternator
is fine and you're getting voltage drops
in the path between b-terminal and your
measurement point.
Virtually all the Z-figures show 4AWG feeders
from b-terminals via shortest path to the
power systems FAT wires. The reason for this
is to minimize losses in this high current
pathway . . . a good thing to do whether the
alternator is internally or externally
regulated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
David:
I don't think it is you, or even Bob's circuit. There have been issues
with Plane Power.
1 - Look at the voltage regulator (ACU).
2 - Check the resistance of the FIELD.
3 - Check the resistance of the wires going to the field.
4 - If all those check out the next thing is to verify the voltage coming
out of the ACU. If it is LOW the output of the ALT will be low. You can
FORCE it high by applying a remote Field Voltage. This will increase the
Output Voltage.
5 - I'm sure you know this by now - The ALT output should be 13.8 to 14.2
some say 14.5. Well, the 0.3 V delta is extreamly minor. What is
important is the Minimum 13.8 VDC.
6 - Have you checked the accuracy of the meter you are using?
7 - NOISE - Plane Power has had many reports of NOISE. The easiest thing
to do is put a nice big Electrolytic Capacitor across the output of the
ALT. I find a 25,000 uF @ 16 VDC works. You can go higher in both uF &
VDC. In this case Bigger Is Better.
Hope this helps,
Barry
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:15 PM, David Duperron wrote:
> I completed my RV-10 in July of 2015. I also have a Plane Power 60A main
> alternator and a 30A alternator as the back up. And I am having the exact
> same symtoms. Plane Power tells me I should be getting 14.3 to 14.5 volts
> on the main and slightly less than that on the backup alternator. Should
> the main alternator output drop below that of the backup, the backup will
> take over. Fact is The main puts out 13.4V to 13.6V and the back running
> by itself puts out about the same. Running both together might get me
> 13.7V. I bought a new 60A alternator and it did the same. I had both the
> new and the old tested at a starter/alternator shop and they tested to
> Plane Power specs at 14.5V. My power distribution system is a modified Bob
> Knuckles Z-13-8 System. I have noticed there are other RV-10 owners having
> the same issue. I am David Duperron 616-485-5555.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:29 AM, mhealydds wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> I have an RV-10 that is about one year and one half old and have had a
>> charging issue for at least a year of it. I have a Plane Power 60 amp
>> alternator (and back-up Plane Power 30 amp alternator) with a Advanced
>> Quick Panel System. Here is east has been going on....
>> 1. My primary alternator never get adequate charge. It hovers around 12.5
>> to 12.8 volts, sometimes to 13.2 or so, but never above 14 volts.
>> 2. The primary alternator makes an whine when on.
>> 3. The primary alternator shuts off intermittently (I see Amps of down
>> and whine goes off) and then will come back on on its own later or
>> sometimes will when I reset field switch.
>> 4. I can sometimes get full charge (14.2) on ground with only some of
>> avionics on (one EFIS, nav/strobes only).
>> 5. My secondary alternator does not do all this. It works indicated.
>>
>> Here is what I have tried and checked...
>> 1. Checked and adjusted belt tension on alternator.
>> 2. Added alternator filter.
>> 3. Checked continuity and tightness on all connections.
>> 4. Changed and checked alternator ANL fuse.
>> 5. Got completely new alternator and replaced it.
>> 6. Changed terminal plug on alternator.
>> 7. Been on phone with plane power numerous times and ruined through
>> trouble shooting and can't seem to find and issue with alternator itself.
>> 8. Have not had alternator checked but since I have two alternators doing
>> same thing and both are basically new, I doubt that is the case, but
>> possible.
>> 9. Volt reading on EFIS and multimeter at AFS middle same and same on
>> both EFISs
>>
>> Any thoughts on what else to check or fix. I feel like I am missing
>> something obvious. The plane with run with with the 12.8 or so volts but
>> that is not what it should be. Could it be AFS module (they don't thing so
>> at AFS), battery, do I need larger gauge wire (I have 8 now). I just don't
>> know know anymore and and stuck on my true amateur status.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=478108#478108
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/
>> Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ===================================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Protection for Battery Master Switch wire? |
| From: | "rsmith52" <rodsmith52(at)yahoo.com> |
I plan on using Figure Z12 as the architecture for wiring my Bearhawk. In the process
of converting the diagram to physical location for equipment and wire runs
I noticed that the only wire that doesn't seem to have any protection, or
is kept very short, is the Battery Master switch wire, 22ga running from the battery
contactor to the switch? I could not find a discussion of this doing a
search.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479193#479193
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Protection for Battery Master Switch wire? |
At 09:30 AM 4/9/2018, you wrote:
>
>I plan on using Figure Z12 as the architecture for wiring my
>Bearhawk. In the process of converting the diagram to physical
>location for equipment and wire runs I noticed that the only wire
>that doesn't seem to have any protection, or is kept very short, is
>the Battery Master switch wire, 22ga running from the battery
>contactor to the switch? I could not find a discussion of this doing a search.
There is no failure mode that puts that wire
at risk. "Pull to ground" control lines on
contactors have never benefited from protection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
At 07:53 AM 4/9/2018, you wrote:
>David:
>
>I don't think it is you, or even Bob's
>circuit.=C2 There have been issues with Plane Power.
Can you point me to any discussions/narratives
on PlainPower products? Last I looked over their
product line, they were pretty much invested
in modifying stock automotive to accept external
control and ov protection while retaining the
built in regulator. Aside from manufacturing
errors, their business model seems to offer
little performance risk. I'd be interested to
know what kinds of problems builders are having
unique to Plane Power. Thanks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | A bit of aviation history worth reviewing |
https://youtu.be/F4KD5u-xkik
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A bit of aviation history worth reviewing |
| From: | Harley Dixon <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
Wow! That was fascinating...I saw an SR 71 at the Pima museum in
Arizona and took lots of pictures, but no one was there to answer
questions and describe it as was done in this video. VERY
entertaining! Thanks, Bob..
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 4/9/2018 2:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> https://youtu.be/F4KD5u-xkik
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A bit of aviation history worth reviewing |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
A friend of mine retired from Pratt (engine maker for the SR-71). He
told me a story about an incident back before anyone knew the SR-71
existed. An airliner on a regular flight had a lot of panicked
passengers when a huge black UFO appeared behind one wing. Upon
landing, everyone on the plane was escorted into a room and 'read the
riot act'; forced to swear out nondisclosure agreements that they would
never reveal that they had seen anything. An SR-71 had descended for
refueling, and joined up on the airliner instead of the tanker that was
nearby.....
On 4/9/2018 2:37 PM, Harley Dixon wrote:
> Wow! That was fascinating...I saw an SR 71 at the Pima museum in
> Arizona and took lots of pictures, but no one was there to answer
> questions and describe it as was done in this video. VERY
> entertaining! Thanks, Bob..
>
> Harley
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 4/9/2018 2:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://youtu.be/F4KD5u-xkik
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
Bob:
One of the sites that discussions took place on was BEACH TALK.
Barry
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:53 AM 4/9/2018, you wrote:
>
> David:
>
> I don't think it is you, or even Bob's circuit.=C3=82 There have been is
sues
> with Plane Power.
>
>
> Can you point me to any discussions/narratives
> on PlainPower products? Last I looked over their
> product line, they were pretty much invested
> in modifying stock automotive to accept external
> control and ov protection while retaining the
> built in regulator. Aside from manufacturing
> errors, their business model seems to offer
> little performance risk. I'd be interested to
> know what kinds of problems builders are having
> unique to Plane Power. Thanks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
At 08:20 PM 4/9/2018, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>One of the sites that discussions took place on was BEACH TALK.
>
>Barry
Beech Talk? The Beechcraft Owner's Association?
Do you recall the nature of issues discussed?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
Yes, Bob and No, I do not recall.
Barry
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 08:20 PM 4/9/2018, you wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> One of the sites that discussions took place on was BEACH TALK.
>
> Barry
>
>
> Beech Talk? The Beechcraft Owner's Association?
> Do you recall the nature of issues discussed?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "N884RA" <n884ra(at)gmail.com> |
I've been working on the electrical architecture for my RV-8 and I'm getting close
to a solution, but before I start buying and installing components, I'd like
to get some feedback on my deign.
I'm planning an IFR-capable RV-8 with a Titan IO-370, dual P-mags and a Whirlwind
constant speed prop. Avionics will be the G3X system with G-5, GTN-650, GTR20,
et al. I'm planning to use the Earth-X ETX680 battery as the main, and a
TCW 3 Ah backup battery. The main alternator will be a belt-driven B&C BC-460H
(60 Amps) with a gear-driven SD-8 backup (
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479224#479224
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/load_analysis_156.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
At 06:55 AM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>I've been working on the electrical architecture for my RV-8 and I'm
>getting close to a solution, but before I start buying and
>installing components, I'd like to get some feedback on my deign.
>
>I'm planning an IFR-capable RV-8 with a Titan IO-370, dual P-mags
>and a Whirlwind constant speed prop. Avionics will be the G3X
>system with G-5, GTN-650, GTR20, et al. I'm planning to use the
>Earth-X ETX680 battery as the main, and a TCW 3 Ah backup battery.
>The main alternator will be a belt-driven B&C BC-460H (60 Amps) with
>a gear-driven SD-8 backup (
>
the very first example of Z13/8 to fly was in an RV8.
Lost contact with the builders out in CT about 10 years
ago . . . but the system had hundreds of hours on it
then and the builders were delighted with the performance.
The larger standby alternator suggests Z12 which has
also been incorporated on a fleet of OBAM aircraft
and hundreds of TC aircraft.
With two alternators, why a backup battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=403
My interpretation of the poll results is that:
28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Here is one for the experts...I currently have a Sandel 3308 EHSI which uses T3
G4 30W halogen bulbs (4mm pins). These are getting hard to find and pricey.
Would like to replace with LED comparable bulbs. Two questions, how do I ascertain
correct bulb for socket and circuit? What are the considerations I need
to know about when selecting a LED bulb as a replacement to halogen (if any?)
Appreciate (as always) this "teachable" moment! [Idea]
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479229#479229
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "N884RA" <n884ra(at)gmail.com> |
I heard back from EMAG today and they recommended the following:
>
> The P-mags should be put on the main bus because we only require a battery for
starting. After 800 RPM or so we switch to running off our internal generator
and do not require an external source. In the event of an internal generator
failure we would switch back to the external power (main bus). Be sure to do
the minimum cut-out test to see where the ignitions drop off and note it so in
the event of an alternator failure you wont run the risk of the having to low
of RPM for our ignitions to continue sparking.
>
> If you do put us on the battery directly you run the chance of leaving us on
and draining your battery.
>
I've updated my design to put the P-mags back the way I initially had them and
removed the Battery Bus fuse block once again.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479230#479230
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The main voltage regulator sense terminal (3?) should
connect to the to the main power bus and not share a wire
with the field current. The way it is connected now will
eventually lead to overvoltage conditions due to
increasing resistance as terminals and switch contacts
corrode over time.
The start switch does not need to be on a circuit
breaker. A fuse on the main power bus should never blow.
And if it did, there should be a good reason.
And the plane will be safely on the ground if and
when the start fuse does blow.
There should not be 2 fuselinks in series going to the
main alternator field breaker. One is good enough. The
second one is redundant.
Who knows if the aux alt 2 amp breaker will trip before
the 15 amps fuse blows. Maybe increase the fuse to 30
amps?
Consider doing away with the avionics switch.
Maybe the trim indicator and fuel gauge should be on the
endurance bus. They use very little power.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479231#479231
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
Thanks for the post Joe,
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=403
> My interpretation of the poll results is that:
> 28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
> 20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
> 2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
>
>
> With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
=8BBecause what if the battery fails?
G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =8Byou can apply that
money
to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start the plane
and supply days of power for the G-5. I have not installed the G-3, but I
have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI). With dual G-5's in a
certified plane you are required to
have dual Garmin batteries... That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 AH
battery. Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery - a small
one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
situation.
Yea, happened to me one night. No Fun!
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>=C2 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
>
>=C2 Bob . . .
>
>
>=8BBecause what if the battery fails?
>G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or
>=8Byou can apply that money to a much larger
>second battery which will be big enough to start
>the plane and supply days of power for the
>G-5.=C2 I have not installed the G-3,=C2 but I
>have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI &
>HSI).=C2 With dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C2
>have dual Garmin batteries...=C2 That is $300 for
>a stinking 1 or 2 AH battery.=C2 Yea, I would be
>very happy to install a second battery - a small
>one - With just enough to start the plane in a
>24:00 DARK stranded situation.=C2 =C2
>Yea, happened to me one night.=C2 No Fun!
>
>Barry
Was this in spite of a considered preventative
maintenance program? What was the battery's last
cap-check value before the failure?
A battery that is watched and maintained as
carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
you of engine driven energy in spite of the
loss of one alternator.
The rule of thumb for battery replacement
in the TC world is when it falls to less than
75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
RG battery world, this means it probably
still cranks the engine but is in substantial
decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
home hangar.
Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
Not throwing stones..but this is a very unscientific poll
dating back to 2005.
My experience2 automotive alternators failed in less
than 250hr. Can not remember how long each latested. B&C 8
amp..700 hrs and counting. PP 70 amp, I think it has been
about 400 hours and counting
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
Thanks for the post Joe,
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 > wrote:
>
Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=
403> &pollid=403
My interpretation of the poll results is that:
28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Car clock in an aircraft |
To the electrowizzards in this list.
(This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on this)
I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with temperature indication,
to install in the back of my RV-10, as a courtesy to the rear passengers.
(please avoid any comments on this decision... :-)).
As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with the clock,
doesnt have any information about the electric circuit, so Im in the guess
field here.
This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has 2 of those
coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a backup to the
ships power.
But Im not sure...
This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power cable.
Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft Master
switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft battery?
Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master is Off,
the clocks coin batteries will be powering the clock and only a very tiny current
will be draining from the always hot bus, not depleting the aircrafts battery?
Even knowing that without information on the clocks electric circuit it is difficult
to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Car clock in an aircraft |
Carlos:
You can do either.
I would put it on a SWITCHED (On/Off) buss.
The 'watch battery' is as you guess for a 'keep alive' circuit for the
clock.
The easy way of proving this would be to remove the watch battery while the
unit is plugged into the planes power. THEN! Shut OFF the plane's power.
Since the keep alive battery is no longer in circuit the clock should die
and loose time (keep the plane's power off for 5 minutes just for S&G's.
The clock should NOT hold memory and should either die or loose time...
The 5 minutes.
Why would I use a switched buss? Because if you do not fly for a REAL long
time the clock and what ever else you have connected directly to the
battery would drain the battery. Slowly for sure but, drain none the less.
I just had a fellow tell me his 18 Ah battery was dying every two weeks.
I checked the current draw on the battery with EVERYTHING Off.
There was a 45 ma draw.
When you work out the Ah and the hours in 2 weeks ... The battery would be
dead!
Problem identified...
Problem solved... The plane had a CD player with a keep alive circuit.
For what? The CLOCK and the play list memory.
Pulled the CD player and the problem went away!
The CD player was illegal for a certified plane anyway!
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote
:
> trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
>
> To the electrowizzards in this list.
> (This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on
> this)
>
> I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with temperatur
e
> indication, to install in the back of my RV-10, as a courtesy to the rear
> passengers. (please avoid any comments on this decision... :-)).
> As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with
> the clock, doesn=99t have any information about the electric circui
t, so I=99m
> in the guess field here.
>
> This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has
2
> of those coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a backu
p
> to the ship=99s power.
> But I=99m not sure...
>
> This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power
> cable.
> Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft
> Master switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft batter
y?
> Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master is
> Off, the clock=99s coin batteries will be powering the clock and on
ly a very
> tiny current will be draining from the always hot bus, not depleting the
> aircraft=99s battery?
>
> Even knowing that without information on the clocks=99 electric cir
cuit it
> is difficult to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Car clock in an aircraft |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Set your multi-meter to read milliamps and connect it in series with a 12 volt
power wire. Then measure the clock's current draw. Once armed with the numbers,
a decision can be made. It is puzzling why a digital clock would even have
a power wire unless it is for a back light. Most digital clocks are powered
by internal batteries.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479240#479240
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
How scientific do you want to get?
A failure is a failure!
And a failure ONLY hurts when YOU have to pull money out of YOUR pocket to
fix it.
Or when it cost YOU time.
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Rene wrote:
> Not throwing stones..but this is a very unscientific poll dating
back to
> 2005.
>
>
> My experience2 automotive alternators failed in less th
an 250hr. Can
> not remember how long each latested. B&C 8 amp..700 hrs and cou
nting. PP
> 70 amp, I think it has been about 400 hours and counting
>
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
>
>
> Thanks for the post Joe,
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=
403
> My interpretation of the poll results is that:
> 28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
> 20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
> 2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
>
>
> ========================
===========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
> matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
> ========================
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
Bob:
Let's get a show of hands...
How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So, if
there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that would
cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did not
build.
What do you think would sell a plane faster:
'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
Or...
'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
>
> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>
>
> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9y
ou can apply that
> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start t
he
> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed t
he
> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 A
H
> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>
> Barry
>
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
It did not poll the populationonly a slice of the
population that just happened to see it on the site. That is all I am
saying. Applying failure rates to a random set of installations may be
misleading to some and implies a certain amount of certainty. My
experience lines up with the poll for the most part, but I am just one
datapoint.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
How scientific do you want to get?
A failure is a failure!
And a failure ONLY hurts when YOU have to pull money out of YOUR pocket
to fix it.
Or when it cost YOU time.
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Rene > wrote:
Not throwing stones..but this is a very unscientific poll
dating back to 2005.
My experience2 automotive alternators failed in less
than 250hr. Can not remember how long each latested. B&C 8
amp..700 hrs and counting. PP 70 amp, I think it has been
about 400 hours and counting
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
Thanks for the post Joe,
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 > wrote:
>
Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=
403> &pollid=403
My interpretation of the poll results is that:
28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Please critique my electrical design |
I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
Batteries +.
I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery
failures.one self induced and the other was infant mortality.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
Bob:
Let's get a show of hands...
How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
not build.
What do you think would sell a plane faster:
'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
Or...
'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>
wrote:
At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
=C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
=C3=82 Bob . . .
=C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or
=C3=A2=82=AC=B9you can apply that money to a much larger second
battery which will be big enough to start the plane and supply days of
power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed the G-3,=C3=82 but I
have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3=82 With dual
G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second
battery - a small one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00
DARK stranded situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
Barry
Was this in spite of a considered preventative
maintenance program? What was the battery's last
cap-check value before the failure?
A battery that is watched and maintained as
carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
you of engine driven energy in spite of the
loss of one alternator.
The rule of thumb for battery replacement
in the TC world is when it falls to less than
75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
RG battery world, this means it probably
still cranks the engine but is in substantial
decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
home hangar.
Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | Mark Moyle <moylemc(at)gmail.com> |
Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture pulled.
Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15 seconds the
battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery is good. If
not charge the battery and test again.
Mark Moyle
Platinum Alaska
From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Rene
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at Batteries
+.
I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is 10+
years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures.one self
induced and the other was infant mortality.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
Bob:
Let's get a show of hands...
How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So, if
there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that would
cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did not
build.
What do you think would sell a plane faster:
'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
Or...
'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9you can apply
th
at money
>> to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start the pl
ane
>> and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed the G-3,=C3=82
but I
>> have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3=82 With dual G-5's i
n a
>> certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 AH
>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery - a s
mall
>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
I have a load tester. I leave it in the hanger though as superfluous weight
(like for example 4 electrical sources) is a performance killer.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 7:19 PM FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
> battery!
> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
> not build.
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
> Or...
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9
you can apply that
>> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start
the
>> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed
the
>> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
>> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
| From: | "mhealydds" <mhealydds(at)gmail.com> |
I was the original poster and found my issue. I had a cracked firewall passthrough
fitting (it was Blue Sea fitting a lot of other RV-10 user reported using).
Anyway, it was in a spot not easy to inspect and never thought about it being
cracked, just he connections on the fitting. Now a have a bad alternator noise
I have thing to track down. Anyone dealt with that?
Matt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479250#479250
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "N884RA" <n884ra(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the feedback!
user9253 wrote:
> The main voltage regulator sense terminal (3?) should
> connect to the to the main power bus and not share a wire
> with the field current. The way it is connected now will
> eventually lead to overvoltage conditions due to
> increasing resistance as terminals and switch contacts
> corrode over time.
I just followed Bob's wiring on the Z-13/8, but I'll be sure to check that against
the manufacture's instructions when I buy the voltage regulator.
> The start switch does not need to be on a circuit
> breaker. A fuse on the main power bus should never blow.
> And if it did, there should be a good reason.
> And the plane will be safely on the ground if and
> when the start fuse does blow.
I put the starter on a CB so I'd have an alternate way of turning it off in the
event the starter switch failed closed. I suppose turning off the master would
have the same effect though.
> There should not be 2 fuselinks in series going to the
> main alternator field breaker. One is good enough. The
> second one is redundant.
The distance between Main Bus 1 and Main Bus 2 was 6 feet, so I thought I needed
circuit protection on it. Other builders advised me not to use a fuse for fear
of nuisance trips. I've since moved the location of the CBs to the front
of the instrument panel which has reduced the length of that wire run to less
than 18". Does that length of wire need circuit protection?
> Who knows if the aux alt 2 amp breaker will trip before
> the 15 amps fuse blows. Maybe increase the fuse to 30
> amps?
I have to confess I'm don't understand the intricacies of that set up as well as
I wish. Bob also recommends 30A inline fuse and I'm not completely sure why
I have it shown as 15A. The manufacturer recommends a 10A CB as the feed into
the main bus, but I opted to go with Bob's design. Or I attempted to! :?
> Consider doing away with the avionics switch.
I know I'm in the old school here, but I want the switch function.
> Maybe the trim indicator and fuel gauge should be on the
> endurance bus. They use very little power.
That's a good point.
Thanks again,
Rob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479251#479251
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that
might not be the most reliable test.
On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
> pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after
> 15 seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the
> battery is good. If not charge the battery and test again.
> Mark Moyle
> Platinum Alaska
>
> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > on behalf of
> Rene >
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
> To: >
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
> Batteries +.
>
> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
> 10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery
> failures.one self induced and the other was infant mortality.
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> > *On Behalf Of
> *FLYaDIVE
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
> Bob:
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
>
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test
> a battery!
>
> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders.
> So, if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt
> that would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane
> and did not build.
>
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>
> Or...
>
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
> Barry
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Because what if the battery fails?
> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or you can
> apply that money to a much larger second battery which will be
> big enough to start the plane and supply days of power for the
> G-5. I have not installed the G-3, but I have installed 2
> planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI). With dual G-5's in a
> certified plane you are required to
> have dual Garmin batteries... That is $300 for a stinking 1
> or 2 AH battery. Yea, I would be very happy to install a
> second battery - a small one - With just enough to start the
> plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded situation.
> Yea, happened to me one night. No Fun!
>
> Barry
>
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage drop
would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but if
done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than doing
nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand new
battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
Enlighten!
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that might
> not be the most reliable test.
>
> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>
> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
pulled.
> Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15 seconds th
e
> battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery is good. I
f
> not charge the battery and test again.
> Mark Moyle
> Platinum Alaska
>
> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Rene <
> rene(at)felker.com>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at B
atteries
> +.
>
>
> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is 10+
> years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures.
one self
> induced and the other was infant mortality.
>
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
>
> Bob:
>
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
>
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
> battery!
>
> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
> not build.
>
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>
> Or...
>
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>
>
> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9y
ou can apply that
> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start t
he
> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed t
he
> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 A
H
> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>
> Barry
>
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Virus-free
.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_6581499881476749600_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If you look at B&C's wiring diagram
https://www.bandc.aero/pdfs/LR3C_Installation_Manual.pdf
the voltage sense terminal 3 is separate from the field terminal 6.
Also look at Bob's Z-12.
_
One fuselink provides protection for everything downstream of it.
A second fuselink is not required. All the second one does is make
an unnecessary failure point.
_
The maximum of 6" rule of thumb for unprotected wires is not cast
in stone. It all depends on what dangers the wire is exposed to.
_
Circuit breakers are mechanical devices that take time to operate.
That time could be longer than it takes a smaller fuse to blow. A larger
fuse will be slower to blow in case of the over-voltage module shorting out.
The aux alternator fuse protects the battery. It will not hurt to use a 30
amp fuse. Z-13/8 uses a 20awg fuselink which will probably carry more
than 30 amps before the wire melts. The aux alternator output is self
current limiting and will never exceed 10 amps or so.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479255#479255
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
If the only use for the battery is starting, then it's a valid test. But
if the battery is backup electrical power for the alternator and you
need electrical power to keep the flight safe to its conclusion, then it
isn't a valid test.
It can be down to 50% capacity & still reliably crank the engine. But if
the alternator dies and you need the battery to keep the engine running
(electronic ignition, glass panel in IFR, etc), then you'd only have
half or less the time you thought you'd have, based on the battery's
rated capacity.
It's the difference between power and energy. 400 HP Corvette with 1/2
gallon of gas, vs 80 HP Chevette with 15 gallons.
That help?
On 4/10/2018 10:06 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning
> the starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the
> voltage drop would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most
> accurate, but if done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be
> much better than doing nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact
> that it only takes 5% of battery capacity to start the engine has any
> relevance on whether such a rudimentary engine spinning stress test is
> valid, or not. Are you saying that it is likely that one would note
> the same voltage drop on a brand new battery as on a battery that is
> nearing the end of its useful life? Enlighten!
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England > wrote:
>
> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine,
> that might not be the most reliable test.
>
> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
>> pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If
>> after 15 seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6
>> volts DC the battery is good. If not charge the battery and test
>> again.
>> Mark Moyle
>> Platinum Alaska
>>
>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> > on behalf
>> of Rene >
>> Reply-To: > >
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>> To: > >
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
>> Batteries +.
>>
>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery
>> that is 10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two
>> battery failures.one self induced and the other was infant
>> mortality.
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>
>> > > *On Behalf
>> Of *FLYaDIVE
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical
>> design
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>
>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>
>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load
>> test a battery!
>>
>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are
>> builders. So, if there are fellows out there that do have a load
>> tester I doubt that would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only
>> purchased the plane and did not build.
>>
>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>
>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or you
>> can apply that money to a much larger second battery
>> which will be big enough to start the plane and supply
>> days of power for the G-5. I have not installed the
>> G-3, but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI
>> & HSI). With dual G-5's in a certified plane you are
>> required to
>> have dual Garmin batteries... That is $300 for a
>> stinking 1 or 2 AH battery. Yea, I would be very happy
>> to install a second battery - a small one - With just
>> enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.
>> Yea, happened to me one night. No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
> <#m_6581499881476749600_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
A valid test needs to take the battery to lower than 75%. After that fully
charge and then retest, I usually go the manufactures suggested low charge
level. This will tell you if the bat is capable of 75% charge.If not,
replace it.
I do this and also replace my AGM Bat
every two years. I have no steam gagues in my AC.
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage drop
would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but if
done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than doing
nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand new
battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
Enlighten!
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
>>
>> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that
might not be the most reliable test.
>>
>> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>>
>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15
seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery
is good. If not charge the battery and test again.
>> Mark Moyle
>> Platinum Alaska
>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Rene <
rene(at)felker.com>
>> Reply-To:
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
Batteries +.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures
.one
self induced and the other was infant mortality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>
>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>
>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
>>
>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
not build.
>>
>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>
>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9
you can apply that
money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start the
plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed the
G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3=82
With
dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery - a
small
one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> <
https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/M2-ctzJ6_LQ91UgZhwqiad0T5NTuMKxW_Wy
q6Hwe3O5NlmAAXUIN70IL704-sgeGK_EUk1emkSHFb89ojOgJMH73hkYFO_E705cCwjimC_9onv
xtCWJ7EZN27-OVK4jjjO_ucLFuIks7qIMzuswpUsWNzJ_u=s0-d-e1-ft#https://ipmcdn.
avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v
1.gif>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
Charlie, It seems to me that your response does not address that the test
involves monitoring the voltage drop that occurs when the consistent load
is applied. The test is not simply, "will the battery spin the prop." The
test is, "what is the voltage drop caused by spinning the prop."
It seems to me that if the voltage drops down further on a worn out battery
than it does on a fresh battery, there is at least the possibility that
this test could be quite useful. It does not seem to me that the simple
fact the battery "can be down 50% capacity and still reliably crank the
engine" is germane to whether or not monitoring voltage under a consistent
load (in this case spinning the propeller for a specific time) can be
useful as a way to determine whether or not it is time to replace a battery
.
I'm not saying that the spin-the-prop-and-monitor-voltage test is valid.
But it seems to me like it might be. I just can't see where simply noting
that a depleted battery can still spin a prop says anything about the
usefulness of such a test. Sorry, but I just can't seem to make that
connection. Probably I am a little bit dense :) -- it wouldn't be the first
time.
In evaluating the suggested test, as a starting point I would like to know
if the voltage drop would be significantly different on a new vs a worn out
battery. If the answer is no, the drop would be about the same, then case
closed. Test invalid. But if it turns out the voltage drop is significantly
greater on a worn out battery, then I think there is reason to believe that
the test might be useful.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 20:04 Charlie England wrote:
> If the only use for the battery is starting, then it's a valid test. But
> if the battery is backup electrical power for the alternator and you need
> electrical power to keep the flight safe to its conclusion, then it isn't
a
> valid test.
>
> It can be down to 50% capacity & still reliably crank the engine. But if
> the alternator dies and you need the battery to keep the engine running
> (electronic ignition, glass panel in IFR, etc), then you'd only have half
> or less the time you thought you'd have, based on the battery's rated
> capacity.
>
> It's the difference between power and energy. 400 HP Corvette with 1/2
> gallon of gas, vs 80 HP Chevette with 15 gallons.
>
> That help?
>
> On 4/10/2018 10:06 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
> starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage dro
p
> would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but if
> done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than doi
ng
> nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
> battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
> rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
> that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand ne
w
> battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
> Enlighten!
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that migh
t
>> not be the most reliable test.
>>
>> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>>
>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
pulled.
>> Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15 seconds t
he
>> battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery is good.
If
>> not charge the battery and test again.
>> Mark Moyle
>> Platinum Alaska
>>
>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Rene <
>> rene(at)felker.com>
>> Reply-To:
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
Batteries
>> +.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is 10
+
>> years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures
.one self
>> induced and the other was infant mortality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>
>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>
>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
>> battery!
>>
>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
>> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
>> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
>> not build.
>>
>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>
>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9
you can apply that
>> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start
the
>> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed
the
>> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
>> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Virus-fre
e.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>> <#m_-615151073569806401_m_-960492680129280463_m_6581499881476749600_DAB4
FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Car clock in an aircraft |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Carlos
Do you have an 'off aircraft' battery/power sauce to run a test on this clock,
as for aircraft power, any low current item (instrument lights) could share its
power supply and fuse/CB I would imagine
Regards
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 10 Apr 2018, at 10:40 pm, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
>
> To the electrowizzards in this list.
> (This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on this)
>
> I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with temperature indication,
to install in the back of my RV-10, as a courtesy to the rear passengers.
(please avoid any comments on this decision... :-)).
> As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with the clock,
doesnt have any information about the electric circuit, so Im in the guess
field here.
>
> This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has 2 of
those coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a backup to the
ships power.
> But Im not sure...
>
> This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power cable.
> Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft Master
switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft battery?
> Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master is Off,
the clocks coin batteries will be powering the clock and only a very tiny current
will be draining from the always hot bus, not depleting the aircrafts battery?
>
> Even knowing that without information on the clocks electric circuit it is difficult
to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "N884RA" <n884ra(at)gmail.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> If you look at B&C's wiring diagram
> https://www.bandc.aero/pdfs/LR3C_Installation_Manual.pdf
> the voltage sense terminal 3 is separate from the field terminal 6.
> Also look at Bob's Z-12.
I followed B&C's parts list, but when they switched it from a generic Ford regulator
to the LR3C I didn't realize I should have used the Z-12 architecture for
that component. Z-12 doesn't include a fuseable link or crowbar -- should I
take those out? I put the LV Warn light back in my design for now like the Z-12
has, but I'm sure the G3X has an input for that, so a stand-alone light won't
be required. I'll also have to figure out if I still need the Lo Volt Warn
CB in that arrangement.
> One fuselink provides protection for everything downstream of it.
> A second fuselink is not required. All the second one does is make
> an unnecessary failure point.
That makes sense now, thanks!
> The maximum of 6" rule of thumb for unprotected wires is not cast
> in stone. It all depends on what dangers the wire is exposed to.
I updated my design this morning, and removed the second fuseable link.
> Circuit breakers are mechanical devices that take time to operate.
> That time could be longer than it takes a smaller fuse to blow. A larger
> fuse will be slower to blow in case of the over-voltage module shorting out.
> The aux alternator fuse protects the battery. It will not hurt to use a 30
> amp fuse. Z-13/8 uses a 20awg fuselink which will probably carry more
> than 30 amps before the wire melts. The aux alternator output is self
> current limiting and will never exceed 10 amps or so.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479262#479262
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
Well, the 1st issue is establishing what Mark meant when he mentioned that
10.6V limit. Because unless he's using a truly massively oversized battery,
it will *always* drop below 10.6V during cranking. That's why old Kettering
ignition (points & condenser) cars had ballast resistors in series with
their points. The points actually run on around 6-8 volts, and resistor
gets switched out of the circuit during cranking because of the battery
voltage drop due to cranking loads. Dropping down around 10V (sometimes
even lower) is fairly common during starting. Look back through the
archives for all the complaints about EFISs rebooting while cranking the
engine.
So....I'm betting that Mark meant he's measuring 10.6V *after* 15 seconds
of cranking, but with no/minimal load on the battery. Now, go back to the
Corvette/Chevette example. If you accelerate the Corvette for 15 seconds,
it'll still have 400 HP, but you may only have 3 seconds of capacity (gas)
left.
Mark's test is even less valid if one has chosen a Lithium chemistry
battery; their voltage has much less decline until it 'falls off the cliff'
at full discharge.
The real test is monitoring *how long* voltage remains above the voltage
that indicates complete discharge (which is around 10.5 V), while the
typical load from the plane's required (endurance bus) electronics is
applied.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Charlie, It seems to me that your response does not address that the test
> involves monitoring the voltage drop that occurs when the consistent load
> is applied. The test is not simply, "will the battery spin the prop." The
> test is, "what is the voltage drop caused by spinning the prop."
>
> It seems to me that if the voltage drops down further on a worn out
> battery than it does on a fresh battery, there is at least the possibilit
y
> that this test could be quite useful. It does not seem to me that the
> simple fact the battery "can be down 50% capacity and still reliably cran
k
> the engine" is germane to whether or not monitoring voltage under a
> consistent load (in this case spinning the propeller for a specific time)
> can be useful as a way to determine whether or not it is time to replace
a
> battery.
>
> I'm not saying that the spin-the-prop-and-monitor-voltage test is valid.
> But it seems to me like it might be. I just can't see where simply notin
g
> that a depleted battery can still spin a prop says anything about the
> usefulness of such a test. Sorry, but I just can't seem to make that
> connection. Probably I am a little bit dense :) -- it wouldn't be the fir
st
> time.
>
> In evaluating the suggested test, as a starting point I would like to kno
w
> if the voltage drop would be significantly different on a new vs a worn o
ut
> battery. If the answer is no, the drop would be about the same, then case
> closed. Test invalid. But if it turns out the voltage drop is significant
ly
> greater on a worn out battery, then I think there is reason to believe th
at
> the test might be useful.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 20:04 Charlie England wrote:
>
>> If the only use for the battery is starting, then it's a valid test. But
>> if the battery is backup electrical power for the alternator and you nee
d
>> electrical power to keep the flight safe to its conclusion, then it isn'
t a
>> valid test.
>>
>> It can be down to 50% capacity & still reliably crank the engine. But if
>> the alternator dies and you need the battery to keep the engine running
>> (electronic ignition, glass panel in IFR, etc), then you'd only have hal
f
>> or less the time you thought you'd have, based on the battery's rated
>> capacity.
>>
>> It's the difference between power and energy. 400 HP Corvette with 1/2
>> gallon of gas, vs 80 HP Chevette with 15 gallons.
>>
>> That help?
>>
>> On 4/10/2018 10:06 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
>> starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage dr
op
>> would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but i
f
>> done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than do
ing
>> nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
>> battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
>> rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
>> that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand n
ew
>> battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
>> Enlighten!
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that
>>> might not be the most reliable test.
>>>
>>> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>>>
>>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixtur
e
>>> pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15
>>> seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the batte
ry
>>> is good. If not charge the battery and test again.
>>> Mark Moyle
>>> Platinum Alaska
>>>
>>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Rene
<
>>> rene(at)felker.com>
>>> Reply-To:
>>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>>
>>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
>>> Batteries +.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
>>> 10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures
.one
>>> self induced and the other was infant mortality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rene'
>>>
>>> 801-721-6080
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
>>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>>
>>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>>
>>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test
a
>>> battery!
>>>
>>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So
,
>>> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
>>> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and di
d
>>> not build.
>>>
>>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>>
>>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>>
>>> Or...
>>>
>>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>>
>>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC
=B9you can apply that
>>> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start
the
>>> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed
the
>>> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).
=C3=82 With
>>> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
>>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery
- a small
>>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>>
>>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>>
>>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>>> loss of one alternator.
>>>
>>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>>> home hangar.
>>>
>>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>>> battery.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Virus-fr
ee.
>>> www.avast.com
>>>
>>> <#m_-6378004472635657997_m_-615151073569806401_m_-960492680129280463_m_
6581499881476749600_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com> |
| Subject: | Car clock in an aircraft |
Hm. If it works without being wired in, why not just leave it powered
by the button cell batteries? Seems like a "non-essential" item to me,
and I would hate for there to be ANY possibility it might drain the
battery over time.
Jim Parker
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Car clock in an aircraft
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2018 4:40 pm
To the electrowizzards in this list.
(This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on
this)
I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with
temperature indication, to install in the back of my RV-10, as a
courtesy to the rear passengers. (please avoid any comments on this
decision... :-)).
As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with
the clock, doesnt have any information about the electric circuit, so
Im in the guess field here.
This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has
2 of those coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a
backup to the ships power.
But Im not sure...
This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power
cable.
Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft
Master switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft
battery?
Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master
is Off, the clocks coin batteries will be powering the clock and only
a very tiny current will be draining from the always hot bus, not
depleting the aircrafts battery?
Even knowing that without information on the clocks electric circuit
it is difficult to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
Thanks Charlie.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Charlie England
wrote:
> Well, the 1st issue is establishing what Mark meant when he mentioned tha
t
> 10.6V limit. Because unless he's using a truly massively oversized batter
y,
> it will *always* drop below 10.6V during cranking. That's why old Ketteri
ng
> ignition (points & condenser) cars had ballast resistors in series with
> their points. The points actually run on around 6-8 volts, and resistor
> gets switched out of the circuit during cranking because of the battery
> voltage drop due to cranking loads. Dropping down around 10V (sometimes
> even lower) is fairly common during starting. Look back through the
> archives for all the complaints about EFISs rebooting while cranking the
> engine.
>
> So....I'm betting that Mark meant he's measuring 10.6V *after* 15 seconds
> of cranking, but with no/minimal load on the battery. Now, go back to the
> Corvette/Chevette example. If you accelerate the Corvette for 15 seconds,
> it'll still have 400 HP, but you may only have 3 seconds of capacity (gas
)
> left.
>
> Mark's test is even less valid if one has chosen a Lithium chemistry
> battery; their voltage has much less decline until it 'falls off the clif
f'
> at full discharge.
>
> The real test is monitoring *how long* voltage remains above the voltage
> that indicates complete discharge (which is around 10.5 V), while the
> typical load from the plane's required (endurance bus) electronics is
> applied.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> Charlie, It seems to me that your response does not address that the tes
t
>> involves monitoring the voltage drop that occurs when the consistent loa
d
>> is applied. The test is not simply, "will the battery spin the prop." Th
e
>> test is, "what is the voltage drop caused by spinning the prop."
>>
>> It seems to me that if the voltage drops down further on a worn out
>> battery than it does on a fresh battery, there is at least the possibili
ty
>> that this test could be quite useful. It does not seem to me that the
>> simple fact the battery "can be down 50% capacity and still reliably cra
nk
>> the engine" is germane to whether or not monitoring voltage under a
>> consistent load (in this case spinning the propeller for a specific time
)
>> can be useful as a way to determine whether or not it is time to replace
a
>> battery.
>>
>> I'm not saying that the spin-the-prop-and-monitor-voltage test is valid.
>> But it seems to me like it might be. I just can't see where simply noti
ng
>> that a depleted battery can still spin a prop says anything about the
>> usefulness of such a test. Sorry, but I just can't seem to make that
>> connection. Probably I am a little bit dense :) -- it wouldn't be the fi
rst
>> time.
>>
>> In evaluating the suggested test, as a starting point I would like to
>> know if the voltage drop would be significantly different on a new vs a
>> worn out battery. If the answer is no, the drop would be about the same,
>> then case closed. Test invalid. But if it turns out the voltage drop is
>> significantly greater on a worn out battery, then I think there is reaso
n
>> to believe that the test might be useful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 20:04 Charlie England wrote
:
>>
>>> If the only use for the battery is starting, then it's a valid test. Bu
t
>>> if the battery is backup electrical power for the alternator and you ne
ed
>>> electrical power to keep the flight safe to its conclusion, then it isn
't a
>>> valid test.
>>>
>>> It can be down to 50% capacity & still reliably crank the engine. But i
f
>>> the alternator dies and you need the battery to keep the engine running
>>> (electronic ignition, glass panel in IFR, etc), then you'd only have ha
lf
>>> or less the time you thought you'd have, based on the battery's rated
>>> capacity.
>>>
>>> It's the difference between power and energy. 400 HP Corvette with 1/2
>>> gallon of gas, vs 80 HP Chevette with 15 gallons.
>>>
>>> That help?
>>>
>>> On 4/10/2018 10:06 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning th
e
>>> starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage d
rop
>>> would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but
if
>>> done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than d
oing
>>> nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
>>> battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such
a
>>> rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you sayin
g
>>> that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand
new
>>> battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
>>> Enlighten!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that
>>>> might not be the most reliable test.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixtu
re
>>>> pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 1
5
>>>> seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the batt
ery
>>>> is good. If not charge the battery and test again.
>>>> Mark Moyle
>>>> Platinum Alaska
>>>>
>>>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Rene
>>>>
>>>> Reply-To:
>>>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>>>> To:
>>>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>>>
>>>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested a
t
>>>> Batteries +.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
>>>> 10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures
.one
>>>> self induced and the other was infant mortality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rene'
>>>>
>>>> 801-721-6080
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
>>>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>>>
>>>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>>>
>>>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test
>>>> a battery!
>>>>
>>>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders.
>>>> So, if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt
that
>>>> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and d
id
>>>> not build.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>>>
>>>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>>>
>>>> Or...
>>>>
>>>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>>>
>>>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>>>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC
=B9you can apply that
>>>> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to star
t the
>>>> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installe
d the
>>>> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).
=C3=82 With
>>>> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>>>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or
2 AH
>>>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery
- a small
>>>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>>>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>>>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>>>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>>>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>>>
>>>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>>>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>>>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>>>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>>>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>>>> loss of one alternator.
>>>>
>>>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>>>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>>>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>>>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>>>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>>>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>>>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>>>> home hangar.
>>>>
>>>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>>>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>>>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>>>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>>>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>>>> battery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Virus-f
ree.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>
>>>> <#m_-3808612535981414965_m_-6378004472635657997_m_-615151073569806401_
m_-960492680129280463_m_6581499881476749600_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F
9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
At 06:14 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>Let's get a show of hands...
>How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
not load . . . capacity
>I can't get owners to check their tires and you
>want them to load test a battery!
That's a separate issue. Lots of folks
fail to take their drugs as prescribed.
>Granted!=C2 This is a aero-electric email list
>and many are builders.=C2 So, if there are
>fellows out there that do have a load tester I
>doubt that would cover the rest of the BUYERS
>that only purchased the plane and did not build.
I don't design systems for marketability.
I strive for failure tolerance and
risk reduction.
>What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>Or...
>'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
If you've got an e-bus, then a cap test
is easy. While doing other things on the
airplane, set the cockpit up for endurance
mode and see if the battery will run your
electro-whizzies for at least 75 percent
of time as when the battery was new.
Failure to honor critical axioms in aviation
present increased risks . . . you have to
make sure that fuel aboard is MORE than
sufficient to the mission. Some builders
with e-bus structures will size the battery
and endurance mode operations such that
electrical capacity exceeds fuel capacity.
The point being offered is that an electrical
system can be configured and used in a manner
that makes an electrical emergency exceedingly
unlikely. I try to remind people that when
'standby' equipment is being installed, it comes
with cost, weight and maintenance issues.
Therefore, is it not useful to consider ways that
standby equipment becomes smaller, lighter, less
expensive and/or more efficient . . . if not
eliminated all together? If one is unwilling to
put a dip-stick into the energy contained in the
ship's main battery . . . how is a standby battery
going to be treated any differently?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Car clock in an aircraft |
At 09:26 AM 4/11/2018, you wrote:
>
>Hm. If it works without being wired in, why not just leave it powered
>by the button cell batteries? Seems like a "non-essential" item to me,
>and I would hate for there to be ANY possibility it might drain the
>battery over time.
If any accessory powered internally by a 'button cell'
is fitted with an external power connection, I would
wonder if external power isn't just for lighting.
Button cell capacities are very low . . . digital
devices that use them will have current drains
measured in microamps. If the external power does
indeed supplement the internal battery, then drain
on that lead will be insignificant with respect to
energy stored in the ship's battery. Similarly,
electric clocks in car's used to be powered directly
from the battery with no significant impact on
the system's availability.
If the external lead is to power panel illumination,
then consumption will be much higher . . . but
probably independent of electronics. Hence needs
voltage only while the airplane is powered up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
>
>I followed B&C's parts list, but when they switched it from a
>generic Ford regulator to the LR3C I didn't realize I should have
>used the Z-12 architecture for that component. Z-12 doesn't include
>a fuseable link or crowbar -- should I take those out?
The ovm14 can come out, that's built into the LR3.
If your using a fused bus, then the fusible link
and remotely located field breaker stays in.
> I put the LV Warn light back in my design for now like the Z-12
> has, but I'm sure the G3X has an input for that, so a stand-alone
> light won't be required.
the G3x has its own low voltage sense, resolution
and display feature. If you don't wish to use the
separate light featured in the LR3C installation,
just leave that terminal unused.
> I'll also have to figure out if I still need the Lo Volt Warn CB
> in that arrangement.
YES! that is your bus voltage sense lead.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
Bob, thanks for reiterating the difference between a load test and a
capacity test. Is there any possibility of gaining insight into a battery's
capacity by studying the results of load testing?
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:14 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>
>
> not load . . . capacity
>
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
> battery!
>
>
> That's a separate issue. Lots of folks
> fail to take their drugs as prescribed.
>
> Granted!=C3=82 This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders.
=C3=82 So,
> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
> not build.
>
>
> I don't design systems for marketability.
> I strive for failure tolerance and
> risk reduction.
>
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
> Or...
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
>
> If you've got an e-bus, then a cap test
> is easy. While doing other things on the
> airplane, set the cockpit up for endurance
> mode and see if the battery will run your
> electro-whizzies for at least 75 percent
> of time as when the battery was new.
>
> Failure to honor critical axioms in aviation
> present increased risks . . . you have to
> make sure that fuel aboard is MORE than
> sufficient to the mission. Some builders
> with e-bus structures will size the battery
> and endurance mode operations such that
> electrical capacity exceeds fuel capacity.
>
> The point being offered is that an electrical
> system can be configured and used in a manner
> that makes an electrical emergency exceedingly
> unlikely. I try to remind people that when
> 'standby' equipment is being installed, it comes
> with cost, weight and maintenance issues.
>
> Therefore, is it not useful to consider ways that
> standby equipment becomes smaller, lighter, less
> expensive and/or more efficient . . . if not
> eliminated all together? If one is unwilling to
> put a dip-stick into the energy contained in the
> ship's main battery . . . how is a standby battery
> going to be treated any differently?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
>
>So....I'm betting that Mark meant he's measuring
>10.6V *after* 15 seconds of cranking, but with
>no/minimal load on the battery. Now, go back to
>the Corvette/Chevette example. If you accelerate
>the Corvette for 15 seconds, it'll still have
>400 HP, but you may only have 3 seconds of capacity (gas) left.=C2
The legacy LOAD TEST is an artifact carried
over from the automotive world. Automotive
load testers have a built in 15 second timer
that drives a light or perhaps a beeper.
Emacs!
Emacs!
Emacs!
When testing a battery, one starts the timer and then
cranks up the load knob to depress and hold voltage
at 9.0 volts. At the end of 15 seconds, you get a light
or a beep whereupon you read the current being delivered.
This is a 'cranking amps' kind of current and a figure of
merit for battery's suitability for continued service.
>Mark's test is even less valid if one has chosen
>a Lithium chemistry battery; their voltage has
>much less decline until it 'falls off the cliff' at full discharge.
Absolutely. The legacy lead-acid load test is
not applicable to lithium.
>The real test is monitoring *how long* voltage
>remains above the voltage that indicates
>complete discharge (which is around 10.5 V),
>while the typical load from the plane's required
>(endurance bus) electronics is applied.
Exactly. The load test numbers can give you a rough
idea of how the battery has degraded over time . . .
and tells you whether or not it will get your
engine going. But 8ut says NOTHING about capacity . . .
i.e. an ability to power ENDURANCE loads for the interval
you have established with design goals.
When the e-bus first appeared in OBAM aircraft,
a recommended design goal was to have electrical
endurance exceed fuel endurance. Obviously,
not a hard-n-fast rule but what every number
the builder chooses, it's really a pretty cool
thing to VERIFY that the number can be achieved.
There's a secondary benefit for replacing a
battery that fails to meet endurance requirements . . .
it's probably going to be replaced before its
cranking ability is seriously compromised. Hence,
exceedingly low probability of an off-home-base failure
of the battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
At 02:12 PM 4/11/2018, you wrote:
>Bob, thanks for reiterating the difference between a load test and a
>capacity test. Is there any possibility of gaining insight into a
>battery's capacity by studying the results of load testing?
Only very roughly . . . even then it's
something that needs to be conducted pretty
often and results TRACKED with time.
I've not conducted such testing so I
can't offer even a rough correlation
of capacity vs. load-test. But
I'm guessing it is roughly proportional.
If your brand new battery tested at
say 600A, then it's probably reaching
end of life when the load test falls to
400A . . . even tho it still cranks
the engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Car clock in an aircraft |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Typically, Real Time Clock ICs will have two power input pins, a primary and a
backup. For example, see the MCP7940N datasheet...
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/20005010F.pdf
...where you'll see that Pin 4 is for normal operating supply and Pin 3 is for
battery backup. Generally speaking, the battery is there only to keep timekeeping
underway if primary power is lost. It's not uncommon for all other functions
of the clock -- including time display -- to cease functioning when using
battery backup.
So, chances are good that if you power your automotive clock from a switched bus,
the coin cell will keep the clock accurate when the bus is turned off. You'll
know it's time to replace it when the clock doesn't keep time properly between
flights.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479280#479280
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | Mark Moyle <moylemc(at)gmail.com> |
>> 10.6V *after* 15 seconds of cranking, but with no/minimal load on the bat
tery
Nope, The starter is the battery load tester. Continuously measure the vo
ltage while the starter is engaged. If the voltage drops below 10.6 volts w
hile cranking the battery needs to be charged and tested again. A health ba
ttery will return to 12 +volts after opening the starting circuit. Another p
iece of test gear is a an amp meter with amp shut between the negative termi
nal and battery post... (which I like better than the amp probe I use with t
he fluke 87) to test the health of the starter...say the load spikes to 250 a
mps to overcome the inertial mass of the rotating parts then drops to 125-15
0 amps...starter tests good.
The only other charging system health test is charging voltage... automotive
standards were 13.6 to 14.8 VDC...aircraft with solid state voltage regulat
or is 14.1 volts...I think.
Sent from my iPad
> On 11 Apr 2018, at 11:46 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So....I'm betting that Mark meant he's measuring 10.6V *after* 15 seconds
of cranking, but with no/minimal load on the battery. Now, go back to the C
orvette/Chevette example. If you accelerate the Corvette for 15 seconds, it'
ll still have 400 HP, but you may only have 3 seconds of capacity (gas) left
.=C3=82
>
> The legacy LOAD TEST is an artifact carried
> over from the automotive world. Automotive
> load testers have a built in 15 second timer
> that drives a light or perhaps a beeper.
>
> <27063fc.jpg>
>
>
> <270642b.jpg> <270643b.jpg>
>
>
> When testing a battery, one starts the timer and then
> cranks up the load knob to depress and hold voltage
> at 9.0 volts. At the end of 15 seconds, you get a light
> or a beep whereupon you read the current being delivered.
>
> This is a 'cranking amps' kind of current and a figure of
> merit for battery's suitability for continued service.
>
>> Mark's test is even less valid if one has chosen a Lithium chemistry batt
ery; their voltage has much less decline until it 'falls off the cliff' at f
ull discharge.
>
> Absolutely. The legacy lead-acid load test is
> not applicable to lithium.
>
>
>> The real test is monitoring *how long* voltage remains above the voltage t
hat indicates complete discharge (which is around 10.5 V), while the typical
load from the plane's required (endurance bus) electronics is applied.
>
> Exactly. The load test numbers can give you a rough
> idea of how the battery has degraded over time . . .
> and tells you whether or not it will get your
> engine going. But 8ut says NOTHING about capacity . . .
> i.e. an ability to power ENDURANCE loads for the interval
> you have established with design goals.
>
> When the e-bus first appeared in OBAM aircraft,
> a recommended design goal was to have electrical
> endurance exceed fuel endurance. Obviously,
> not a hard-n-fast rule but what every number
> the builder chooses, it's really a pretty cool
> thing to VERIFY that the number can be achieved.
>
> There's a secondary benefit for replacing a
> battery that fails to meet endurance requirements . . .
> it's probably going to be replaced before its
> cranking ability is seriously compromised. Hence,
> exceedingly low probability of an off-home-base failure
> of the battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | "N884RA" <n884ra(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the corrections.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> The ovm14 can come out, that's built into the LR3.
Okay, thanks. I've corrected that in the latest version.
> If your using a fused bus, then the fusible link
> and remotely located field breaker stays in.
Just to make sure I'm following -- I'm placing the Alt Fld CB on a bus bar along
with three other CBs (Main Bus 2). In this case I don't need the fusible link,
correct? I've kept the fusible link between Main Bus 1 (fuses) and Main Bus
2 (CBs) because the distance is about 18".
> The G3X has its own low voltage sense, resolution
> and display feature. If you don't wish to use the
> separate light featured in the LR3C installation,
> just leave that terminal unused.
>
> YES! that is your bus voltage sense lead.
Thanks -- I removed the light and I'll use the G3X annunciator for LV, but I left
the terminal 3 feed with the 2A CB.
Bob . . .[/quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479282#479282
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
At 03:30 PM 4/11/2018, you wrote:
>>>10.6V *after* 15 seconds of cranking, but with no/minimal load on
>>>the battery
>Nope, The starter is the battery load tester. Continuously
>measure the voltage while the starter is engaged. If the voltage
>drops below 10.6 volts while cranking the battery needs to be
>charged and tested again. A health battery will return to 12 +volts
>after opening the starting circuit. Another piece of test gear is a
>an amp meter with amp shut between the negative terminal and battery
>post... (which I like better than the amp probe I use with the fluke
>87) to test the health of the starter...say the load spikes to 250
>amps to overcome the inertial mass of the rotating parts then drops
>to 125-150 amps...starter tests good.
>The only other charging system health test is charging voltage...
>automotive standards were 13.6 to 14.8 VDC...aircraft with solid
>state voltage regulator is 14.1 volts...I think.
Meaningful data confirming battery condition
is hard to come by. Variation in starter draw
due to the modulated torque loads presented
by reciprocating pistons produces a wildly
unstable value on an analog meter . . . and
can drive many digital displays nuts.
I've done energy demand studies using fast
data acquisition systems that sample several
hundred times per second combined with
'integration by parts' software that
yields very stable numbers.
But just as in most vehicles, a flagging starter
battery will make it's condition known because
of how it sounds . . . and the bottom line for
cranking demands only that the engine got going
yet one more time.
A battery that's demonstrating decreased
starter performance may already have sagged
below the ca[acotu for continued service as set by
design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
Anecdotally:
I replaced the 60Ah battery of the Ford Mondeo in preparation for a
skiing trip.
It wouldn't take more than an 18 Ah charge from empty. It still cranked
fine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
| Subject: | Diy AOA, anyone ? |
Hi all,
One of my building buddies just challenged me concerning the following
Pitot angle of attack (AOA) device
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1121786
Of course 3D printing the device is the easiest part. But does anyone
here happen to have implemented, programmed, etc. an AOA indicator, and
with what success ?
BTW, some years ago I had the opportunity to make a study for such a
device based on differential pressure between upper and lower wing
surface. At the time the study involved a University wind tunnel,
hotwire profiles, several students, but nowadays my approach needs to be
much much "lower tech" as I no longer have access to such facilities.
Thanks for your inputs,
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging Issue |
Matt:
How is a crack in a feed-through causing a voltage drop?
If it was shorting out a CB would pop.
You did not give p/n so I do not know if it is a grommet feed through or a
terminal type feed through.
If it was a grommet, that would also mean the insulation on the wire failed.
If it is a terminal type a simple thing like a poor connection could be
causing the problem.
Without seeing the setup I am assuming (I hate that word) that all is well
with:
Connections
Connectors
Crimps
and Materials.
RULE: You can not tell if there is corrosion on a connection unless you
open the connection and clean the contact areas. Also, replace the Lock
Washers with Star Lock Washers. Replace them every time you undo the
connection. The lock washers have to cut into the faces of the mating
surfaces.
Alternator Noise is fairly easy to solve.
I say 'fairly easy' because I do not know your wiring.
I use 25,000 uF @ 16 WVDC Electrolytic Caps. <-- Only because I have a box
full of them and they work. If you want to go bigger... Have at it!
'It's all good baby!'
Positive to the hot lead. Negative to Ground.
Put in very close to the B+ output of the Alternator.
Keep the leads as short as possible.
Second location for the same size Cap.
At the ACU. Between the 'A' lead [the lead coming from alternator B+ to
the ACU].
Again, keep the leads as short as possible.
DO NOT STRAIN THE WIRES.
Many alternators use a automotive looking/type Cap that has only one lead
which goes to the B+ and the body of the Cap is mounted to ground. If you
purchase this type of Cap from the auto store. <-- The value is no where
near that of the electrolytic. It handles a different frequency.
1 - Make sure the mounting tab/clamp is WELDED to the body of the Cap.
2 - The mounting hole is a HOLE! Not 'U' cutout.
This makes mounting extremely easy and pretty much eliminates the Cap from
coming loose.
If you have access to a O Scope you can hook it up to each of the wires:
B+
Field
Ground
And see exactly which wire is carrying the noise AND what frequency it is.
When even ONE diode in the alternators diode pack fails the noise becomes
present.
If that is the case you will hear the noise change in frequency as the
engine is increased and decreased in RPM. It may even change in amplitude.
If that is what you are seeing (O Scope) and hearing (Headset), then the
Caps will decrease the problem but NOT eliminate it. Repair/Replace the
alternator.
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:48 PM, mhealydds wrote:
>
> I was the original poster and found my issue. I had a cracked firewall
> passthrough fitting (it was Blue Sea fitting a lot of other RV-10 user
> reported using). Anyway, it was in a spot not easy to inspect and never
> thought about it being cracked, just he connections on the fitting. Now a
> have a bad alternator noise I have thing to track down. Anyone dealt with
> that?
>
> Matt
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479250#479250
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
| From: | "andymeyer" <meyerkc135(at)gmail.com> |
I am about to embark on such a device...
I do have a few sensors that I'm exploring -
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/NXP/MPXV5004DP/?qs=r8OyiFxb6Rd0SEc8C8FTtQ%3D%3D&gclid=Cj0KCQjwqsHWBRDsARIsALPWMEPR9lBEDtFAgUCnJAyuzfox0BoKwWSAPuJzr-_TL6mzXtmxLWp3dcMaAjfiEALw_wcB
Looks pretty dang close for the pressure sensing. Do you know how much deltaP we
are expecting at sub 200 knots indicated based on your previous work?
I've got to finish my airspeed sensing for my engine monitor / air data computer
first, then on to AOA.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479302#479302
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
Hi Andy:
I worked on an RV6A which had this AOA unit:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/aoasportsystemaluminum.php?clickkey=5477
It required and used sensing holes on the top and bottom of the wing.
Maybe... If you give them a call... NOT ACS! They maybe able to answer
the question.
Barry
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:34 AM, andymeyer wrote:
> >
>
> I am about to embark on such a device...
> I do have a few sensors that I'm exploring -
> https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/NXP/MPXV5004DP/?
> qs=r8OyiFxb6Rd0SEc8C8FTtQ%3D%3D&gclid=Cj0KCQjwqsHWBRDsARIsALPWMEPR9l
> BEDtFAgUCnJAyuzfox0BoKwWSAPuJzr-_TL6mzXtmxLWp3dcMaAjfiEALw_wcB
> Looks pretty dang close for the pressure sensing. Do you know how much
> deltaP we are expecting at sub 200 knots indicated based on your previous
> work?
>
> I've got to finish my airspeed sensing for my engine monitor / air data
> computer first, then on to AOA.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479302#479302
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Car clock in an aircraft |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Agreed. And if it's needed, don't put it on an always-on bus. I had
this situation with an earlier GRT unit that had an internal clock that
required an always-on connection. Actually I had 3 units... the
combined drain slowly but surely killed my AGM battery. They don't like
that kind of treatment (there's slightly more to the story).
But I would say "don't connect anything to always-on unless critical...
then question why that product is in your plane".
On 4/11/2018 10:26 AM, jim(at)poogiebearranch.com wrote:
>
> Hm. If it works without being wired in, why not just leave it powered
> by the button cell batteries? Seems like a "non-essential" item to me,
> and I would hate for there to be ANY possibility it might drain the
> battery over time.
>
> Jim Parker
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Car clock in an aircraft
> From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
> Date: Tue, April 10, 2018 4:40 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
> To the electrowizzards in this list.
> (This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on
> this)
>
> I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with
> temperature indication, to install in the back of my RV-10, as a
> courtesy to the rear passengers. (please avoid any comments on this
> decision... :-)).
> As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with
> the clock, doesnt have any information about the electric circuit, so
> Im in the guess field here.
>
> This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has
> 2 of those coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a
> backup to the ships power.
> But Im not sure...
>
> This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power
> cable.
> Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft
> Master switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft
> battery?
> Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master
> is Off, the clocks coin batteries will be powering the clock and only
> a very tiny current will be draining from the always hot bus, not
> depleting the aircrafts battery?
>
> Even knowing that without information on the clocks electric circuit
> it is difficult to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
I cut the corner off a piece of 1/2" plate of aluminum. =C2-With it orien
ted so the 90 degree angle is at the top right, I drilled a 1/4" hole halfw
ay through from the top, and a 1/16" hole from the left that intersected wi
th the 1/4" hole. =C2-I got the "homebuilder's pitot/static" from ACS.
=C2-It's the one with two pieces of 1/4" tube tack welded into a base.
=C2-I drilled a 1/4" hole through the base behind the others, then ran a
8" or so length of 1/4" tube through it and into the top of the triangle.
=C2-Situated it so that the triangle touched the bottom of the previous t
ubes, then buried the assembly in a peanut butter thick mix of micro. =C2
-Let it set, sanded it to an "airfoilish" shape, and wrapped it in a 9oz
layer of glass.
Works fine with my Dynon-100 AoA.
On Thursday, April 12, 2018 11:17 PM, GTH wrote
:
Hi all,
One of my building buddies just challenged me concerning the following
Pitot angle of attack (AOA) device
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1121786
Of course 3D printing the device is the easiest part. But does anyone
here happen to have implemented, programmed, etc. an AOA indicator, and
with what success ?
BTW, some years ago I had the opportunity to make a study for such a
device based on differential pressure between upper and lower wing
surface. At the time the study involved a University wind tunnel,
hotwire profiles, several students, but nowadays my approach needs to be
much much "lower tech" as I no longer have access to such facilities.
Thanks for your inputs,
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
An AOA probe can be made using only a single pop rivet with the mandrel removed.
Connect the rivet to the AOA sensor with Tygon tubing. The sensor will compare
the pressure differential between the pitot tube and the AOA port (pop rivet).
Vans Aircraft uses this rivet probe in the latest version (iS) of their
RV-12. The picture shows where I located the AOA rivet port in my wing. I drilled
the rivet hole at the point where the 30 degree line is tangent to the
wing. Although Van's tested different locations and determined that the optimum
location is slightly farther down and and aft. Exactly where, I do not know.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479309#479309
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/angle_167.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
Joe:
Guessing: But, probably 3 hole diameters behind the high point (Max
profile) of the wings profile. Three diameters is a negative pressure
point in open end resonance.
Barry
Although Van's tested different locations and determined that the optimum
> location is slightly farther down and and aft. Exactly where, I do not
> know.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479309#479309
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/angle_167.gif
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
How is =9Coptimum=9D determined?
You would have to calibrate for different airspeed and AoAs and creative som
e kind of algorithm or lookup table, regardless of location, no?
On Apr 13, 2018, at 10:23, FLYaDIVE wrote:
Joe:
Guessing: But, probably 3 hole diameters behind the high point (Max profile
) of the wings profile. Three diameters is a negative pressure point in ope
n end resonance.
Barry
> Although Van's tested different locations and determined that the optimum
location is slightly farther down and and aft. Exactly where, I do not kno
w.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479309#479309
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/angle_167.gif
>
>
>
> =========================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> =========================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> =========================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> =========================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> =========================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
Hey Joe,
Thanks for providing a KISS solution for a change!
No disrespect intended to any lister, but sometimes it seems (to this
neophyte anyway) that the more complicated the solution, the better it is
deemed?
Best...
Bob Verwey
082 331 2727
On 13 April 2018 at 16:10, user9253 wrote:
>
> An AOA probe can be made using only a single pop rivet with the mandrel
> removed. Connect the rivet to the AOA sensor with Tygon tubing. The
> sensor will compare the pressure differential between the pitot tube and
> the AOA port (pop rivet). Vans Aircraft uses this rivet probe in the
> latest version (iS) of their RV-12. The picture shows where I located the
> AOA rivet port in my wing. I drilled the rivet hole at the point where the
> 30 degree line is tangent to the wing. Although Van's tested different
> locations and determined that the optimum location is slightly farther down
> and and aft. Exactly where, I do not know.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479309#479309
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/angle_167.gif
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a link to the VansAirforce thread about AOA in the RV-12.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=34040
I do not know where is the optimum point to measure air pressure. All I know
is that I looked at the angle on Dynon's AOA probe and thought that 30 degrees
looked about right. I drilled a hole and hooked up some tubing and it worked.
Several other RV-12 builders followed my lead and they are all happy. When
Van's came out with a new and improved version of the RV-12, they used my idea.
But they did flight testing to determine the best location for the AOA port.
The AOA needs to be calibrated during flight by performing a series of stalls,
with and without flaps. AOA is displayed on the EFIS screen. There is also an
audio indication that starts out as tone pulses. As stall approaches, the tone
pulses get closer and closer together until at stall, there is one solid tone.
A stall can occur at any airspeed depending on wing loading. A heavily load
aircraft in a steep turn will stall at a much higher airspeed then when the plane
is lightly loaded and flying straight. That is why many planes have stalled
and crashed while in a traffic pattern. The pilot keeps the airspeed where
he normally does, not taking into consideration the higher wing loading in a
steep turn. A wing will always stall at the same AOA, regardless of wing loading.
Now that I have AOA, I use that instead of airspeed. The FAA should mandate
AOA and eliminate the requirement for airspeed indicators.
OK, I am ready to be flamed. LOL
For aircraft without an EFIS, a Dwyer Minihelic II 2-5002 Differential Pressure
Gauge, Range 0-2.0"WC might work for a display, although I have never tried it.
I would also add an audio pulsing tone.
To andymeyer, I think the pressure differential for AOA is about 2" of water.
0.57psi converts to 15.7 inches of water.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479319#479319
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
i use the airspeed indicator as an AoA indicator - you just have to mentally adjust
the scale for weight and load factor. A bit like those airspeed indicators
that have a sliding scale for true airspeed. My airspeed indicator has a sliding
scale (in my head) for AoA.
On Apr 13, 2018, at 15:18, user9253 wrote:
Here is a link to the VansAirforce thread about AOA in the RV-12.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=34040
I do not know where is the optimum point to measure air pressure. All I know is
that I looked at the angle on Dynon's AOA probe and thought that 30 degrees
looked about right. I drilled a hole and hooked up some tubing and it worked.
Several other RV-12 builders followed my lead and they are all happy. When
Van's came out with a new and improved version of the RV-12, they used my idea.
But they did flight testing to determine the best location for the AOA port.
The AOA needs to be calibrated during flight by performing a series of stalls,
with and without flaps. AOA is displayed on the EFIS screen. There is also an
audio indication that starts out as tone pulses. As stall approaches, the tone
pulses get closer and closer together until at stall, there is one solid tone.
A stall can occur at any airspeed depending on wing loading. A heavily load aircraft
in a steep turn will stall at a much higher airspeed then when the plane
is lightly loaded and flying straight. That is why many planes have stalled
and crashed while in a traffic pattern. The pilot keeps the airspeed where
he normally does, not taking into consideration the higher wing loading in a steep
turn. A wing will always stall at the same AOA, regardless of wing loading.
Now that I have AOA, I use that instead of airspeed. The FAA should mandate
AOA and eliminate the requirement for airspeed indicators.
OK, I am ready to be flamed. LOL
For aircraft without an EFIS, a Dwyer Minihelic II 2-5002 Differential Pressure
Gauge, Range 0-2.0"WC might work for a display, although I have never tried it.
I would also add an audio pulsing tone.
To andymeyer, I think the pressure differential for AOA is about 2" of water.
0.57psi converts to 15.7 inches of water.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479319#479319
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
Here's an article one of the members of EAA Chapter 88 wrote for our
newsletter a few years ago. Seems to be the same idea y'all are talking
about.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> i use the airspeed indicator as an AoA indicator - you just have to
> mentally adjust the scale for weight and load factor. A bit like those
> airspeed indicators that have a sliding scale for true airspeed. My
> airspeed indicator has a sliding scale (in my head) for AoA.
>
> On Apr 13, 2018, at 15:18, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Here is a link to the VansAirforce thread about AOA in the RV-12.
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=34040
> I do not know where is the optimum point to measure air pressure. All I
> know is that I looked at the angle on Dynon's AOA probe and thought that
30
> degrees looked about right. I drilled a hole and hooked up some tubing a
nd
> it worked. Several other RV-12 builders followed my lead and they are al
l
> happy. When Van's came out with a new and improved version of the RV-12,
> they used my idea. But they did flight testing to determine the best
> location for the AOA port.
> The AOA needs to be calibrated during flight by performing a series of
> stalls, with and without flaps. AOA is displayed on the EFIS screen.
> There is also an audio indication that starts out as tone pulses. As sta
ll
> approaches, the tone pulses get closer and closer together until at stall
,
> there is one solid tone.
> A stall can occur at any airspeed depending on wing loading. A heavily
> load aircraft in a steep turn will stall at a much higher airspeed then
> when the plane is lightly loaded and flying straight. That is why many
> planes have stalled and crashed while in a traffic pattern. The pilot
> keeps the airspeed where he normally does, not taking into consideration
> the higher wing loading in a steep turn. A wing will always stall at the
> same AOA, regardless of wing loading. Now that I have AOA, I use that
> instead of airspeed. The FAA should mandate AOA and eliminate the
> requirement for airspeed indicators.
> OK, I am ready to be flamed. LOL
> For aircraft without an EFIS, a Dwyer Minihelic II 2-5002 Differential
> Pressure Gauge, Range 0-2.0"WC might work for a display, although I have
> never tried it. I would also add an audio pulsing tone.
> To andymeyer, I think the pressure differential for AOA is about 2" of
> water. 0.57psi converts to 15.7 inches of water.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479319#479319
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "mmcelrea" <mmcelrea(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi.
On the Z13 design the wire from the contactor to the battery bus is recommended
to be 6" or less. I don't want to put the battery bus on the fwf but on a panel
with the other fuseblocks which will require a significantly longer wire. Is
it acceptable or necessary to protect this wire with a fuse link and if so what
size wire should I use? Max potential load will be about 15 amps.
Does the main bus wire require similar protection? I'm using a 4.5ft length of
6awg for it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479345#479345
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A bit of aviation history worth reviewing |
Bob,
Thanks for that video link. It was very interesting.
Stan Sutterfield
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: A bit of aviation history worth reviewing
https://youtu.be/F4KD5u-xkik
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
At 03:59 PM 4/15/2018, you wrote:
>
>Hi.
>On the Z13 design the wire from the contactor to the battery bus is
>recommended to be 6" or less. I don't want to put the battery bus on
>the fwf but on a panel with the other fuseblocks which will require
>a significantly longer wire. Is it acceptable or necessary to
>protect this wire with a fuse link and if so what size wire should I
>use? Max potential load will be about 15 amps.
A battery bus is located proximal to the battery, else
it's not a battery bus. Fuseblocks on the panel? Why?
When would you EVER find value in fiddling with fuses
or breakers in flight? Have you read . . .
https://goo.gl/ytEfZJ
https://goo.gl/utXVam
https://goo.gl/L6VpN4
>Does the main bus wire require similar protection? I'm using a 4.5ft
>length of 6awg for it.
Study the z-figures . . . no such protection is required
or recommended for crew controlled FAT wires . . . i.e. they
go cold when the master is OFF.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 4/15/2018 5:40 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:59 PM 4/15/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi.
>> On the Z13 design the wire from the contactor to the battery bus is
>> recommended to be 6" or less. I don't want to put the battery bus on
>> the fwf but on a panel with the other fuseblocks which will require a
>> significantly longer wire. Is it acceptable or necessary to protect
>> this wire with a fuse link and if so what size wire should I use? Max
>> potential load will be about 15 amps.
>
> A battery bus is located proximal to the battery, else
> it's not a battery bus. Fuseblocks on the panel? Why?
> When would you EVER find value in fiddling with fuses
> or breakers in flight? Have you read . . .
>
> https://goo.gl/ytEfZJ
>
> https://goo.gl/utXVam
>
> https://goo.gl/L6VpN4
>
>> Does the main bus wire require similar protection? I'm using a 4.5ft
>> length of 6awg for it.
>
> Study the z-figures . . . no such protection is required
> or recommended for crew controlled FAT wires . . . i.e. they
> go cold when the master is OFF.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Hi Bob,
Not to speak for the OP, but....
Note that he says *a* panel; not *the* panel. I can see the wiring logic
in a single firewall penetration wire and multiple feeds on the cold
side of the firewall from that battery bus. Perhaps there's a disconnect
(pardon the pun) in how each of you is defining a 'battery bus'. I can
think of at least one bus I'd want to bypass my master contactor: the
engine bus for an electrically dependent engine that's using automotive
style fuel injection. I fed mine using a fusible link to feed an engine
bus switch, which feeds the engine bus. (With a switched alternate feed
from the main bus.) 15 amps is a safe number for fuel pump, controller,
injectors, coils, etc.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
At 08:52 AM 4/12/2018, you wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>One of my building buddies just challenged me concerning the
>following Pitot angle of attack (AOA) device
>
>https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1121786
>
>Of course 3D printing the device is the easiest part. But does
>anyone here happen to have implemented, programmed, etc. an AOA
>indicator, and with what success ?
>
>BTW, some years ago I had the opportunity to make a study for such a
>device based on differential pressure between upper and lower wing
>surface. At the time the study involved a University wind tunnel,
>hotwire profiles, several students, but nowadays my approach needs
>to be much much "lower tech" as I no longer have access to such facilities.
>
>Thanks for your inputs,
We had some discussions here on the List about
various AOA sensor/display options about 15 years
ago. During and since that time I'd collected some
articles on the topic which I posted here
https://goo.gl/5XdU1y
One of the articles cloned a sensor mast that
was popular with Piper as I recall. Don't recall
the manufacturer off hand.
Emacs!
This probe was mounted under a wing on an inspection
plate. Pretty easy to build. I recall that I offered to carve
one out for a builder . . . but he never took me up on it.
Something I've found quite useful before launching
on any new development effort is to explore history
of the practice. Patents are a useful place to lay foundations
for refining the next generation . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "mmcelrea" <mmcelrea(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi.
I have no intention of messing with cbs or fuses in flight. The fuse blocks are
mounted on a drop down panel between the main and sub panels. I dont want to
mount the battery bus on the firewall but as this will require a longer wire does
it now need protecting?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479352#479352
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Usually the main bus feeder does not have protection other than the ability for
the pilot to shut it off via the battery contactor.
As for the #14 AWG wire connecting the battery to the battery bus, an 18 AWG fuselink
could be used. The 6 inch rule is a rule of thumb, not mandatory. The
longer the wire, the greater the chance of it making sparks which will ignite
gasoline after a forced landing. Protect it well.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479353#479353
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
At 02:47 AM 4/16/2018, you wrote:
>
>Usually the main bus feeder does not have protection other than the
>ability for the pilot to shut it off via the battery contactor.
>As for the #14 AWG wire connecting the battery to the battery bus,
>an 18 AWG fuselink could be used. The 6 inch rule is a rule of
>thumb, not mandatory. The longer the wire, the greater the chance
>of it making sparks which will ignite gasoline after a forced
>landing. Protect it well.
An extended bus feeder calls for
fault protection . . . protection
that needs to be very robust in
comparison with the loads on the
bus (and associated protections).
Since you're using fuses on the extended
bus (MUCH faster than breakers) and
given that this bus is always hot, I
suggest that the feeder be increased
to 10AWG and that it be protected
with a 30A Maxifuse; much faster than
a fusible link in a fault condition
and much more robust than any single
feeder off that bus . . . you don't
want a fault on a single distribution
to open the feeder fuse and take down
the whole bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
In this scenario, is there any reason why an ATC fuse bus (20 slot bandc
type) could not be fed from batt and alt straight into the buss through two
of the faston tabs? (As opposed to the main bolt terminal) Each slot could
have a 30a maxifuse?
Will
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 12:05 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:47 AM 4/16/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> Usually the main bus feeder does not have protection other than the
> ability for the pilot to shut it off via the battery contactor.
> As for the #14 AWG wire connecting the battery to the battery bus, an 18
> AWG fuselink could be used. The 6 inch rule is a rule of thumb, not
> mandatory. The longer the wire, the greater the chance of it making sparks
> which will ignite gasoline after a forced landing. Protect it well.
>
>
> An extended bus feeder calls for
> fault protection . . . protection
> that needs to be very robust in
> comparison with the loads on the
> bus (and associated protections).
>
> Since you're using fuses on the extended
> bus (MUCH faster than breakers) and
> given that this bus is always hot, I
> suggest that the feeder be increased
> to 10AWG and that it be protected
> with a 30A Maxifuse; much faster than
> a fusible link in a fault condition
> and much more robust than any single
> feeder off that bus . . . you don't
> want a fault on a single distribution
> to open the feeder fuse and take down
> the whole bus.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
What's the goal? If you're trying to protect the bus, it's an unneeded
failure point when inserted as a 'master protection device' (detailed in
Bob's earlier linked articles). If protecting the wire, the fuse is on
the wrong end of the wire.
On 4/16/2018 2:40 PM, William Daniell wrote:
> In this scenario, is there any reason why an ATC fuse bus (20 slot
> bandc type) could not be fed from batt and alt straight into the buss
> through two of the faston tabs? (As opposed to the main bolt
> terminal) Each slot could have a 30a maxifuse?
>
> Will
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 12:05 Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 02:47 AM 4/16/2018, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Usually the main bus feeder does not have protection other than
>> the ability for the pilot to shut it off via the battery contactor.
>> As for the #14 AWG wire connecting the battery to the battery
>> bus, an 18 AWG fuselink could be used. The 6 inch rule is a rule
>> of thumb, not mandatory. The longer the wire, the greater the
>> chance of it making sparks which will ignite gasoline after a
>> forced landing. Protect it well.
>
> An extended bus feeder calls for
> fault protection . . . protection
> that needs to be very robust in
> comparison with the loads on the
> bus (and associated protections).
>
> Since you're using fuses on the extended
> bus (MUCH faster than breakers) and
> given that this bus is always hot, I
> suggest that the feeder be increased
> to 10AWG and that it be protected
> with a 30A Maxifuse; much faster than
> a fusible link in a fault condition
> and much more robust than any single
> feeder off that bus . . . you don't
> want a fault on a single distribution
> to open the feeder fuse and take down
> the whole bus.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Am I tilting at windmills with the idea of going to LEDs? [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479386#479386
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
At 02:40 PM 4/16/2018, you wrote:
>In this scenario, is there any reason why an ATC
>fuse bus (20 slot bandc type) could not be fed
>from batt and alt straight into the buss through
>two of the faston tabs?=C2 (As opposed to the
>main bolt terminal) Each slot could have a 30a maxifuse?
Recall that circuit protection is for WIRES . . . and
that the protective device is installed as close as
practical to the SOURCE of energy that puts the wire
at risk.
In this case, a MAXIfuse in an in-line holder
taps power off the hot side of the battery or
starter contactors. Energy is then conducted via the
10AWG feeder to the input stud on the fuseblock.
What loads are being assigned to this bus?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "mmcelrea" <mmcelrea(at)hotmail.com> |
In that case could a fuse link be used on the source end of the wire to protect
the wire and then feeding the bus via one of the fast on rather than the main
bolt terminal to provide fast blow protection to prevent the bus being taken
out? Would 12awg feed wire with 16awg fuselink suffice, or 10awg with 14awg fusel-ink
The bus is supplying the essential bus as backup max load approx 15 amps.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479390#479390
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A fast blow fuse will INSURE that the essential bus IS taken out. Do not use a
fast blow fuse in series with the E-Bus no matter which end of the wire it is
located.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479393#479393
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "mmcelrea" <mmcelrea(at)hotmail.com> |
Will a maxifuse not blow as fast as a normal blade fuse? Is a slow blow blade fuse
available?
The endurance bus feed wire from the hot battery bus is protected by a fuse at
one end and a fuselink at the other. Is it not acceptable to do the same with the
feed wire to the hot battery bus from the battery?
I would prefer to keep the simplest, most durable protection devices within the
engine compartment, ie a fuselink.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479396#479396
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
On the Littlefuse website,
http://www.littelfuse.com/products/fuses/automotive-passenger-car/blade-fuses/299.aspx
it says, "MAXI 32V Series - MAXI Slo-Blo 32V Automotive Blade Fuse"
I assume that "Slo-Blo" means slow blow. The datasheet
http://www.littelfuse.com/~/media/automotive/datasheets/fuses/passenger-car-and-commercial-vehicle/blade-fuses/littelfuse_maxi_32v_datasheet.pdf
graph looks like the 30 amp fuse will hold 40 amps for several minutes without
blowing.
The reason that the endurance bus wire is protected at both ends is because there
are two current paths.
The wire needs to be protected from current coming from either end.
A maxifuse is a blade type fuse, but it is twice as big as ATX and ATO fuses.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479397#479397
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diy AOA, anyone ? |
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
Le 16/04/2018 01:01, Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit:
>
> We had some discussions here on the List about
> various AOA sensor/display options about 15 years
> ago. During and since that time I'd collected some
> articles on the topic which I posted here
>
> https://goo.gl/5XdU1y
>
> One of the articles cloned a sensor mast that
> was popular with Piper as I recall. Don't recall
> the manufacturer off hand.
Hi Bob and all,
A big thank you for your inputs, docs etc. !
We now have to do our homework. Nevertheless the project is still at the
initial build stage, and we are still in the process of (slowly)
reducing drag on our present 4-seater, so it may be some time til we are
ready for the AOA flight tests.
Thank you everyone !
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
At 09:55 AM 4/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>Will a maxifuse not blow as fast as a normal blade fuse? Is a slow
>blow blade fuse available?
No . . . haven't got time right now to answer this
question carefully . . . but I will soon.
In the mean time, research the fault reaction time
curves for the devices being cited . . .
"Fast" and "slow" are un-quantified, squishy terms.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
According to this chart:
http://www.litz-wire.com/New%20PDFs/Fusing_Currents_Melting_Temperature_Copper_Aluminum_Magnet_Wire_R2.011609.pdf
A #18 AWG fuselink will conduct up to 82 amps before it melts.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479400#479400
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
At 09:55 AM 4/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>Will a maxifuse not blow as fast as a normal blade fuse? Is a slow
>blow blade fuse available?
No . . . and here's why . . .
Let's go to the engineering data for a sample of fuses
common to our designs. First the ATC10 plastic fuse
that fits the popular fuseholders . . . and probably
the largest fuse to be included on the battery bus
under consideration:
I have calculated a 'fusing constant' for this
fuse based on numbers taken from the ATC fuse
performance chart below. At approx 2x the 'carry
forever' current of the ATC10 fuse, it opens in
approx 0.4 seconds which produces an I(squared)T
value of 270. If we cause the fuse to carry twice
that value of 52A, we know that it will open in
approx ONE FOURTH that time or 0.1 seconds.
Double the current again to ~100A and we'll
anticipate fuse operation in ~0.05 seconds.
The chart below says it will be shorter still,
so perhaps my fusing constant number needs
trimming. Suffice it to say that the fusing
constant calculation carries an AMPS(SQUARED)
term in it suggesting that increasing current
shortens the operating time by 1/4th each doubling.
[]
[]
Now let us look at the 30A MaxiFuse. Note that
it has a much larger fusing constant (again perhaps
needing a tweak) but consider the operating time
at 100A. From the chart we read something on
the order of 3 SECONDS.
Suppose a MAX30 were protecting the battery
bus with a ATC10 fuse in it and you fault
that fuse with a 100A load. The ATC10 will open
many times faster than the MAX30 thus the
integrity of the bus feed is not at risk.
[]
Now, if we were protecting a SWITCHED bus in a TC
aircraft with similar distribution characteristics,
we might choose to use the ANL35 current limiter.
Note that its fusing constant is actually LESS
than the MAXI30. At 2x the ANL's carry forever
current, the fusing time is only 0.4 seconds. But
when loaded with our hypothetical fault of 100A
on an ATC10 fuse, the ANL35 is pretty close to
a never-operates condition.
[]
A take-away from this narrative has several points.
(1) 'Fast' and 'slow' are non-quantified, un-scientific
terms for evaluating performance of any circuit
protective device. You can say device A is faster
than device B under some cited conditions . . . but
that's about it.
(2) The fusing constant is useful for making some
broad predictions about performance between
two styles of product. For example, in the
charts about we see that Kf of 13K for the
ANL (a mechanically robust fuse compared to
the MAXI) is about 20x faster at the 2x
overload point than the MAXI with a Kf of 44K.
(3) I've not illustrated fusing characteristics
for the 18AWG fusible link . . . we know it's
going to be a BIG number. Now, considering that
the design goal for upstream protection of the
non-legacy battery bus is to MINIMIZE the
potential for expenditure of energy in a hard
fault condition, very robust devices like
fusible links are not consistent with the
design goal.
(4) The design goal calls for selection of an upstream
fuse with thermal characteristics consistent with
maintaining bus integrity under a downstream
BRANCH fault while minimizing energy expenditure
during a FEEDER fault.
(5) There is a significant simplification of the physics
in this narrative that does NOT consider PRE-
HEATING of the feeder protection due to normal
operating loads. Pre-heating figured heavily
in the demise of N811HB . . .
https://goo.gl/hWQdE6
I think I read the number 15A as the max running load
for this design. Assuming no branch fuse is greater than
10A . . . with most probably being smaller . . .
I'll s stand by my recommendation for a MAXI30 or
even a MAXI40 protecting a 10AWG feeder.
Having said that, I'd much rather the battery
bus was located near the battery.
The 30 Series aircraft at Beech have had fuses on the
firewall for decades
[]
Further, they were/are glass cartridge fuses (ugh!)
with threaded fasteners (fooey) . . . but I'm aware
of no problems with this design philosophy.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
| From: | "mmcelrea" <mmcelrea(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob, thankyou for your reply, much appreciated.
Miller
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479419#479419
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Double pole switch failure mode? |
From: Mark and Kathleen Navratil <czechsix(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Double pole switch failure mode?
Bob, is
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/>http://www.aeroelec
tric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/
where you keep the latest diagrams? I=92m planning
to use Z-14 for my RV-14 and want to make sure
I=92ve got the latest. I think it does almost
everything I want as is, except I may replace the
two battery buses with an essential bus fed by
diodes from each battery and run the ignition &
fuel injection off of that, so that the engine
will run as long as at least one battery has
juice left in it. I know that can also be
accomplished with the cross-tie contactor, but
don=92t want to have to add that switch to my engine failure checklist=85
Thanks for making the diagrams available in CAD
format, sure beats using whiteout and multiple
photocopies of my original RV-8A diagram from 15 years ago!
-Mark
Your welcome . . .
Z-14 in an RV8? Sometimes I'm sorry that I ever published
that architecture. I may delete it from Rev 13. It was offered
for the very rare instances of larger airplanes like a Lancair IVP
with dual efis, a/c, etc . . .
Have you considered Z13/8? What's the failure mode effects
analysis that drives the decision toward Z-14? What engine
ignition combination are you using? What are your anticipated
endurance loads for sustained flight with a failed main
alternator? Under what conditions can you deduce a need
to depend solely on a battery for continued flight?
Keep in mind that the vast MAJORITY of bad days in the cockpit
have roots in the pilot's poor decisions. Only a tiny portion
of aviation mishaps are rooted in mechanical/electrical
failures and MOST of those would have been easily mitigated
with relatively minor changes in architecture and better
attention to preventative maintenance. Like treating
your battery with as much care and attention as you do
tires, fuel tanks and reports for icing along your route
of travel.
The RV8 is probably the highest cost/performance ratio
design in Van's two-seated product line. To burden
this airplane with the weight, expense and complexity
of a system like Z14 may be intellectually comforting
on some level but I suggest it offers no demonstrable
reduction in operational risks for your project.
One of my first Z13/8 builders invested the saved weight
and expense in his RV8 project by making improvements
to cabin heating comfort and adding an oxygen
system. The kinds of numbers he and his son enjoyed
in the use of this airplane were nothing short of
astounding.
Before we launch into a discussion about how to modify
Z-14, how about exploring the failure situations under
which Z13/8 would not meet practical design goals
for electrical difficulties en route?
Yes, the latest .dwg files are at https://goo.gl/dPKjRi
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
>From a bit of reading it seems that my concerns would be physical form and equivalent
wattage. Appears to be plenty of T3 G4 type LEDs with acceptable equivalent
wattage. What am I not considering? Any comments or pointers appreciated!!
:D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479441#479441
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI |
At 12:20 PM 4/19/2018, you wrote:
>
> >From a bit of reading it seems that my concerns would be physical
> form and equivalent wattage. Appears to be plenty of T3 G4 type
> LEDs with acceptable equivalent wattage. What am I not
> considering? Any comments or pointers appreciated!! :D
>
Looks like the OEM lamp is an incandescent
20w lamp in a g4 envelope. No LED lamp in
that same envelope is going to be a 20 watt
device . . . it may approach the same total
light output as the original with less than
20watts of energy consumption but I'm
skeptical. Further, no LED replacement
will have the same radiation pattern.
Pattern can have a profound effect on the
quality of the projected image.
The LED products are less expensive and
risks for trying one are low. Give
it a try and see what the display looks
like . . . please share your discoveries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: z13 battery bus protection |
Bob
thanks sorry for late reply.
So in this case we are talking about your Z16 circuit diagram without an
endurance buss. (I have eliminated the endurance buss. Following your
dictum of no electrical systems which determine the safe termination of the
flight I have Levil with battery back up for AI/flight instruments and a
handheld radio).
Since the battery and therefore the battery contactor is under the baggage
bay of my Europa, the power to the buss comes from one of the
through-firewall bolts which connects the 4AWG from the battery to the
starter contactor.
Following the Z16 therefore, in this case, there is no requirement for wire
protection between the through firewall bolt and the buss. The cable run
which is 10AWG is not more than 12". The buss powers a dynon system with
dual axis AP, radio/intercom, Airmaster prop, flap motor, backup
instruments, fuel pump, landing and anti collision lights (these latter are
low consumption LED). The dynon ammeter shows 12A recharging and 8.5A
normally with everything on.
Will
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+57 310 295 0744
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:40 PM 4/16/2018, you wrote:
>
> In this scenario, is there any reason why an ATC fuse bus (20 slot bandc
> type) could not be fed from batt and alt straight into the buss through t
wo
> of the faston tabs?=C3=82 (As opposed to the main bolt terminal) Each sl
ot
> could have a 30a maxifuse?
>
>
> Recall that circuit protection is for WIRES . . . and
> that the protective device is installed as close as
> practical to the SOURCE of energy that puts the wire
> at risk.
>
> In this case, a MAXIfuse in an in-line holder
> taps power off the hot side of the battery or
> starter contactors. Energy is then conducted via the
> 10AWG feeder to the input stud on the fuseblock.
>
> What loads are being assigned to this bus?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-12 contactor failure |
| From: | "bsvantho" <bsvantho(at)gmail.com> |
I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor failure on a
production plane in flight. It ended up that the root cause was a defective
master switch - but the result was the same. Because there was no endurance
bus alternate feed, it was a full electrical shutdown, in IMC no less!
I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for contactor failure
( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12 design. It would be nice
to have a second path to the battery from aux alternator to ensure stable power
if the master does fail. The appeal to me of having an aux alternator is
to be able to continue flight on one alternator. This is only possible if either
a battery connection is maintained always or it is a guarantee the alternator
will provide stable power without a battery connection.
The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly to battery.
Is this design practical or even advisable with the SD-20 alternator? With
Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power to battery bus and E-BUS if contactor
fails.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
-Brendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479453#479453
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Brendon:
If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design of
the time.
What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER
address the Master Switch during Annual.
It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
3 - Spray it with WD-40.
Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning System.
On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator Switch.
I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the physical
as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield.
OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt Switch,
there are four (4) failure points:
1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that
holds the switch into the panel.
This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring action.
Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side to
hold the bezel in place.
If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up.
Or do an in-flight re-start.
Scary!
Barry
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:52 AM, bsvantho wrote:
>
> I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor failure
> on a production plane in flight. It ended up that the root cause was a
> defective master switch - but the result was the same. Because there was
> no endurance bus alternate feed, it was a full electrical shutdown, in IMC
> no less!
>
> I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for contactor
> failure ( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12 design. It
> would be nice to have a second path to the battery from aux alternator to
> ensure stable power if the master does fail. The appeal to me of having an
> aux alternator is to be able to continue flight on one alternator. This is
> only possible if either a battery connection is maintained always or it is
> a guarantee the alternator will provide stable power without a battery
> connection.
>
> The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly to
> battery. Is this design practical or even advisable with the SD-20
> alternator? With Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power to battery
> bus and E-BUS if contactor fails.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> -Brendon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479453#479453
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Barry I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous to
the contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles or lube
which would affect the service or life of the part? On the moving parts yes
but I don't know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, 6:13 PM FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Brendon:
>
> If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
> Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design of
> the time.
> What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER
> address the Master Switch during Annual.
> It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
> 1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
> 2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
> 3 - Spray it with WD-40.
>
> Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning
> System.
>
>
> On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
> Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator Switch.
> I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the
> physical as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
> Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
> You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield.
> OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
>
> Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt Switch,
> there are four (4) failure points:
> 1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
> 2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
> 3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
> 4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that
> holds the switch into the panel.
> This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring action.
> Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
> The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side
> to hold the bezel in place.
> If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
> switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
> If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up.
> Or do an in-flight re-start.
> Scary!
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:52 AM, bsvantho wrote:
>
>>
>> I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor
>> failure on a production plane in flight. It ended up that the root cause
>> was a defective master switch - but the result was the same. Because
>> there was no endurance bus alternate feed, it was a full electrical
>> shutdown, in IMC no less!
>>
>> I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for contactor
>> failure ( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12 design. It
>> would be nice to have a second path to the battery from aux alternator to
>> ensure stable power if the master does fail. The appeal to me of having an
>> aux alternator is to be able to continue flight on one alternator. This is
>> only possible if either a battery connection is maintained always or it is
>> a guarantee the alternator will provide stable power without a battery
>> connection.
>>
>> The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly to
>> battery. Is this design practical or even advisable with the SD-20
>> alternator? With Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power to battery
>> bus and E-BUS if contactor fails.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Brendon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479453#479453
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/
>> Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ===================================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Bob:
Yup! There are all sorts of 'possible' possibilities, all without proof,
but it DOES WORK!
Many of our aircraft are 40+ years old. The original lubricants in the
switches have long disappeared.
They are NOT sealed switches.
What has worked for many years are now failing. Just look Brandon's post.
And, when it comes to the Stall Warning micro switch - Replacement with NEW
is $1200+ used, about $600 to $700.
All this can be prevented with a can of WD-40!
Not needed on sealed DPST Toggle Switches. AND they are NOT 40+ years old.
Barry
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Bob Verwey wrote:
> Barry I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous
> to the contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles or
> lube which would affect the service or life of the part? On the moving
> parts yes but I don't know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, 6:13 PM FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>> Brendon:
>>
>> If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
>> Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design
>> of the time.
>> What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER
>> address the Master Switch during Annual.
>> It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
>> 1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
>> 2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
>> 3 - Spray it with WD-40.
>>
>> Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning
>> System.
>>
>>
>> On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
>> Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator
>> Switch.
>> I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the
>> physical as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
>> Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
>> You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield.
>> OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
>>
>> Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt
>> Switch, there are four (4) failure points:
>> 1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
>> 2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
>> 3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
>> 4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that
>> holds the switch into the panel.
>> This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring
>> action.
>> Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
>> The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side
>> to hold the bezel in place.
>> If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
>> switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
>> If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up.
>> Or do an in-flight re-start.
>> Scary!
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:52 AM, bsvantho wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor
>>> failure on a production plane in flight. It ended up that the root cause
>>> was a defective master switch - but the result was the same. Because
>>> there was no endurance bus alternate feed, it was a full electrical
>>> shutdown, in IMC no less!
>>>
>>> I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for
>>> contactor failure ( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12
>>> design. It would be nice to have a second path to the battery from aux
>>> alternator to ensure stable power if the master does fail. The appeal to
>>> me of having an aux alternator is to be able to continue flight on one
>>> alternator. This is only possible if either a battery connection is
>>> maintained always or it is a guarantee the alternator will provide stable
>>> power without a battery connection.
>>>
>>> The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly to
>>> battery. Is this design practical or even advisable with the SD-20
>>> alternator? With Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power to battery
>>> bus and E-BUS if contactor fails.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Brendon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479453#479453
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -
>>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
>>> matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> WIKI -
>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Calling WD40 "a lubricant" is like calling a 1969 Chateauneuf a liquid!
On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:41 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
Bob:
Yup! There are all sorts of 'possible' possibilities, all without proof, but it
DOES WORK!
Many of our aircraft are 40+ years old. The original lubricants in the switches
have long disappeared.
They are NOT sealed switches.
What has worked for many years are now failing. Just look Brandon's post.
And, when it comes to the Stall Warning micro switch - Replacement with NEW is
$1200+ used, about $600 to $700.
All this can be prevented with a can of WD-40!
Not needed on sealed DPST Toggle Switches. AND they are NOT 40+ years old.
Barry
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Bob Verwey wrote:
Barry I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous to the
contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles or lube which
would affect the service or life of the part? On the moving parts yes but I don't
know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, 6:13 PM FLYaDIVE wrote:
Brendon:
If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design of the
time.
What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER address
the Master Switch during Annual.
It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
3 - Spray it with WD-40.
Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning System.
On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator Switch.
I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the physical as
well as the electrical rating of the switch.
Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield. OR... Install
the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt Switch, there
are four (4) failure points:
1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that holds
the switch into the panel.
This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring action.
Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side to hold
the bezel in place.
If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt switch and
Starter Relay out of the circuit.
If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up.
Or do an in-flight re-start.
Scary!
Barry
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:52 AM, bsvantho wrote:
I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor failure on a
production plane in flight. It ended up that the root cause was a defective
master switch - but the result was the same. Because there was no endurance
bus alternate feed, it was a full electrical shutdown, in IMC no less!
I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for contactor failure
( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12 design. It would be nice
to have a second path to the battery from aux alternator to ensure stable power
if the master does fail. The appeal to me of having an aux alternator is
to be able to continue flight on one alternator. This is only possible if either
a battery connection is maintained always or it is a guarantee the alternator
will provide stable power without a battery connection.
The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly to battery.
Is this design practical or even advisable with the SD-20 alternator? With
Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power to battery bus and E-BUS if contactor
fails.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
-Brendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479453#479453
==========
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Not calling it a lubricant is proof you consumed too much 1969 Chateauneuf.
I guess you don't call soapstone a lubricant either!
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> Calling WD40 "a lubricant" is like calling a 1969 Chateauneuf =9Ca
liquid=9D!
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:41 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> Yup! There are all sorts of 'possible' possibilities, all without proof,
> but it DOES WORK!
> Many of our aircraft are 40+ years old. The original lubricants in the
> switches have long disappeared.
> They are NOT sealed switches.
> What has worked for many years are now failing. Just look Brandon's post
.
> And, when it comes to the Stall Warning micro switch - Replacement with
> NEW is $1200+ used, about $600 to $700.
> All this can be prevented with a can of WD-40!
>
> Not needed on sealed DPST Toggle Switches. AND they are NOT 40+ years ol
d.
>
> Barry
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Bob Verwey wrote
:
> Barry I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous
> to the contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles or
> lube which would affect the service or life of the part? On the moving
> parts yes but I don't know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, 6:13 PM FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Brendon:
>
> If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
> Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design o
f
> the time.
> What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER
> address the Master Switch during Annual.
> It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
> 1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
> 2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
> 3 - Spray it with WD-40.
>
> Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning
> System.
>
>
> On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
> Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator Switc
h.
> I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the
> physical as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
> Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
> You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield.
> OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
>
> Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt Switch
,
> there are four (4) failure points:
> 1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
> 2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
> 3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
> 4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that
> holds the switch into the panel.
> This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring actio
n.
> Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
> The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side
> to hold the bezel in place.
> If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
> switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
> If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up
.
> Or do an in-flight re-start.
> Scary!
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:52 AM, bsvantho wrote:
>
> I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor failur
e
> on a production plane in flight. It ended up that the root cause was a
> defective master switch - but the result was the same. Because there wa
s
> no endurance bus alternate feed, it was a full electrical shutdown, in IM
C
> no less!
>
> I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for contactor
> failure ( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12 design. It
> would be nice to have a second path to the battery from aux alternator to
> ensure stable power if the master does fail. The appeal to me of having
an
> aux alternator is to be able to continue flight on one alternator. This
is
> only possible if either a battery connection is maintained always or it i
s
> a guarantee the alternator will provide stable power without a battery
> connection.
>
> The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly to
> battery. Is this design practical or even advisable with the SD-20
> alternator? With Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power to batter
y
> bus and E-BUS if contactor fails.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> -Brendon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479453#479453
>
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
> matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
> ==========
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
| From: | "bsvantho" <bsvantho(at)gmail.com> |
Agree the certified electrical system is much weaker and I found first hand that
master switches are not well maintained, but I will attempt to bring this back
around to the intent of my original post...
Not trying to reinvent anything. This will most likely remain a philosophical
discussion for me as Z-12 is already quite robust as compared to the certified
planes I fly in that E-bus devices will still be available on battery + internal
battery backups, etc.
I have found very little information specific to protecting for master contactor
failure. So is the philosophy for Z-12 that it is not worth worrying about
since E-bus will still operate? I can accept this, I just am confused when I
see Z-13/8 that connects the alternator on the battery side. Can anyone explain
the reason for the difference?
Thanks,
-Brendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479462#479462
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Brendon:
Here is the schematic of the Z-13/8
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8T.pdf
The NOTES are not on this schematic.
But, you can see the Alternator is on the LOAD side of Relay / Battery
Contactor. So, the relay has to be closed
for Alternator to function.
I could not find a link for the Z-12 ;-(
But, consider this:
Many people like a Avionics Master Switch.
The switch itself has a BACK-UP.
It is usually a SECOND heavy duty switch either in Parallel with the main
Avionics Master Switch <-- Used when the Main switch is the ONLY means
closing the circuit.
The other location is across a Avionics Master Relay. The Main Avionics
Master Switch closes a Relay <-- Not the best way of doing things but it
works. So, when the BACK-UP Avionics Master Switch is closed it bypasses
the relay and applies power to the Avionics circuit.
Using this same type of configuration you can use for the MASTER SWITCH.
Put a BACK-UP Master Switch in Parallel with the Main Master Switch. The
only problem there is you have to REMEMBER to Shut Off the MAIN MASTER
SWITCH and Double Check that the BACK-UP switch is OFF.
Totally doable on Experimental. Not doable on certified, not without a 337!
Barry
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:18 PM, bsvantho wrote:
>
> Agree the certified electrical system is much weaker and I found first
> hand that master switches are not well maintained, but I will attempt to
> bring this back around to the intent of my original post...
>
> Not trying to reinvent anything. This will most likely remain a
> philosophical discussion for me as Z-12 is already quite robust as compared
> to the certified planes I fly in that E-bus devices will still be available
> on battery + internal battery backups, etc.
>
> I have found very little information specific to protecting for master
> contactor failure. So is the philosophy for Z-12 that it is not worth
> worrying about since E-bus will still operate? I can accept this, I just
> am confused when I see Z-13/8 that connects the alternator on the battery
> side. Can anyone explain the reason for the difference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brendon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479462#479462
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 4/20/2018 2:18 PM, bsvantho wrote:
>
> Agree the certified electrical system is much weaker and I found first hand that
master switches are not well maintained, but I will attempt to bring this
back around to the intent of my original post...
>
> Not trying to reinvent anything. This will most likely remain a philosophical
discussion for me as Z-12 is already quite robust as compared to the certified
planes I fly in that E-bus devices will still be available on battery + internal
battery backups, etc.
>
> I have found very little information specific to protecting for master contactor
failure. So is the philosophy for Z-12 that it is not worth worrying about
since E-bus will still operate? I can accept this, I just am confused when
I see Z-13/8 that connects the alternator on the battery side. Can anyone explain
the reason for the difference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brendon
>
I *think* that what you're seeing in z13-8 is that the primary alt is
connected conventionally, to the bus side of the master contactor. The
*backup* (much lower current capability) alt is connected to the battery
side of the contactor, so that in the event of a primary alt failure,
you can shed the load of the main bus *and* the load of the master
contactor (coil consumes 1/2-1 1/2 amps just to keep it engaged), and
still have the backup alt available to sustain the battery bus and
endurance bus. If it was on the other side of the master contactor, you
couldn't shed the main bus and contactor loads in the event of a main
alt failure.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
| From: | "bsvantho" <bsvantho(at)gmail.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> On 4/20/2018 2:18 PM, bsvantho wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Agree the certified electrical system is much weaker and I found first hand
that master switches are not well maintained, but I will attempt to bring this
back around to the intent of my original post...
> >
> > Not trying to reinvent anything. This will most likely remain a philosophical
discussion for me as Z-12 is already quite robust as compared to the certified
planes I fly in that E-bus devices will still be available on battery +
internal battery backups, etc.
> >
> > I have found very little information specific to protecting for master contactor
failure. So is the philosophy for Z-12 that it is not worth worrying about
since E-bus will still operate? I can accept this, I just am confused when
I see Z-13/8 that connects the alternator on the battery side. Can anyone
explain the reason for the difference?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Brendon
> >
> > I *think* that what you're seeing in z13-8 is that the primary alt is
> >
>
> connected conventionally, to the bus side of the master contactor. The
> *backup* (much lower current capability) alt is connected to the battery
> side of the contactor, so that in the event of a primary alt failure,
> you can shed the load of the main bus *and* the load of the master
> contactor (coil consumes 1/2-1 1/2 amps just to keep it engaged), and
> still have the backup alt available to sustain the battery bus and
> endurance bus. If it was on the other side of the master contactor, you
> couldn't shed the main bus and contactor loads in the event of a main
> alt failure.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
This makes perfect sense to me. Now look at Z-12 - the primary and backup alternators
are both connected the same way - to the main bus. If you turn off the
master both alternators are isolated from the battery. This means battery only
operation unless the alternators remain stable without battery. Why do it
this way? The only difference I see is the backup alternator is the larger 20A
vs 8A.
To ask another way. Why not connect the larger 20A backup alternator in the same
way as Z-13/8 ( with relay and switch )? Is this not advisable due to the
higher current being switched or some other reason?
-Brendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479466#479466
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 4/20/2018 4:13 PM, bsvantho wrote:
>
>
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
>> On 4/20/2018 2:18 PM, bsvantho wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree the certified electrical system is much weaker and I found first hand
that master switches are not well maintained, but I will attempt to bring this
back around to the intent of my original post...
>>>
>>> Not trying to reinvent anything. This will most likely remain a philosophical
discussion for me as Z-12 is already quite robust as compared to the certified
planes I fly in that E-bus devices will still be available on battery +
internal battery backups, etc.
>>>
>>> I have found very little information specific to protecting for master contactor
failure. So is the philosophy for Z-12 that it is not worth worrying
about since E-bus will still operate? I can accept this, I just am confused
when I see Z-13/8 that connects the alternator on the battery side. Can anyone
explain the reason for the difference?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Brendon
>>>
>>> I *think* that what you're seeing in z13-8 is that the primary alt is
>>>
>> connected conventionally, to the bus side of the master contactor. The
>> *backup* (much lower current capability) alt is connected to the battery
>> side of the contactor, so that in the event of a primary alt failure,
>> you can shed the load of the main bus *and* the load of the master
>> contactor (coil consumes 1/2-1 1/2 amps just to keep it engaged), and
>> still have the backup alt available to sustain the battery bus and
>> endurance bus. If it was on the other side of the master contactor, you
>> couldn't shed the main bus and contactor loads in the event of a main
>> alt failure.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> This makes perfect sense to me. Now look at Z-12 - the primary and backup alternators
are both connected the same way - to the main bus. If you turn off
the master both alternators are isolated from the battery. This means battery
only operation unless the alternators remain stable without battery. Why do it
this way? The only difference I see is the backup alternator is the larger
20A vs 8A.
>
> To ask another way. Why not connect the larger 20A backup alternator in the
same way as Z-13/8 ( with relay and switch )? Is this not advisable due to the
higher current being switched or some other reason?
>
> -Brendon
I'd bet that the reason is implied in the text descriptions preceding
the drawings. With the bigger backup alt, there's no reason to turn off
the master (except fire, in which case you want the alternators off line
just like the rest of the electrical system). Note also that the larger
backup alt uses an external regulator to supply field voltage, so the
regulator would have to be moved to the endurance bus, as well, if you
intend to shut off the master & keep the backup on line.
I confess it's been a while since I studied the diagrams, but they've
endured for quite a while with people prodding at them, so I suspect
that the real issue is discovering the logic, rather than questioning
whether there is logic. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
At 03:28 PM 4/20/2018, you wrote:
>Brendon:
>
>Here is the schematic of the Z-13/8
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8T.pdf>http://
www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8T.pdf
>
>The NOTES are not on this schematic.
>
>But, you can see the Alternator is on the LOAD
>side of Relay / Battery Contactor.=C2 So, the relay has to be closed=C2
>for Alternator to function.
not necessarily so . . . some alternators
need some help from the battery to get
started but once excited and on-line, they
will continue to function even if the battery
contactor is opened
Bonanzas and Barons are fitted with alternators
that self excite . . . the alternator(s) and
battery are on separate switches. The POH speaks
to alternator-only operations which are permissable.
The e-bus is a work-around for contactor failure.
The s/b alternator in z13/8 will come on line
whether or not the battery contactor is closed.
Contactor failure in flight is exceedingly rare.
A contactor that's going bad will offer some issues
for getting the engine started . . . your FIRST
and very valuable clue that it's time to change
the puppy out.
So what's the source of the heartburn over contactor
failures?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Agree the certified electrical system is much weaker and I found
first hand that master switches are not well maintained, but I will
attempt to bring this back around to the intent of my original post...
Not trying to reinvent anything. This will most likely remain a
philosophical discussion for me as Z-12 is already quite robust as
compared to the certified planes I fly in that E-bus devices will
still be available on battery + internal battery backups, etc.
I have found very little information specific to protecting for
master contactor failure.
Because it's so rare . . . and, with the carefully
contrived architecture and preventative maintenance,
it's failure does not represent a hazard to comfortable
termination of flight.
So is the philosophy for Z-12 that it is not worth worrying about
since E-bus will still operate?
The whole airplane will probably operate. Z-12 is simply
an illustration of how the secondary, engine driven alternator
was incorporated into TC aircraft. It was simply added to
the distribution system as a second source with the ability
to support plenty of electro-whizzies on the panel.
I can accept this, I just am confused when I see Z-13/8 that connects
the alternator on the battery side. Can anyone explain the reason for
the difference?
Sure. Z13/8 is a three layer electrical system.
(1) Battery only. E-bus powered appliances, no contactor loads
Endurance implications: "Plan C" loads tailored to
known battery capacity such that battery-only endurance
goals are met.
(2) Battery + 8. E-bus powered appliances, contactor load
optional depending on "Plan B" loads. Loads tailored
to hold battery in reserve for descent and approach
to landing. Electrical endurance essentially unlimited.
Descent and approach to landing loads can depend on
known battery capacity to supplement the 8A engine
driven power source.
(3) Battery + Main Alternator. Normal "Plan A" ops. No
limits on electrical loads.
The three-layer system is practical only on OBAM aircraft
. . . the 337 or STC to convert a TC aircraft would be
prohibitive and would not materially reduce risk.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SD-8 Alternator Feed 30A Inline Fuse Location |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
In your response on the Z13 Battery Bus Protection question in a very recent post,
you reminded us that
> Recall that circuit protection is for WIRES . . . and that the protective device
is installed as close as practical to the SOURCE of energy that puts the wire
at risk.
A friend of mine asked me a question on my Z-13/8 configuration that stumped me,
so I thought I'd ask you.
In keeping in line with your statement above, in Z-13/8 why is the inline 30A fuse
for the SD-8 wire connection from the battery contactor to the SD-8's S704-1
relay placed within 6 inches or less from the battery contactor, when the SD-8
is the source of energy?
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ N916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479470#479470
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Alternator Feed 30A Inline Fuse Location |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 4/21/2018 10:14 AM, Airdog77 wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> In your response on the Z13 Battery Bus Protection question in a very recent
post, you reminded us that
>> Recall that circuit protection is for WIRES . . . and that the protective device
is installed as close as practical to the SOURCE of energy that puts the
wire at risk.
> A friend of mine asked me a question on my Z-13/8 configuration that stumped
me, so I thought I'd ask you.
>
> In keeping in line with your statement above, in Z-13/8 why is the inline 30A
fuse for the SD-8 wire connection from the battery contactor to the SD-8's S704-1
relay placed within 6 inches or less from the battery contactor, when the
SD-8 is the source of energy?
>
> Wade
>
I'm not Bob, but an alternator wire should be big enough to handle
everything an alternator can throw at it, meaning the alternator can't
damage it. But... The battery *can* damage it, so the protection is at
the potential source of the damage.
That help?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Alternator Feed 30A Inline Fuse Location |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There are two sources of energy, the battery and SD-8. The SD-8 is self current
limiting. It can put out perhaps 10 amps at most. Its output does not need
to be fused. The battery can put out hundreds of amps and possibly do lots of
damage. Placing the fuse near the battery will minimize the danger.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479471#479471
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Alternator Feed 30A Inline Fuse Location |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Makes all the sense in the world.... now that you guys explained it!!
Crystal clear. Always good to learn something new!
Thanks Joe & Charlie!
Cheers,
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ N916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479473#479473
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
>
>This makes perfect sense to me. Now look at Z-12 - the primary and
>backup alternators are both connected the same way - to the main
>bus. If you turn off the master both alternators are isolated from
>the battery. This means battery only operation unless the
>alternators remain stable without battery. Why do it this way? The
>only difference I see is the backup alternator is the larger 20A vs 8A.
>
>To ask another way. Why not connect the larger 20A backup
>alternator in the same way as Z-13/8 ( with relay and switch )? Is
>this not advisable due to the higher current being switched or some
>other reason?
The e-bus was conceived one evening about 1988 in
conversation with a LongEz builder in California.
This fellow did a lot of long distance travel over
mountains. I don't recall if his airplane had a
starter . . . don't think it did because I do
recall that he was fitted with a pretty light
battery in the nose.
The design goal being pondered was how to create
a battery-only endurance greater than his fuel
endurance . . . which was rather long.
At that time, his electrical endurance loads were
as I recall, about 3 amps. A battery contactor draws
about 0.8A after warm up . . . enough snort to run
a couple of useful electro-whizzies yet this energy
was tossed off as heat. His SD-8 would support normal
flight loads including contactor.
Emacs!
His endurance loads must have been a bit less than
3A because I recall we decided that a new 18a.h.
battery would carry his anticipated loads for 6
hours, hence his 4-hour design goal would be
satisfied to 75% of new capacity whereupon
the battery gets replaced.
So the e-bus was conceived as a method for setting
up a fixed, predictable battery-only endurance load
with a simple re-positioning of two switches.
Lots of Ez aircraft had only SD8 alternators on
the drive pad, no other alternator and no starter.
The B&C line of light weight starters and alternators
encouraged the Ez crowd on to the next evolutionary
step.
Added weight on the extreme rear of the a/c drove
a need for ballast in the nose . . . ballast
that was best achieved with a larger battery as
opposed to bags of lead shot! The 24 a.h. battery
was the next step up.
The SD-8 could be left in place on the drive pad for a
weight penalty of about 4 pounds. Hence, Z13/8 germinated
from the evolving goals of Long-Ez owners in the 1990
time frame.
At one time, I did have a Z13/20 architecture which
was discussed here on List and I think a few installations
were made. I was never happy with it as it offered
no particular advantages over Z12 and was un=necessarily
complex. There was no pressing need to eliminate contactor
loads on the much larger S/B alternator so it was
removed from the 'Connection after a few years.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
> His endurance loads must have been a bit less than
> 3A because I recall we decided that a new 18a.h.
> battery would carry his anticipated loads for 6
> hours, hence his 4-hour design goal would be
> satisfied to 75% of new capacity whereupon
> the battery gets replaced.
Hmmmm . . . my recollection of details may be
a bit fuzzy after 30 years, 4 hours is 66%
of new . . . anyhow, this illustrates the
thought processes for design decisions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bob, my main concern was inadvertently trashing the
Sandel somehow. If that is a non-factor I'm game to see what the LED presentation
would be like. Will indeed report back when I've got some field test info!
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479476#479476
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Bob:
Yup There are all sorts of 'possible' possibilities, all without
proof, but it DOES WORK!
Many of our aircraft are 40+ years old. The original lubricants in
the switches have long disappeared.
They are NOT sealed switches.
What has worked for many years are now failing. Just look Brandon's post.
And, when it comes to the Stall Warning micro switch - Replacement
with NEW is $1200+ used, about $600 to $700.
All this can be prevented with a can of WD-40!
WD40 can be useful in the maintenance of electro-whizzies
with moving parts . . . and indeed, it was not originally
designed to be a lubricant so much as a (W)ater (D)isplacer
and cleaner. As a side benefit, it does have some degree of
lubricity . . . as do many substances . . . but its service
life as a lubricant is far outpaced by other products designed
for lubrication.
https://goo.gl/sbPhXj
WD40 was major maintenance feature for the MQM107 target
we used to build at Beech.
https://goo.gl/otFkbp
The engine was a very short service life device with
minimal moving parts and INTENDED to become totally
immersed in seawater during an offshore recovery.
The first refurbishment move for the aircraft was to remove
the engine and submerge it in a barrel of WD40. When the
aircraft was ready to receive the engine, they hauled it out
with compressed air and bolted it back on the airframe.
Not needed on sealed DPST Toggle Switches. AND they are NOT 40+ years old.
Obviously, a truly sealed switch cannot benefit from
spray on remedies . . .
I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous to
the contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles
or lube which would affect the service or life of the part? On the
moving parts yes but I don't know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
WD40 is often applied to moving part for
the purpose of loosening corrosion and flushing
out small particulates while displacing any
moisture present. The combustible VOLATILES are
just that . . .they quickly dissipate after carrying
WD40 'magic juice' to the intended surfaces.
If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the
design of the time.
What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's,
NEVER address the Master Switch during Annual.
It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
3 - Spray it with WD-40.
My first job at Cessna extended over 5 years
in the technical publications department where,
among other things, I wrote repair and preventative
maintenance narratives in Cessna's service manuals.
Emacs!
The policy of the company was to 'replace on condition'
meaning that devices like relays and toggle switches
were considered and sometimes tested to see that
they met service life design goals. If a such a device
were to mis-behave, it was time to replace it. Hence
no maintenance or refurbishment methods were offered
or required.
Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning System.
The basic switch used on the legacy stall warning
sensor was a Honeywell BZ series commercial off
the shelf device with very low operating force
(measured in grams). Of course, as a component
in a PMA/TSO product, the owner operator was prohibited
from replacing said switch for $20 (and I wasn't
allowed to write a procedure for it either).
These are not sealed switches and they're mounted
in one of the more hostile environments on the airplane.
Depending on the mis-behavior mode, an application
of WD40 may well free up things and restore normal
operation . . . but a switch that was not working
normally was probably pretty long in the tooth. Depending
on criticality of the device, it may well be better
to replace as opposed to refurbish the individual
switch.
On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator Switch.
I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the
physical as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
Paralleling contacts only doubles the CARRY
rating of a switch . . . it does not double
opening or closing ratings.
Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
Silver plating or solid silver contacts are
rare and intended for specific applications . . .
which generally do not include switching
DC power. Cadmium Silver contacts are used in
the more robust designs favored by mil-spec
designs . . . but I suspect the Carling style
products used on hundreds of thousands of TC
aircraft are not so 'fancy' . . . yet demonstrably
adequate to task.
You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture
shield. OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt
Switch, there are four (4) failure points:
1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel
that holds the switch into the panel.
This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring action.
Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either
side to hold the bezel in place.
If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up.
Or do an in-flight re-start.
Scary!
Can you cite any service difficulty report
that describes such a failure of the mounting?
These switches are used by hundreds of thousands
for about 50 years. I find it curious that
anyone would find them (1) lacking in design
to intended task and/or (2) figuring significantly
on the list of probable failure that creates
a hazard to flight.
I know it is not a likely case, but I have experienced a contactor
failure on a production plane in flight. It ended up that the root
cause was a defective master switch - but the result was the
same. Because there was no endurance bus alternate feed, it was a
full electrical shutdown, in IMC no less!
Then it wasn't a contactor failure but a switch failure.
How did it manifest in flight? i.e. how did you become
aware of the failure? Did things simply go black?
I would like to know if there is a practical way to protect for
contactor failure ( other than battery only operation ) with the Z-12
design. It would be nice to have a second path to the battery from
aux alternator to ensure stable power if the master does fail.
You can move the aux alternator wiring to the
hot side of the battery contactor . . . it's
just that simple.
The appeal to me of having an aux alternator is to be able to
continue flight on one alternator. This is only possible if either a
battery connection is maintained always or it is a guarantee the
alternator will provide stable power without a battery connection.
Batteryless operation is likely but cannot
be guaranteed without testing on your airplane
with your constellation of hardware. As I've mentioned,
there are Beechcraft piston aircraft wherein battery-off
operation is described and permitted as a matter of
design and verification by flight testing. It's covered
in the POH.
For this forum cannot make configuration/operation
recommendations without conducting similar investigations
as to meeting design goals
The Z-13/8 uses a relay with the SD-8 alternator to connect directly
to battery. Is this design practical or even advisable with the
SD-20 alternator? With Z-13/8 the aux alternator will provide power
to battery bus and E-BUS if contactor fails.
Exactly. If you wish, you can certainly wire the SD20
in a manner suggested by Z13/8. There are no 'rules'
that would prohibit you from doing so.
When I took Z13/20 off the table about 10 years ago,
it was because it added a degree of complexity
over Z12 that did not materially reduce risk.
In fight contactor failure is exceedingly rare.
Smoke in the cockpit probably has a higher degree
of probability . . . in which instance you may
wish to shot the whole system down anyhow.
Any of you who have attended my weekend seminars
may remember this slide:
Emacs!
The last 200-300 hours of my flying days were
carried out with these three items in my flight
bag. Since I flew nothing but rentals, I had little
insight as to the history of electrical/electronics
systems. I was prepared to continue flight to intended
destination with the master switch OFF.
Indeed, the performance of these $100 hand-held
gps receivers so exceeded the panel mounted stuff
that those last hundreds of hours were flown with
DUAL gps receivers 'mounted' to the glare-shield
and windshield with little blobs of windshield
sealant. Never touched a VOR receiver or even
the panel mounted GPS receivers again.
As I describe in Chapter 17 of the 'Connection,
system reliability has far more to do with pilot
skills and careful crafting of a Plan-B than it
does on any selection of system hardware. The
carefully crafted architecture and pilot's personal
bag of tricks strives for failure tolerance . . . not
failure proofing. The later cannot be achieved.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Z12 contactor failure (CORRECTION) |
In-fight contactor failure is exceedingly rare.
Smoke in the cockpit probably has a higher degree
of probability . . . in which instance you may
wish to shot the whole system down anyhow.
Any of you who have attended my weekend seminars
may remember this slide:
Emacs!
The last 200-300 hours of my flying days were
carried out with these three items in my flight
bag. Since I flew nothing but rentals, I had little
insight as to the history of electrical/electronics
systems. I was prepared to continue flight to intended
destination with the master switch OFF.
Indeed, the performance of these $100 hand-held
gps receivers so exceeded the panel mounted stuff
that those last hundreds of hours were flown with
DUAL gps receivers 'mounted' to the glare-shield
and windshield with little blobs of windshield
sealant. Never touched a VOR receiver or even
the panel mounted GPS receivers again.
As I describe in Chapter 17 of the 'Connection,
system reliability has far more to do with pilot
skills and careful crafting of a Plan-B than it
does on any selection of system hardware. The
carefully crafted architecture and pilot's personal
bag of tricks strives for failure tolerance . . . not
failure proofing. The later cannot be achieved.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Bob:
You are going off on tangents - - -
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Yup There are all sorts of 'possible' possibilities, all without proof,
> but it DOES WORK!
> Many of our aircraft are 40+ years old. The original lubricants in the
> switches have long disappeared.
> They are NOT sealed switches.
> What has worked for many years are now failing. Just look Brandon's post
.
> And, when it comes to the Stall Warning micro switch - Replacement with
> NEW is $1200+ used, about $600 to $700.
> All this can be prevented with a can of WD-40!
>
> WD40 can be useful in the maintenance of electro-whizzies
> with moving parts . . . and indeed, it was not originally
> designed to be a lubricant so much as a (W)ater (D)isplacer
> and cleaner. As a side benefit, it does have some degree of
> lubricity . . . as do many substances . . . but its service
> life as a lubricant is far outpaced by other products designed
> for lubrication.
>
> =8BBarry - Nobody said it was being used as a lubricant, only you.
It will
work as a lubrcant to the contact areas of plastic switches and even the
metal pivot points. How long will it last? I don't know... As I said in
my post; A&P seldom address switches and many of these switches are 40 +
years old. So, anything that one can do to extend their life or rejuvenate
them is a good thing. Back to the WD... It is being used =8B
=8Bas a WD and as a CLEANER!
Oh wait... Can it be used as a cleaner???
DEFINITELY YES!=8B
Do you have proof that it can't be?
https://goo.gl/sbPhXj
>
> WD40 was major maintenance feature for the MQM107 target
> we used to build at Beech.
>
=8BBarry - So!!! Who cares!=8B
>
> https://goo.gl/otFkbp
>
> The engine was a very short service life device with
> minimal moving parts and INTENDED to become totally
> immersed in seawater during an offshore recovery.
>
=8BBarry - Want more info on this subject? I did salvage and artifa
ct
recovery way-way back in the 70's and 80's .
Who cares!=8B
>
> The first refurbishment move for the aircraft was to remove
> the engine and submerge it in a barrel of WD40. When the
> aircraft was ready to receive the engine, they hauled it out
> with compressed air and bolted it back on the airframe.
>
> Not needed on sealed DPST Toggle Switches. AND they are NOT 40+ years ol
d.
>
> Obviously, a truly sealed switch cannot benefit from
> spray on remedies . . .
>
=8BBarry - That's why I said you CYCLE the Switches a couple dozen ti
mes.=8B
=8BWhy are you going off on so many tangents?=8B
>
> I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous to the
> contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles or lube
> which would affect the service or life of the part? On the moving parts y
es
> but I don't know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
>
> WD40 is often applied to moving part for
> the purpose of loosening corrosion and flushing
> out small particulates while displacing any
> moisture present. The combustible VOLATILES are
> just that . . .they quickly dissipate after carrying
> WD40 'magic juice' to the intended surfaces.
>
=8BBarry - You advertise yourself as an engineer. =8B
=8BIf so, why are you so closed minded to other possibilities?
=8B
There are curtain things in physics that cannot be changed, but how a
product can be used and to Great Advantages is sure out there.
>
> If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
>
> Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design o
f
> the time.
> What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER
> address the Master Switch during Annual.
>
> It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
> 1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
> 2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
> 3 - Spray it with WD-40.
>
> My first job at Cessna extended over 5 years
> in the technical publications department where,
> among other things, I wrote repair and preventative
> maintenance narratives in Cessna's service manuals.
>
=8BBarry - So what? Anybody can sit down behind a desk and write a ma
nual.
I have for a few dozen Environmental Test procedures. ANYTHING can be
written.
Ask the A&P and IA that is TRY to follow =8B
=8Bwhat some paper-pusher =8Bwrote IF it is possible.
Ask the plane owner who has to pay the bill why a simple thing like the
Cessna Seat Rail Tracks has to be replace and WHY it is so expensive!
=8B Or how to replace the Flap Motor on a Cessna.=8B
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> The policy of the company was to 'replace on condition'
> meaning that devices like relays and toggle switches
> were considered and sometimes tested to see that
> they met service life design goals. If a such a device
> were to mis-behave, it was time to replace it. Hence
> no maintenance or refurbishment methods were offered
> or required.
>
> Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning
> System.
>
> The basic switch used on the legacy stall warning
> sensor was a Honeywell BZ series commercial off
> the shelf device with very low operating force
> (measured in grams). Of course, as a component
> in a PMA/TSO product, the owner operator was prohibited
> from replacing said switch for $20 (and I wasn't
> allowed to write a procedure for it either).
>
> These are not sealed switches and they're mounted
> in one of the more hostile environments on the airplane.
> Depending on the mis-behavior mode, an application
> of WD40 may well free up things and restore normal
> operation . . . but a switch that was not working
> normally was probably pretty long in the tooth. Depending
> on criticality of the device, it may well be better
> to replace as opposed to refurbish the individual
> switch.
>
>
> On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
> Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator Switc
h.
> I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the
> physical as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
>
> Paralleling contacts only doubles the CARRY
> rating of a switch . . . it does not double
> opening or closing ratings.
>
> Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
>
> Silver plating or solid silver contacts are
> rare and intended for specific applications . . .
> which generally do not include switching
> DC power. Cadmium Silver contacts are used in
> the more robust designs favored by mil-spec
> designs . . . but I suspect the Carling style
> products used on hundreds of thousands of TC
> aircraft are not so 'fancy' . . . yet demonstrably
> adequate to task.
>
=8BBarry - YES - They Are! But, as the fellow whom had the failure w
as
talking and as I was saying:
These switches have NOT been addressed during Annuals over MANY - MANY
YEARS! =8B
=8BThe Experimental Owner has Great Advantages over the Certified Own
er by
making small changes that GREATLY extend the life and as you are so
vigorous to report on 'Reduction of Failure Points'. So, why shouldn't they
look for the better switch.
Silver Plated or CadSilver?
GAUD! Which way did you part the gnat's hairs on that one?
Walking into a electronics store, the Simple question: Do you have any
Silver Plated Contact Switch? Will result in the SAME results! When I
order Manure I don't care if it is horse or cow. Either one will work!
>
> You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield.
> OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
>
> Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt Switch
,
> there are four (4) failure points:
> 1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
> 2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
> 3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
> 4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that
> holds the switch into the panel.
> This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring actio
n.
> Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
> The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side
> to hold the bezel in place.
> If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
> switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
> If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-up
.
> Or do an in-flight re-start.
> Scary!
>
> Can you cite any service difficulty report
> that describes such a failure of the mounting?
>
=8BBarry - You must LOVE AD's!
I found the problem twice. I fixed the problem twice.=8B
=8BYES! The switches have lasted for many years. Does that mean the
y cannot
fail? And, as I said: It was not the switch. It was the mounting bezel.
Just because a FAA 8070-1 report not exist AND I do not know if one does or
does not exist, does not mean the problem does not exist.
=8BJust look at the design of the retaining bezel and even you should
be able
to see there is a potential failure point.
ESPECIALLY! When the switch is removed in tracking down a wiring issue.
There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than even Bob has
knowledge on.
Barry
These switches are used by hundreds of thousands
> for about 50 years. I find it curious that
> anyone would find them (1) lacking in design
> to intended task and/or (2) figuring significantly
> on the list of probable failure that creates
> a hazard to flight.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Gee Wizz Barry,
Many have taken on Bob N, and many have failed....
In all the 15 + years I have been a member of this forum, the thing that
has impressed me most is the decorum of the participants....just sayin!
Best...
Bob Verwey
082 331 2727
On 24 April 2018 at 04:12, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Bob:
>
> You are going off on tangents - - -
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob:
>>
>> Yup There are all sorts of 'possible' possibilities, all without proof,
>> but it DOES WORK!
>> Many of our aircraft are 40+ years old. The original lubricants in the
>> switches have long disappeared.
>> They are NOT sealed switches.
>> What has worked for many years are now failing. Just look Brandon's pos
t.
>> And, when it comes to the Stall Warning micro switch - Replacement with
>> NEW is $1200+ used, about $600 to $700.
>> All this can be prevented with a can of WD-40!
>>
>> WD40 can be useful in the maintenance of electro-whizzies
>> with moving parts . . . and indeed, it was not originally
>> designed to be a lubricant so much as a (W)ater (D)isplacer
>> and cleaner. As a side benefit, it does have some degree of
>> lubricity . . . as do many substances . . . but its service
>> life as a lubricant is far outpaced by other products designed
>> for lubrication.
>>
>> =8BBarry - Nobody said it was being used as a lubricant, only you.
It will
> work as a lubrcant to the contact areas of plastic switches and even the
> metal pivot points. How long will it last? I don't know... As I said
in
> my post; A&P seldom address switches and many of these switches are 40 +
> years old. So, anything that one can do to extend their life or rejuvena
te
> them is a good thing. Back to the WD... It is being used =8B
>
> =8Bas a WD and as a CLEANER!
> Oh wait... Can it be used as a cleaner???
> DEFINITELY YES!=8B
> Do you have proof that it can't be?
>
> https://goo.gl/sbPhXj
>>
>> WD40 was major maintenance feature for the MQM107 target
>> we used to build at Beech.
>>
> =8BBarry - So!!! Who cares!=8B
>
>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/otFkbp
>>
>> The engine was a very short service life device with
>> minimal moving parts and INTENDED to become totally
>> immersed in seawater during an offshore recovery.
>>
> =8BBarry - Want more info on this subject? I did salvage and arti
fact
> recovery way-way back in the 70's and 80's .
> Who cares!=8B
>
>
>>
>> The first refurbishment move for the aircraft was to remove
>> the engine and submerge it in a barrel of WD40. When the
>> aircraft was ready to receive the engine, they hauled it out
>> with compressed air and bolted it back on the airframe.
>>
>> Not needed on sealed DPST Toggle Switches. AND they are NOT 40+ years
>> old.
>>
>> Obviously, a truly sealed switch cannot benefit from
>> spray on remedies . . .
>>
> =8BBarry - That's why I said you CYCLE the Switches a couple dozen
times.=8B
>
> =8BWhy are you going off on so many tangents?=8B
>
>>
>> I can't see how applying a lubricant like WD40 can be advantageous to th
e
>> contacts on the switch...surely there will be burning volatiles or lube
>> which would affect the service or life of the part? On the moving parts
yes
>> but I don't know of a way to differentiate with a spray can.
>>
>> WD40 is often applied to moving part for
>> the purpose of loosening corrosion and flushing
>> out small particulates while displacing any
>> moisture present. The combustible VOLATILES are
>> just that . . .they quickly dissipate after carrying
>> WD40 'magic juice' to the intended surfaces.
>>
> =8BBarry - You advertise yourself as an engineer. =8B
>
> =8BIf so, why are you so closed minded to other possibilities?
=8B
> There are curtain things in physics that cannot be changed, but how a
> product can be used and to Great Advantages is sure out there.
>
>>
>> If the Master Switch failed why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>> Since this was a certified plane you are forced to work with the design
>> of the time.
>> What I have found is 99.982% of certified plane owners and A&P's, NEVER
>> address the Master Switch during Annual.
>>
>> It should be addressed every Annual and it is very easy to do:
>> 1 - Spray the heck out of it with Contact Cleaner.
>> 2 - Cycle the switch a couple of dozen times.
>> 3 - Spray it with WD-40.
>>
>> My first job at Cessna extended over 5 years
>> in the technical publications department where,
>> among other things, I wrote repair and preventative
>> maintenance narratives in Cessna's service manuals.
>>
> =8BBarry - So what? Anybody can sit down behind a desk and write a
manual.
> I have for a few dozen Environmental Test procedures. ANYTHING can be
> written.
> Ask the A&P and IA that is TRY to follow =8B
>
> =8Bwhat some paper-pusher =8Bwrote IF it is possible.
> Ask the plane owner who has to pay the bill why a simple thing like the
> Cessna Seat Rail Tracks has to be replace and WHY it is so expensive!
> =8B Or how to replace the Flap Motor on a Cessna.=8B
>
>
>> [image: Emacs!]
>>
>> The policy of the company was to 'replace on condition'
>> meaning that devices like relays and toggle switches
>> were considered and sometimes tested to see that
>> they met service life design goals. If a such a device
>> were to mis-behave, it was time to replace it. Hence
>> no maintenance or refurbishment methods were offered
>> or required.
>>
>> Side Note: This also goes for the micro-switch in the Stall Warning
>> System.
>>
>> The basic switch used on the legacy stall warning
>> sensor was a Honeywell BZ series commercial off
>> the shelf device with very low operating force
>> (measured in grams). Of course, as a component
>> in a PMA/TSO product, the owner operator was prohibited
>> from replacing said switch for $20 (and I wasn't
>> allowed to write a procedure for it either).
>>
>> These are not sealed switches and they're mounted
>> in one of the more hostile environments on the airplane.
>> Depending on the mis-behavior mode, an application
>> of WD40 may well free up things and restore normal
>> operation . . . but a switch that was not working
>> normally was probably pretty long in the tooth. Depending
>> on criticality of the device, it may well be better
>> to replace as opposed to refurbish the individual
>> switch.
>>
>>
>> On Experimental Aircraft you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE...
>> Use a Heavy Duty Master Switch and a Separate Heavy Duty Alternator
>> Switch.
>> I use DPST switches and tie BOTH sides together. This DOUBLES the
>> physical as well as the electrical rating of the switch.
>>
>> Paralleling contacts only doubles the CARRY
>> rating of a switch . . . it does not double
>> opening or closing ratings.
>>
>> Want to go extra fancy? Look for switches that are Sliver Plated.
>>
>> Silver plating or solid silver contacts are
>> rare and intended for specific applications . . .
>> which generally do not include switching
>> DC power. Cadmium Silver contacts are used in
>> the more robust designs favored by mil-spec
>> designs . . . but I suspect the Carling style
>> products used on hundreds of thousands of TC
>> aircraft are not so 'fancy' . . . yet demonstrably
>> adequate to task.
>>
> =8BBarry - YES - They Are! But, as the fellow whom had the failure
was
> talking and as I was saying:
> These switches have NOT been addressed during Annuals over MANY - MANY
> YEARS! =8B
>
> =8BThe Experimental Owner has Great Advantages over the Certified O
wner by
> making small changes that GREATLY extend the life and as you are so
> vigorous to report on 'Reduction of Failure Points'. So, why shouldn't th
ey
> look for the better switch.
> Silver Plated or CadSilver?
> GAUD! Which way did you part the gnat's hairs on that one?
> Walking into a electronics store, the Simple question: Do you have any
> Silver Plated Contact Switch? Will result in the SAME results! When I
> order Manure I don't care if it is horse or cow. Either one will work!
>
>
>>
>> You can also use switches that have a built in Dust/Moisture shield.
>> OR... Install the dust/Moisture shield over the Toggle Lever.
>>
>> Side Note: On certified planes with the standard split Master/Alt
>> Switch, there are four (4) failure points:
>> 1 - The Physical snap action of the switch.
>> 2 - The Electrical contacts of the switch.
>> 3 - Fast-On tabs on the back of the switch.
>> 4 - The Physical MOUNTING of the switch. There is a snap in bezel that
>> holds the switch into the panel.
>> This bezel fails as the ears either break off or loose their spring
>> action.
>> Then the switch vibrates forward and shorts out to the aluminum panel.
>> The cure is to use two (2) sheet metal round head screws on either side
>> to hold the bezel in place.
>> If the switch vibrates out it will short out and take your Master/Alt
>> switch and Starter Relay out of the circuit.
>> If you are airborne - You loose even the ability to go to Battery Back-u
p.
>> Or do an in-flight re-start.
>> Scary!
>>
>> Can you cite any service difficulty report
>> that describes such a failure of the mounting?
>>
> =8BBarry - You must LOVE AD's!
> I found the problem twice. I fixed the problem twice.=8B
>
> =8BYES! The switches have lasted for many years. Does that mean t
hey
> cannot fail? And, as I said: It was not the switch. It was the mounting
> bezel.
>
> Just because a FAA 8070-1 report not exist AND I do not know if one does
> or does not exist, does not mean the problem does not exist.
> =8BJust look at the design of the retaining bezel and even you shou
ld be
> able to see there is a potential failure point.
> ESPECIALLY! When the switch is removed in tracking down a wiring issue.
>
> There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than even Bob has
> knowledge on.
>
> Barry
>
> These switches are used by hundreds of thousands
>> for about 50 years. I find it curious that
>> anyone would find them (1) lacking in design
>> to intended task and/or (2) figuring significantly
>> on the list of probable failure that creates
>> a hazard to flight.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
=2E . . . Not wanting to venture into the dark side of some of these "conv
ersations", I just want to relay what I have personally viewed on this subj
ect of old switches and WD40.....
Some legacy Cessna switches were simple pull-push, like a Master. I have r
epaired 2 of them. If one is (very) careful bending the retaining tabs the
switch can be worked apart and resealed. What I found in both was severel
y hardened original lubricate. Hardened to the point that if a piece gets
into the contacts, it can cause a faults.
Cleaning with the usual sprays and re-lubing with modern electrical grease
has fixed both and they are still working today.... but, it was the old lub
e that caused random failure. These were master switches.
About WD40, . . .I have used it on a lot to things, but this comment is abo
ut use on guns. I have pulled rifles from several years of storage and not
been able to operate the bolt action. The one flaw I see with WD40 is tha
t once the lighter carry fluids evaporate, it leaves a strong, thick film t
hat can almost seize close fitting parts. Other than that issue, it does g
reat duty as a penetrate and shield from water and rust. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
At 09:12 PM 4/23/2018, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>You are going off on tangents
I would like to think that I'm reviewing background
that supports ideas and design goals for reducing
risk. Airplanes are exceedingly unforgiving things . . .
but they are well understood. We can climb into these
machines and launch into hazardous environs with
confidence when we (1) don't routinely push the
'boundaries of the envelope'. (2) build and operate
with a degree of understanding that promotes
failure tolerance. (3) pay attention to the failings
that produce the vast majority of unhappy days in
the cockpit . . . most off-airport arrivals with
the earth have root cause in ignorance of or
inattention to important things.
There are no procedures in the legacy annual inspections
for switches, relays, contactors, light bulbs, etc.
Because these things DO cease to function with regularity
that has nothing to do with the calendar. If things
didn't break, FBOs would be out of business.
"Replace on condition" is the mantra of those who
endeavor to become licensed aviation mechanics
and technicians. Certification follows education
delivered hopefully by competent teachers. If
you've read any of my works on the website or
in the 'Connection, you will see that I try
to lay foundation for both the physics and the
philosophies I am reviewing.
The materials and practices we've grown up with
in TC aviation are a good place to start as
we strive for 'self certification' . . . indeed,
few folks bucking rivets on or stringing wires in an
RV are 'qualified' to work for an FBO. Hence, the
mission for the AeroElectric-List is to bring
the best-we've-learned-how-to-do in 100 years of
TC aviation into to the world of OBAM aviation.
And then, because we are not burdened with
the albatross of prolific regulation and bureaucracy,
ADVANCE the art in careful, considered steps that
do not increase risk.
This thread was about contactor failures. Yes,
they've been known to crap out. Cessna Service-Parts
sells a boat load of new ones every year. Yet
how many unhappy days in the cockpit are attributed
to contactor failures . . . or switches, relays, etc?
This suggest that they are a low risk failure in
TC aircraft . . . and with careful analysis of
failure modes, OBAM aviation is free to reduce those
risks still further.
The narrative of WD40 WAS anecdotal but I hope
useful. The flags that arose in my thinking were
about the notions you were citing about the lack
of refurbishment and/or regular inspection intervals.
Most devices give us advance clues as to their
distress before they fail outright. I suggest that
the FIRST time a switch, relay or contactor demonstrates
an electrical infirmity, it is time to replace it.
Some mechanical infirmities may benefit from
a lubrication/cleaning operation . . . but hopefully,
the decision is made from a position of informed
competence.
Bailing wire and pliers served my grandpa well . . .
indeed, proper dress for my friends out here
in the hinterlands includes a leather holster for
a robust pair of pliers. My son gave me a Leatherman for
Father's Day about 5 years ago . . . it too has become part
of my 'uniform'. My friends also carry cans of WD40
on their trucks. They may be running re-grooved tires
on their swathers. Some have no doubt dropped little
doses of 'magic elixir' into the filler caps on a
faltering battery.
My point is that any refurbishment activity on a
component of our airplanes is worthy of evaluation
for return on investment, assessment of risk and,
as we've learned in a century of TC aviation, REPLACE
ON CONDITION is never a bad idea.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Double pole switch failure mode? |
| From: | "czechsix" <czechsix(at)msn.com> |
Bob,
I'm interested in Z-14 for my RV-14A, not my RV-8A. I was just pointing out that
back when I built my RV-8A I don't think the wiring diagrams were available
in an editable format, so I used ink and whiteout. The -8A had single alternator
and one PC680 main battery plus a small backup battery dedicated to one of
the elec ignition systems. I only flew it VFR.
On the RV-14A, it will be full IFR cross country cruiser with all glass panel and
I'm planning to use SDS electronic fuel injection and elec ignition. That's
a lot of stuff riding on the electrical system, especially given that you need
to have the high pressure elec fuel pump running at all times (no engine driven
pump with EFI).
I want to fly the airplane to Alaska, Caribbean, etc...some areas that are far
from home and sometimes pretty remote. Having been stuck for a few days on a
cross country in my -8A due to a failed regulator, I'd prefer to have more redundancy
on the -14A not just for safety but also so I can dispatch and get somewhere
after a failure. The SD-8 is pretty marginal for going long distances
in an airplane with electrically dependent fuel pump, engine control unit, injectors,
ignition and the EFIS system even if you shed the second display and lights
and transponder and such. The engine systems alone will use up most of
the SD-8's capacity. Therefore I plan to use the 20-40A B&C 410-H as my second
alternator on the vac pad (it isn't much different cost-wise from the SD-8,
main downside is a couple more pounds).
Then there's the question of single vs dual batteries. I would like to take advantage
of the weight savings of the EarthX battery, but I don't yet trust it
100%...obviously anything can fail (including a PC680), but EarthX has a lot of
built-in smarts that I don't fully understand and among other things it can
completely shut itself off if it isn't happy. With one battery, the importance
of good maintenance goes up and replacement intervals get shorter (at least
my philosophy is to replace a single battery every 3 years even if it is performing
well). Furthermore with a single battery, the avionics and ECU/ignition
system may reboot while cranking.
Adding a second battery addresses these concerns. The TCW backup battery could
be a solution for the second battery, but it costs more than an EarthX battery
and has more limited capacity.
So I'm thinking I'll use two EarthX batteries, each with their own alternator...two
independent electrical systems with unlimited generating capacity. That
alleviates my concerns about battery failure modes because it's extremely improbable
for both to fail at the same time (I'll have them physically isolated).
And I don't have to change them out every 3 years like I did on my PC680 in
my RV-8A, I can pretty much run them until one of the dies or fails to crank (because
the other one can get me where I want to go on that flight). Even though
they are more expensive than a PC680, I think my long-term maintenance (replacement)
cost will be about the same because I'll use them longer. Having two
batteries keeps the display/EIS/ECU stuff from rebooting during engine start.
And two EarthX batteries are still quite a bit lighter than one PC680. In
fact, the all-up system weight of dual B&C alternators & regulators with dual
EarthX batteries is almost exactly the same as a single Planepower alternator
and PC680 that comes with the stock RV-14 kit...so it's break even with respect
to weight.
So...that leads me to Z-14. It addresses all my requirements and concerns in a
way that Z-13/8 does not. The main thing I'm trying to decide with Z-14 is where
to connect all the engine related stuff. Most of the parts are dual redundant
(ECUs, ignition coils, pumps) so I could split those up between the two
respective battery buses. The one part that is not redundant is the injectors.
So I was thinking about running the power for the injectors off a bus that
is fed via diodes from each battery. The diodes would keep the two electrical
systems isolated while allowing the engine to run as long as either battery is
providing power.
Thanks,
-Mark
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479518#479518
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
At 11:15 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote:
>=EF=BB
>. . . . Not wanting to venture into the dark
>side of some of these "conversations", I just
>want to relay what I have personally viewed on
>this subject of old switches and WD40.....
>
>Some legacy Cessna switches were simple pull-push, like a Master.
Geesh! That goes back aways. I think some of those
switches (automotive devices from the likes of
Cole-Hersee) were sill in production airframes
when I joined Cessna in '64. C-H still makes those
venerable devices.
Emacs!
>I have repaired 2 of them. If one is (very)
>careful bending the retaining tabs the switch
>can be worked apart and resealed. What I found
>in both was severely hardened original
>lubricate. Hardened to the point that if a
>piece gets into the contacts, it can cause a faults.
>Cleaning with the usual sprays and re-lubing
>with modern electrical grease has fixed both and
>they are still working today.... but, it was the
>old lube that caused random failure. These were master switches.
Yeah, fortunately the enclosure alloy would allow
opening and re-closing the tabs without fracture.
But I would have been hard pressed to 'sell off' the
procedure in a Service Parts Manual!
I do recall an 'approved' disassembly, refurbishment
and re-assembly of the OFF-L-R-BOTH-START switches
from Aircraft Spruce when the electrically destructive
nature of modern starter engagement solenoids was
discovered. And that was, as Barry intimated, an AD . . .
https://goo.gl/QV3gTF
>
>About WD40, . . .I have used it on a lot to
>things, but this comment is about use on
>guns. I have pulled rifles from several years
>of storage and not been able to operate the bolt
>action. The one flaw I see with WD40 is that
>once the lighter carry fluids evaporate, it
>leaves a strong, thick film that can almost
>seize close fitting parts. Other than that
>issue, it does great duty as a penetrate and shield from water and rust. .
. .
Absolutely fine stuff . . . there are probably a half
dozen cans scattered around my shops and the truck-box.
Yes, I've seen the results of WD40 used to lubricate
Oilite bearings. They became clogged and totally
un-recoverable. Had to cut new ones from raw stock
on the lathe.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
> Most devices give us advance clues as to their
> distress before they fail outright. I suggest that
> the FIRST time a switch, relay or contactor demonstrates
> an electrical infirmity, it is time to replace it.
Stubbed my toe here a bit. I do recall the electrical
failure of a mil-spec switch in the overhead panel
on a Beechjet. It was a spring-loaded, press-to-test
switch that was seldom used . . . and carried a tiny
fraction of rated current.
Yet, the switch had gone totally open . . .
The tech I was working with started the procurement
process for a new switch . . . which would have taken
several hours and exercised a lot of people. Pondering
the range of possible cause/effect I hypothesized that
the switch's failure may be the result of DISUSE.
The 10A rated, silver-cad contacts DEPEND on some degree
of electrical arc to burn away a thin film of corrosion.
So before he put the requisition into the slot, I
got a 5A, 30v constant current power supply from the lab
and connected it right across the switch such that
the 'failed' contacts provided a dead short on the
supply.
After a few dozen transitions of the switch, it became
conductive and demonstrated a very low on-resistance
(less than 10mv of drop at 5a). We were able to declare
the switch 'refurbished' and put the panel back together.
That particular application would have benefited from
gold-plated contacts on the switch. Such contacts are
designed for conductive longevity while working very low
or zero-current switching conditions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
Hi Bob,
Yes, you picked up on exactly the switches I was referring with my comments
=2E
If you come across replacements, please put a P in your memory bank to let
me know where to obtain.
Much appreciated. .
Dave
=EF=81=A1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
=EF=81=A1
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-12 contactor failure
At 11:15 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote:
. . . . Not wanting to venture into the dark side of some of these "conv
ersations", I just want to relay what I have personally viewed on this subj
ect of old switches and WD40.....
Some legacy Cessna switches were simple pull-push, like a Master.
Geesh! That goes back aways. I think some of those
switches (automotive devices from the likes of
Cole-Hersee) were sill in production airframes
when I joined Cessna in '64. C-H still makes those
venerable devices.
I have repaired 2 of them. If one is (very) careful bending the retain
ing tabs the switch can be worked apart and resealed. What I found in both
was severely hardened original lubricate. Hardened to the point that if a
piece gets into the contacts, it can cause a faults.
Cleaning with the usual sprays and re-lubing with modern electrical gre
ase has fixed both and they are still working today.... but, it was the old
lube that caused random failure. These were master switches.
Yeah, fortunately the enclosure alloy would allow
opening and re-closing the tabs without fracture.
But I would have been hard pressed to 'sell off' the
procedure in a Service Parts Manual!
I do recall an 'approved' disassembly, refurbishment
and re-assembly of the OFF-L-R-BOTH-START switches
from Aircraft Spruce when the electrically destructive
nature of modern starter engagement solenoids was
discovered. And that was, as Barry intimated, an AD . . .
https://goo.gl/QV3gTF
About WD40, . . .I have used it on a lot to things, but this comment is
about use on guns. I have pulled rifles from several years of storage and
not been able to operate the bolt action. The one flaw I see with WD40 is
that once the lighter carry fluids evaporate, it leaves a strong, thick fi
lm that can almost seize close fitting parts. Other than that issue, it do
es great duty as a penetrate and shield from water and rust. . . .
Absolutely fine stuff . . . there are probably a half
dozen cans scattered around my shops and the truck-box.
Yes, I've seen the results of WD40 used to lubricate
Oilite bearings. They became clogged and totally
un-recoverable. Had to cut new ones from raw stock
on the lathe.
Bob . . .
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
At 01:34 PM 4/24/2018, you wrote:
>=EF=BB
>Hi Bob,
>
>Yes, you picked up on exactly the switches I was referring with my
comments.
>If you come across replacements, please put a P
>in your memory bank to let me know where to obtain.
>Much appreciated. .
>Dave
check through the offerings here
https://goo.gl/4r9M3x
you may find a suitable substitute if
not exact replacment. the switch
I illustrated is a Cole-Hersee 50047
which is probably available through a
Coll-Hersee dealer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Cole-Hersee push-pull switch |
At 01:34 PM 4/24/2018, you wrote:
>=EF=BB
>Hi Bob,
>
>Yes, you picked up on exactly the switches I was referring with my
comments.
>If you come across replacements, please put a P
>in your memory bank to let me know where to obtain.
>Much appreciated. .
>Dave
This is probably the switch you want.
https://goo.gl/3wLxKs
The photo is wrong but the narrative is correct.
The configuration of the 50047-01 part number
is confirmed on the first page of this document.
https://goo.gl/P9ptcT
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IS SD-8 OVER VOLTAGE PROTECTION NECESSARY? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It seems that many builders load the Endurance Bus with more than absolutely necessary.
If the combined loads on E-Bus total 10 amps or more, is it really necessary
to have over-voltage protection for the SD-8? The permanent magnet dynamo
might have trouble maintaining 14 volts, let alone putting out 15 or 16
or higher voltage. And even if the voltage were above normal, the battery should
be able to absorb the extra current for a longer time period than it could
if the main alternator was putting out too high voltage.
Modern avionics are made to handle up to 30 volts. But if a Lithium battery
is installed, over-voltage protection is important.
Some pilots might leave the aux alternator turned on during normal flight. In
that case, an over voltage condition will trip both over-voltage modules simultaneously.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479534#479534
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 contactor failure |
I lost track of which Bob was recommending annual WD-40 as a switch failure preventive
prophylactic, and which Bob wasnt.
Can someone advise?
On Apr 24, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 01:34 PM 4/24/2018, you wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Yes, you picked up on exactly the switches I was referring with my comments.
> If you come across replacements, please put a P in your memory bank to let me
know where to obtain.
> Much appreciated. .
> Dave
check through the offerings here
https://goo.gl/4r9M3x
you may find a suitable substitute if
not exact replacment. the switch
I illustrated is a Cole-Hersee 50047
which is probably available through a
Coll-Hersee dealer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Magic stuff . . . |
At 07:12 PM 4/24/2018, you wrote:
>
>I lost track of which Bob was recommending
>annual WD-40 as a switch failure preventive
>prophylactic, and which Bob wasn=99t.
>Can someone advise?
The short answer is "no".
The longer answer is, check the engineering
data on any line of switches or relays you
might be considering for your project. You
will find a constellation of styles and
ratings. It will be a rare switch or relay
that is rated for less than TENS OF THOUSANDS
of operations at rated load.
Now, consider how heavily you are going to load
this device . . . pushing the ratings? Probably
not. So from an ELECTRICAL perspective, the
service life of this devices will be some factor
greater than rated. Then we consider mechanical
service life . . . which logically exceeds the
rated electrical service life.
Now, how many operations are you going to put
on this device every year? Based on your
anticipated service demands, how many flight
hours will you put on the switch before it's
at risk for end of life? Trust me, it's a BIG
number . . . so big in fact that and end of
life failure is exceedingly tiny if not
zero. You cannot wear out that device during
your life experience with the airplane.
Hmmmm . . . switches and relays get replaced
all the time. Yup . . . and probably for
reasons unrelated to actual operating cycles
on the device. Okay, what's the reason
for premature failure? It's probably a combination
of serval things . . . most of which you'll
have no control over.
Hmmmm . . . what's a poor owner operator to do?
Can't tell you without going through the kinds
of failure analysis that dominated the last
10 years of my career in GA. The analysis
was expensive, time consuming and seldom
revealed a cheap and dirty resolution. Some
failures were one-of events usually based
on some fabrication error . . . it took
5-6 weeks of pushing one poor customer's
airplane up the chain of time, talent
and resources before I talked the pilots
into letting me tape a 37 conductor ribbon
cable to the fuselage and past gaskets in
the baggage and passenger doors. With this
rig I was able to watch a constellation
of parameters in the tail while we climbed
to 41000 feet . . . one more time . . . in
search of the elusive failure.
Found a crimp pin in a pressure bulkhead feed
through that was not seated. The wire bundles
had to get cold and shrink enough to pull the
pin back and cause the failure to manifest.
That 10-cent error cost tens of thousands
to chase down.
What's this have to do with switches on your
panel? It's but one example of how root cause
for a mis-behavior can run the range from
observable broken wires, dripping water or
hydraulic fluid, temperature cycles combined
with ozone concentrations, . . . all the way
up to failures that would only manifest
at altitude after consuming about as much fuel
in one flight as my wife's Saturn consumed in
a year.
Go back and look at the engineering data for
the device. I've never seen a manufacturer
recommend any form of periodic maintenance . . .
much less squirt 'magic stuff' into the device's
cracks with some notion of improving service
life or, worse yet, 'refurbishing' a misbehaving
switch.
Back in the day, we had several cans of cleaners,
lubes, sealers, etc. on the workbench where we
repaired radio and television sets. It was always
gratifying to drive the mischief out of a rotary
switch, noisy volume control or arcing flyback
transformer with a squirt of magic stuff.
But we're talking about airplanes now. We're
talking about devices that have obviously failed
to meet service life predictions. Okay, now what?
What forces in physics are responsible? Will
'magic stuff' mitigate those forces . . .
probably not. Will they 'repair' the effects
or simply squeeze a few more operations out of
a device that is close to gross failure? Finally,
how do you KNOW that you've squirted the magic
stuff into the RIGHT location and that it
doesn't present a new hazard to functionality
if it gets into the WRONG location.
Finally, how hard is it to replace a $5 switch that's
held on the panel with one nut and wired with a
couple or three fast-ons? I used to recommend
that my seminar attendees take a sunny afternoon
and $50 worth of switches and replace everything
on the panel . . . just for the hell of it.
System reliability benefits far more from
preventative maintenance than it does from
magic stuff applied to a device that's already
begging for help.
One more example. One day at Beech, a sales
rep came out to pitch a particular kind of
magic stuff. I think it was called "Stabilant 22."
It was reputed, nay, demonstrated to improve the
quality of metallic connection between pins and
sockets in our harness connectors. So, we
piled engineering data, test reports, user
testimonials, etc. etc. against field service
experience on a fleet of thousands of airplanes
gathered over 50+ years.
Yeah, Stabilant 22 was pretty whippy stuff . . .
but expensive and labor intensive with a risk
for waste due to spillage and getting it on
the wrong surfaces. I could just see the faces
of our line techs when we handed each one a bottle
of magic stuff with a requirement to properly apply
to each connector before it was mated up.
Then, there was the question, what's the return
on investment? After some consideration, we deduced
that it was a 'fix' for a problem we didn't have.
So there your have the long answer. If any combination
of components on your airplane is crying out for
help, then replace on condition is the
lowest risk and probably the lowest cost approach
to risk management. WD40 is good for the kid's
tricycle that might sit out and get rained on
from time to time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Double pole switch failure mode? |
Mark,
Many of the ideas you mention are included in this design I created several
years ago.=C2- You would simply need to add a second alternator.=C2-
This design contains a lot of things I want in my RV7:
1. Automatic fail-over2. No brown-out during cranking3. Source isolation4.
Simple operation
It is in pure schematic format for easier electrical analysis, as opposed t
o a hybrid schematic/wiring diagram as are commonly seen on this forum.
It may give you some food for thought,
-Jeff
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:51 AM, czechsix wrote:
Bob,
I'm interested in Z-14 for my RV-14A, not my RV-8A.=C2- I was just pointi
ng out that back when I built my RV-8A I don't think the wiring diagrams we
re available in an editable format, so I used ink and whiteout.=C2- The -
8A had single alternator and one PC680 main battery plus a small backup bat
tery dedicated to one of the elec ignition systems.=C2- I only flew it VF
R.
On the RV-14A, it will be full IFR cross country cruiser with all glass pan
el and I'm planning to use SDS electronic fuel injection and elec ignition.
=C2- That's a lot of stuff riding on the electrical system, especially gi
ven that you need to have the high pressure elec fuel pump running at all t
imes (no engine driven pump with EFI).
I want to fly the airplane to Alaska, Caribbean, etc...some areas that are
far from home and sometimes pretty remote.=C2- Having been stuck for a fe
w days on a cross country in my -8A due to a failed regulator, I'd prefer t
o have more redundancy on the -14A not just for safety but also so I can di
spatch and get somewhere after a failure.=C2- The SD-8 is pretty marginal
for going long distances in an airplane with electrically dependent fuel p
ump, engine control unit, injectors, ignition and the EFIS system even if y
ou shed the second display and lights and transponder and such.=C2- The e
ngine systems alone will use up most of the SD-8's capacity.=C2- Therefor
e I plan to use the 20-40A B&C 410-H as my second alternator on the vac pad
(it isn't much different cost-wise from the SD-8, main downside is a coupl
e more pounds).
Then there's the question of single vs dual batteries.=C2- I would like t
o take advantage of the weight savings of the EarthX battery, but I don't y
et trust it 100%...obviously anything can fail (including a PC680), but Ear
thX has a lot of built-in smarts that I don't fully understand and among ot
her things it can completely shut itself off if it isn't happy.=C2- With
one battery, the importance of good maintenance goes up and replacement int
ervals get shorter (at least my philosophy is to replace a single battery e
very 3 years even if it is performing well).=C2- Furthermore with a singl
e battery, the avionics and ECU/ignition system may reboot while cranking.
Adding a second battery addresses these concerns.=C2- The TCW backup batt
ery could be a solution for the second battery, but it costs more than an E
arthX battery and has more limited capacity.=C2-
So I'm thinking I'll use two EarthX batteries, each with their own alternat
or...two independent electrical systems with unlimited generating capacity.
=C2- That alleviates my concerns about battery failure modes because it's
extremely improbable for both to fail at the same time (I'll have them phy
sically isolated).=C2- And I don't have to change them out every 3 years
like I did on my PC680 in my RV-8A, I can pretty much run them until one of
the dies or fails to crank (because the other one can get me where I want
to go on that flight).=C2- Even though they are more expensive than a PC6
80, I think my long-term maintenance (replacement) cost will be about the s
ame because I'll use them longer.=C2- Having two batteries keeps the disp
lay/EIS/ECU stuff from rebooting during engine start.=C2- And two EarthX
batteries are still quite a bit lighter than one PC680.=C2- In fact, the
all-up system weight of dual B&C alternators & regulators with dual EarthX
batteries is almost exactly the same as a si!
ngle Planepower alternator and PC680 that comes with the stock RV-14 kit..
.so it's break even with respect to weight.
So...that leads me to Z-14.=C2- It addresses all my requirements and conc
erns in a way that Z-13/8 does not.=C2- The main thing I'm trying to deci
de with Z-14 is where to connect all the engine related stuff.=C2- Most o
f the parts are dual redundant (ECUs, ignition coils, pumps) so I could spl
it those up between the two respective battery buses.=C2- The one part th
at is not redundant is the injectors.=C2- So I was thinking about running
the power for the injectors off a bus that is fed via diodes from each bat
tery.=C2- The diodes would keep the two electrical systems isolated while
allowing the engine to run as long as either battery is providing power.
Thanks,
-Mark
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479518#479518
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.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 04, 2018 - April 25, 2018
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-oh