AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-qg
August 21, 2021 - November 10, 2021
Greetings All,
I build up and I'm using a 3 ohm version of Bob's Battery Capacity tester
that he designed a while back. So I get nominally a 4 Amp discharge which,
for a new 17 amp-hr AGM battery (whatever brand Batteries Plus is currently
selling), when new, I get something like 3:45 before the output voltage
drops below 11 volts (where my threshold is set). And after about 3 years,
it's capacity has dropped about 20% or more and I rotate it out (Longeze ->
Motorcycle -> Taylorcraft -> Telescope -> lab).
However, it's clear the tested capacity varies greatly with ambient
temperature so I would like to normalize my test results, based on
temperature, so I can get more accurate comparisons. Additionally, I'd
also like to understand the derating so that I can more accurately estimate
my effective no-alternator battery endurance given that I often fly up high
where it can be quite cold where the battery resides. So it's likely quite
a bit shorter than the time I measure in the lab at the same output
current. I Googled around and didn't find any answers.
Does anyone have the capacity derating for cold temps on an AGM battery
available?
Thanks,
Steve Stearns
O235 Longeze N45FC,
Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to temperature derate AGM capacity? |
At 09:17 PM 8/21/2021, you wrote:
>Greetings All,
>
>I build up and I'm using a 3 ohm version of
>Bob's Battery Capacity tester that he designed a
>while back.=C2 So I get nominally a 4 Amp
>discharge which, for a new 17 amp-hr AGM battery
>(whatever brand Batteries Plus is currently
>selling), when new, I get something=C2 like 3:45
>before the output voltage drops below 11 volts
>(where my threshold is set).=C2 And after about 3
>years, it's capacity has dropped about 20% or
>more and I rotate it out (Longeze -> Motorcycle
>-> Taylorcraft -> Telescope -> lab).
>
>However, it's clear the tested capacity varies
>greatly with ambient temperature so I would like
>to normalize my test results, based on
>temperature, so I can get more accurate
>comparisons.=C2 Additionally, I'd also like to
>understand the derating so that I can more
>accurately=C2 estimate my effective no-alternator
>battery endurance given that I often fly up high
>where it can be quite cold where the battery
>resides.=C2 So it's likely quite a bit shorter
>than the time I measure in the lab at the same
>output current.=C2 I Googled around and didn't find any answers.
>
>Does anyone have the capacity derating for cold
>temps on an AGM battery available?
See Figure 5 of https://tinyurl.com/yekn362u
Figure 6 of
https://www.power-sonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Technical-Manual.pdf
https://kb.unavco.org/kb/article/sla-battery-cold-performance-tests-gel-vs-
agm-386.html
https://www.dcbattery.com/lifeline_capacity_temp_graph.html
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blowing fuses on B&C BC433 alternator |
At 02:34 PM 8/19/2021, you wrote:
>UPDATE!!
>
>TJ from B&C just called me and informed me that
>they have done away with the three fuses and
>have revised the BC433 30 amp alternator
>drawing.=C2 The new drawing is :=C2
>https://bandc.co
m/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/505-501-.pdf
>
>They did run an alternator on a test stand=C2 and
>found no good reason to keep the fuses.
>
>So, there you have it.
Thanks for the followup!
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to temperature derate AGM capacity? |
Many thanks Bob! That's just the information I was looking for but not
finding!
Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
This is a test message.
Matt Dralle
List Administrator
--------
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502874#502874
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Test Message 4... |
| From: | "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Test 4 Ignore.
Matt Dralle
List Administrator
--------
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502875#502875
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Test Message 4... |
| From: | "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Test 4, Ignore.
Matt
--------
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502876#502876
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Test, Ignore...
--------
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502878#502878
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
There is a database issue with the Forums web site. Working on it...
May see a few more of these test messages....
Matt
--------
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502885#502885
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics List Forum Web Site Fully Restored... |
Dear Listers,
There has been an issue with the database used to drive the Matronics Lists Forums
Web Site for a few days. I finally got to the bottom of the issue today.
It appears the functionality has been fully restored.
Matt Dralle
Matronics List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SD8 - rewinding for 28V |
| From: | "digidocs" <junk(at)dcarr.org> |
I have a SD8 alternator (14V) on the shelf and a 28V single alternator system in
the hangar.
Under the guide of education and recreation, I wonder if I could disassemble the
SD8 and rewind it with more turns of smaller wire to make it more appropriate
for a 28V application?
Conceptually this is a simple idea, but I wonder if in practice I will have issues
like losing strength in the magnets when I disassemble the alternator, or
it being impossible to remove the existing windings without damage to the stator,
etc.
Any and all input welcome.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502967#502967
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matronics List Forum Web Site Fully Restored... |
Matt,
I have been subscribed to several of your lists but for at least two
years I havent received one message. Since you now have the data
base fixed, will I start receiving messages ?
Larry Mac Donald
lm4(at)juno.com
> On Aug 25, 2021, at 7:34 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> There has been an issue with the database used to drive the Matronics Lists Forums
Web Site for a few days. I finally got to the bottom of the issue today.
It appears the functionality has been fully restored.
>
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics List Administrator
>
____________________________________________________________
Sponsored by https://www.newser.com/?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_taglines_more
US Casualties Reported in 2 Blasts at Kabul Airport
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/6127be00b36273dff484ast01vuc1
Fla. Governor Just Earned a Dubious New COVID Honor
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/6127be00d2a2d3dff484ast01vuc2
Lawmakers Say Trip to Kabul Changed Their Minds
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/6127be00f20053dff484ast01vuc3
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD8 - rewinding for 28V |
At 11:13 PM 8/25/2021, you wrote:
>
>I have a SD8 alternator (14V) on the shelf and a 28V single
>alternator system in the hangar.
>
>Under the guide of education and recreation, I wonder if I could
>disassemble the SD8 and rewind it with more turns of smaller wire to
>make it more appropriate for a 28V application?
>
>Conceptually this is a simple idea, but I wonder if in practice I
>will have issues like losing strength in the magnets when I
>disassemble the alternator, or it being impossible to remove the
>existing windings without damage to the stator, etc.
>
>Any and all input welcome.
It is possible/practical to rewind the SD8 stator
for other performance goals. There are no risks to
the hardware for having disassembled it.
You basically need to double the number of turns
per pole and use smaller wire so that the increased
turns do not overrun the available space.
Count the turns on each pole as it's disassembled
and note the wire routing between poles for
installing the new winding.
Remember that cross section of the wire varies
as square of diameter. So for 1/2 the area, you'll
need wire on the order of 0.7x the diameter of
the original.
Good luck! Let us know what you discover.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How terrible is it to use a #8 ring terminal on #6 |
screw?
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Group Dumb Thumb had some #8 ring terminals put on #22 or #20 wires and the
screws are #6 on the terminal block. We have #6 phosphor bronze star washers on
the screws. Is there any problems using as is? Or is it recommended to change
over to #6 ring terminals that will require lengthening wires. Thx. Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503005#503005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How terrible is it to use a #8 ring terminal on |
#6 screw?
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
I see no problem as long as there is no interference at the terminal block barrier
strips. I surely would not use a larger terminal (#10), though. The size
difference probably makes it even more important to install a train relief /
support for the wires close to your terminal block. Glad to see that you are
using star washers as they work very well.
Lengthening your wires with an extra splice may just offer another chance for moisture
to get in and do its dirty work, depending on the environment.
Jerry King
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503008#503008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How terrible is it to use a #8 ring terminal |
on #6 screw?
At 05:05 PM 8/29/2021, you wrote:
>
>Hi Group Dumb Thumb had some #8 ring terminals put on #22 or #20
>wires and the screws are #6 on the terminal block.
terminal block with studs or screws?
>We have #6 phosphor bronze star washers on the screws. Is there any
>problems using as is? Or is
>it recommended to change over to #6 ring terminals that will require
>lengthening wires. Thx. Ron P.
In the heavy iron factories, barrier strips
with screws are generally avoided. Sometimes
you just can't (like B&C alternator controllers)
but if you do have a choice, terminal strips
with captive studs are preferred. You can secure
the terminal-stack with metal lock nuts.
With respect to oversized holes in terminals recall
that we're wanting to achieve a gas-tight interface
between conducting components . . . If the hole
is oversized, then area around the stud goes down.
Force of the screw then exerts more pressure on
as a function of reduced area.
So electrically, I don't think there's much
of a worry and for small (low mass) wires,
there's probably not much in the way of
vibrational forces that might tend to loosen
the threaded fasteners. The lock washers only
increase probability that an loosening force
applied through the terminal is more tightly
coupled to the screw.
As we discussed a few weeks ago, the first
time the joint MOVES, tension in that joint
goes down. Just how much and how fast is subject
to a lot of variables.
Got no heartburn about the terminals but I'd
really like to see a mechanically more robust
terminal strip. What system(s) use these
wires? How critical to comfortable completion
of a flight?
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How terrible is it to use a #8 ring terminal on |
#6 screw?
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Bob What the #6 screws are doing is to sandwich the ring terminals to a silver
plated copper strip (attaches port #4 battery cable that goes to aft mounted
battery on Europa XS Mono) and the flat terminal blocks are just acting as mounting
nuts. It's acting as a ground block for non essential for flight grounds
that I didn't want to run to my firewall field of tabs:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ah1S270Nwg9Vgd1med74mMX78IEPeg
star washers not yet installed. The stud you see will run power to port headrest.
The reason the copper strip is sooo big is if I ever need to jump start, I
can do so through my favorite paralleled Anderson Power pole connectors in starboard
headrest:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ah1S270Nwg9Vgd4N_6p3XLoaofcVhQ
so it's possible that two of those #6 screw connections may be called upon to connect
to my copper strip to jump start Rotax 914 with heavy duty starter.
Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503010#503010
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Janet Amtmann <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | COM radio failure |
Bob,
You answered my question about my inoperative GX65 a couple of weeks ago.
It came back from repair with the failed component (taped to the chassis)
that looks like a small capacitor, not surface mount. It has burn marks on
the side, I can't imagine how I missed it when I looked over the boards
with a 3X loupe. If I sent it to you, (and where would I send it?) could
you possibly identify how this could have failed? I'm assuming that the
radio now works, I have not installed it yet.
Best regards, J=C3=BCrgen Amtmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Janet Amtmann <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Failed nos Apollo GX65 |
Bob,
You answered my question about my inoperative GX65 a couple of weeks ago.
It came back from repair with the failed component (taped to the chassis)
that looks like a small capacitor, not surface mount. It has burn marks on
the side, I can't imagine how I missed it when I looked over the boards
with a 3X loupe. If I sent it to you, (to what address) could you possibly
identify how this could have failed? I'm assuming that the radio now
works, I have not installed it yet.
Best regards, J=C3=BCrgen Amtmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio failure |
At 08:42 AM 9/1/2021, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>You answered my question about my inoperative
>GX65 a couple=C2 of weeks ago.=C2 It came=C2 back
>from repair with the failed component (taped to
>the chassis) that looks like a small capacitor,
>not surface mount.=C2 It has burn marks on the
>side, I can't imagine how I missed it when I
>looked over the boards with a 3X loupe.=C2 If I
>sent it to you, (and where would I send it?)
>could you possibly identify how this could have=C2
>failed?=C2 I'm assuming that the radio now works, I have not installed it
yet.
You can send it to Box 130
Medicine Lodge, KS 67104
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Possible Z-14 error?? |
| From: | "Voyager" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
Hi Bob,
I am looking at wiring my RANS S-21 based to a large degree on your Z-14 architecture.
As I am reviewing it and creating my schematics in SolidWorks, I noticed
something odd. I am looking at what I believe is the latest revision (dated
24-Jun-2013).
On P1, the wire from the cross-feed contactor to the main battery contactor is
2 AWG as compared to 4 AWG from the aux battery contactor to the cross feed.
Since both batteries are the same size, it seems these should be the same size
conductor unless the lengths are dramatically different.
The bigger question I have is why is the conductor on P2 from the main battery
contactor to the starter contactor 4 AWG when 2 AWG is used to the starter itself
from its contactor? Did the wire sizes from the main battery contactor to
starter contactor get transposed with the size from the cross-feed contactor
to the main battery contactor? Or is the assumption that the length from the
cross-feed contactor to the main battery contactor is long and the length from
the main battery contactor to the starter contactor is short?
I plan to mount my two batteries side by side with short runs from the batteries
to their contactors (hopefully less than 12") and short runs from the battery
contactors to the cross-feed contactor, again 12" or less if practical. My
batteries will likely be under the baggage compartment floor according to the
RANS plans which is not my favorite location, but the firewall is too crowded
and I really don't want to run clear back to the tail cone. This means that my
cable from the battery contactor to the starter contactor will likely be 6'
or more in length and then another 3-4 feet to the starter.
Given the above, I am leaning towards 4 AWG for the short runs between batteries
and main and cross-feed contactors and then 2 AWG from battery or cross-feed
contactor to the starter contactor and 2 AWG from starter contactor to starter.
However, this isn't what I see on your architecture diagram hence my question.
Although, RANS shows 4 AWG for everything from the battery to the starter
so maybe I am being overly conservative.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503024#503024
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Possible Z-14 error?? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Your plan to use 2AWG for long runs and 4AWG for short runs sounds good.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503036#503036
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
Good evening all,
I'm working away on an electrical architecture for my RV-10 based on Z-101B. I
haven't started to install the system yet but I have a question about how I will...
In the RV-10, the battery and battery contactor are located in the tailcone. Looking
at the schematic, I will need to run a large conductor (probably 2AWG) forward
from the contactor to the starter. My concern is that the "fat wire tie
point" for the battery bus, aux bus, and engine bus will need a second large
conductor run forward (my aux and engine busses have decent loads due to IFR and
EFII equipment). This seems like it will add considerable weight...
The only solution I can imagine would be to leave the battery in the tail and move
the battery contactor forward to the firewall. This would leave a long length
of unprotected wire but I would have that anyways with the second contactor
coming forward to the tie point...
This might become more clear as I start to actually run wires but for now it seems
less than ideal. Thoughts?
Andrew
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503039#503039
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
Andrew,
Why don't you mount the start solenoid on the firewall and run a #2 from th
e master solenoid in tail cone forward to start solenoid on firewall.
Then use the battery side of the start solenoid as the main terminus for th
e other loads.=C2- It sounds like you have several sub-systems to feed so
you may want to use an additional stud terminal mounted near the start sol
enoid, with a jumper to the battery side of the start solenoid, to handle t
he quantity of wires.
Are you in Canada?
-Jeff
sympatico.ca> wrote:
co.ca>
Good evening all,
I'm working away on an electrical architecture for my RV-10 based on Z-101B
. I haven't started to install the system yet but I have a question about h
ow I will...
In the RV-10, the battery and battery contactor are located in the tailcone
. Looking at the schematic, I will need to run a large conductor (probably
2AWG) forward from the contactor to the starter. My concern is that the "fa
t wire tie point" for the battery bus, aux bus, and engine bus will need a
second large conductor run forward (my aux and engine busses have decent lo
ads due to IFR and EFII equipment). This seems like it will add considerabl
e weight...
The only solution I can imagine would be to leave the battery in the tail a
nd move the battery contactor forward to the firewall. This would leave a l
ong length of unprotected wire but I would have that anyways with the secon
d contactor coming forward to the tie point...
This might become more clear as I start to actually run wires but for now i
t seems less than ideal. Thoughts?
Andrew
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503039#503039
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
Hey Jeff, I am in Canada. That is my plan for the loads downstream of the battery
contactor. But the Z-101 schematic also has several loads connected to the
battery side of the battery contactor (hot battery bus and alternate feeds for
the aux and engine busses). It's these loads that I'm trying to prevent running
a second 2AWG cable for.
Andrew
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503041#503041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
Hi Andrew, where in Canada? I'm in Vancouver.
Have you done an Electrical Load Analysis on your hot battery loads? I'm
finding it hard to believe that you would need anything close to 2 AWG for
those combined loads. What continuous load are we talking about here?
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:57 PM A Lumley wrote:
> andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca>
>
> Hey Jeff, I am in Canada. That is my plan for the loads downstream of the
> battery contactor. But the Z-101 schematic also has several loads connected
> to the battery side of the battery contactor (hot battery bus and alternate
> feeds for the aux and engine busses). It's these loads that I'm trying to
> prevent running a second 2AWG cable for.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503041#503041
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few overhead lights. The
issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to power the aux and engine
busses through relays attached to the battery side of the battery contactor.
My engine bus will draw 15-20 amps (SDS EFI) when both fuel pumps are running.
The Aux bus includes the PFD, GPS, pitot heat, autopilot, and a few other small
loads that will total another 15-20 amps with the pitot heat operating.
I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running forward from the
battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable. Just wondering if there is a
better way, perhaps not.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
I think you could get away with 8AWG rather than 4 AWG for the loads you
describe but let's think about this another way.
In case of a forced landing, we want to be able to disconnect the 2 AWG
cable from the battery so that when we hit a fence post we don't have a
leaking fuel line and a big spark 5 feet from our asses. Putting the relay
as close to the battery accomplishes this. If we then run a 4 AWG wire
along the same route with no way to disconnect it from the battery, are we
any better off? If you're going to accept a large live wire running along
the fuselage, will it help that the 2 AWG is cold and the 4 AWG is hot?
Might as well just leave the 2 AWG hot and move the relay to the front as
you first described.
The only other solutions I can think of are
1. Relays on both wires and dual fed engine and aux busses. In a forced
landing you shut off both relays.
2. A second battery in the engine compartment.
3. A second alternator and feed your dual fed engine and aux busses from
each alternator, dropping the battery feed.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM A Lumley wrote:
> andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca>
>
> I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
>
> The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few overhead
> lights. The issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to power the
> aux and engine busses through relays attached to the battery side of the
> battery contactor. My engine bus will draw 15-20 amps (SDS EFI) when both
> fuel pumps are running. The Aux bus includes the PFD, GPS, pitot heat,
> autopilot, and a few other small loads that will total another 15-20 amps
> with the pitot heat operating.
>
> I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running forward
> from the battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable. Just wondering if
> there is a better way, perhaps not.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I think the real analysis is that you need two separate power sources
for the fuel injection and the ignition. Using a single battery does not
accomplish that, no matter how you wire it. I believe you would have to
have two batteries, and probably should have two alternators.
However, that gets back to why do you want an aircraft for IFR that
requires the complexity of two separate electrical systems and the
electrical components to allow them to operate separately?
Simplicity is your friend, especially when IFR.
Regardless of advertising claims, a port fuel injection system with 6
individual electrically operated solenoids does not significantly
improve power or fuel economy over the mechanical fuel injection system
the IO-540 is designed with or the Air Flow performance experimental
fuel injection. They also eliminate the need for electrical fuel pumps
to operate continuously, as the stock mechanical pump is adequate for
almost all in-flight situations.
Having both ignitions systems electrically dependent again introduces
complexity. You really want your engine to be able to run indefinitely
without external power if all electrics fail.
You can still have the benefits of electronic ignition without the need
for external power if you install 2 PMag systems, and they only need
external power for starting.
Even if the full SDS system gets you an extra 10 kts (unlikely) it
only reduces the time to fly a 500nm flight by perhaps 10-15 minutes.
If you eliminate the need for external power for the engine to run, you
can have adequate backup power for avionics without having to install
dual electrical systems. Most EFIS have backup battery systems that
allow shutting of the master and will continue to operate for 45 min or
more. You can equip a Nav/com with similar backup battery.
Just my opinion with 40+ yrs of IFR flying and 5 years of flying my IFR
RV-10.
Kelly
On 9/4/2021 2:47 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> I think you could get away with 8AWG rather than 4 AWG for the loads you
> describe but let's think about this another way.
>
> In case of a forced landing, we want to be able to disconnect the 2 AWG
> cable from the battery so that when we hit a fence post we don't have a
> leaking fuel line and a big spark 5 feet from our asses. Putting the
> relay as close to the battery accomplishes this. If we then run a 4 AWG
> wire along the same route with no way to disconnect it from the battery,
> are we any better off? If you're going to accept a large live wire
> running along the fuselage, will it help that the 2 AWG is cold and the
> 4 AWG is hot? Might as well just leave the 2 AWG hot and move the relay
> to the front as you first described.
>
> The only other solutions I can think of are
>
> 1. Relays on both wires and dual fed engine and aux busses. In a forced
> landing you shut off both relays.
> 2. A second battery in the engine compartment.
> 3. A second alternator and feed your dual fed engine and aux busses from
> each alternator, dropping the battery feed.
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM A Lumley > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
>
> The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few overhead
> lights. The issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to
> power the aux and engine busses through relays attached to the
> battery side of the battery contactor. My engine bus will draw 15-20
> amps (SDS EFI) when both fuel pumps are running. The Aux bus
> includes the PFD, GPS, pitot heat, autopilot, and a few other small
> loads that will total another 15-20 amps with the pitot heat operating.
>
> I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running
> forward from the battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable.
> Just wondering if there is a better way, perhaps not.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> -
> 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: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
Thanks for the comments Kelly. For starters while I am planning for a single battery,
I am definitely installing dual alternators. I believe a second battery
would be of marginal benefit given the chance of dual alternator failure and
subsequent battery failure.
I do appreciate the comments on the electronic fuel injection though. I'm quite
set on electronic ignition but I'm not 100% set on electronic injection to go
with it. I'll have to do some more research. It would certainly give me less
electrical concerns to install a mechanical injection system.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503046#503046
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I agree with the electronic ignition. There are definite advantages.
However, there are trade-offs. AFAIK, only P Mag offers electronic
ignition that isn't dependent on ship's power.
Electrical systems come down to what can fail that takes the system
down. It takes effort to design a system that can't be brought down by
say failure of the master relay, master switch, etc. There is a recent
article of an RV-10 that was grounded by ignition switch failure,
fortunately on the ground.
Kelly
On 9/4/2021 5:07 PM, A Lumley wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments Kelly. For starters while I am planning for a single
battery, I am definitely installing dual alternators. I believe a second battery
would be of marginal benefit given the chance of dual alternator failure and
subsequent battery failure.
>
> I do appreciate the comments on the electronic fuel injection though. I'm quite
set on electronic ignition but I'm not 100% set on electronic injection to
go with it. I'll have to do some more research. It would certainly give me less
electrical concerns to install a mechanical injection system.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503046#503046
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
I am currently finalizing my schematics for my S-21 and I am building a system
based mostly on the Z-14 system. I am planning on dual 40 amp alternators and
two independent buses, but with crossfeed so that both batteries can be used
for engine start and in the case that one alternator or battery fails I can run
everything on the remaining battery or alternator.
I plan to run two fat wires from the baggage floor mounted batteries to the firewall.
I will probably use 2 AWG, but RANS lists 4 AWG in their schematic (for
a single battery installation) so that may be adequate since the batteries share
current during starting. Since I will have two battery buses in addition
to the two main buses, I will probably run 14 AWG for each of those as that will
handle 15 amps each and 30 amps is more than enough for the always hot accessories.
I am also leaning towards SDS for both ignition and EFI. I have owned and driven
a variety of cars and trucks and off-road and OTR equipment since the early
70s and I will tell you that magnetos, carbs, mechanical FI and mechanical fuel
pumps are no more reliable than modern EFI and electronic ignition systems
and I would argue much less reliable. I have not had nearly the trouble with
any of my cars in the last 20 years that have had EFI and EI as I had with cars
equipped with carbs and points ignition or my 182 with carb and mags. An SDS
system with dual ECUs, and dual electric fuel pumps operated by two alternators
and two batteries is probably 10X more reliable than a magneto equipped airplane
with mechanical FI and mechanical fuel pump. Id love to see some real
statistics from the aviation world, but using the auto world as a benchmark gives
me good confidence that my 10X estimate isnt far off.
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 4, 2021, at 8:11 PM, A Lumley wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the comments Kelly. For starters while I am planning for a single
battery, I am definitely installing dual alternators. I believe a second battery
would be of marginal benefit given the chance of dual alternator failure and
subsequent battery failure.
>
> I do appreciate the comments on the electronic fuel injection though. I'm quite
set on electronic ignition but I'm not 100% set on electronic injection to
go with it. I'll have to do some more research. It would certainly give me less
electrical concerns to install a mechanical injection system.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503046#503046
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
Kelly it's not a single battery, it's a single battery and an alternator.
If the alternator quits the battery gets you on the ground. Failures of
properly maintained batteries are very rare, but if the battery fails in
flight you won't notice because the alternator keeps going. A second
alternator can greatly extend the time in the air, but most second
alternators are 20A at most so for Andrew's requirements not enough for
indefinite flight.
Where are you getting your data that EFI does not reduce fuel consumption?
I haven't seen any real world data but the advertising shows significant
reductions (though at $2.00 / liter, not enough to offset the purchase
price)
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 7:17 PM Kelly McMullen wrote:
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> I think the real analysis is that you need two separate power sources
> for the fuel injection and the ignition. Using a single battery does not
> accomplish that, no matter how you wire it. I believe you would have to
> have two batteries, and probably should have two alternators.
> However, that gets back to why do you want an aircraft for IFR that
> requires the complexity of two separate electrical systems and the
> electrical components to allow them to operate separately?
> Simplicity is your friend, especially when IFR.
> Regardless of advertising claims, a port fuel injection system with 6
> individual electrically operated solenoids does not significantly
> improve power or fuel economy over the mechanical fuel injection system
> the IO-540 is designed with or the Air Flow performance experimental
> fuel injection. They also eliminate the need for electrical fuel pumps
> to operate continuously, as the stock mechanical pump is adequate for
> almost all in-flight situations.
> Having both ignitions systems electrically dependent again introduces
> complexity. You really want your engine to be able to run indefinitely
> without external power if all electrics fail.
> You can still have the benefits of electronic ignition without the need
> for external power if you install 2 PMag systems, and they only need
> external power for starting.
> Even if the full SDS system gets you an extra 10 kts (unlikely) it
> only reduces the time to fly a 500nm flight by perhaps 10-15 minutes.
>
> If you eliminate the need for external power for the engine to run, you
> can have adequate backup power for avionics without having to install
> dual electrical systems. Most EFIS have backup battery systems that
> allow shutting of the master and will continue to operate for 45 min or
> more. You can equip a Nav/com with similar backup battery.
>
> Just my opinion with 40+ yrs of IFR flying and 5 years of flying my IFR
> RV-10.
> Kelly
>
> On 9/4/2021 2:47 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> > I think you could get away with 8AWG rather than 4 AWG for the loads you
> > describe but let's think about this another way.
> >
> > In case of a forced landing, we want to be able to disconnect the 2 AWG
> > cable from the battery so that when we hit a fence post we don't have a
> > leaking fuel line and a big spark 5 feet from our asses. Putting the
> > relay as close to the battery accomplishes this. If we then run a 4 AWG
> > wire along the same route with no way to disconnect it from the battery,
> > are we any better off? If you're going to accept a large live wire
> > running along the fuselage, will it help that the 2 AWG is cold and the
> > 4 AWG is hot? Might as well just leave the 2 AWG hot and move the relay
> > to the front as you first described.
> >
> > The only other solutions I can think of are
> >
> > 1. Relays on both wires and dual fed engine and aux busses. In a forced
> > landing you shut off both relays.
> > 2. A second battery in the engine compartment.
> > 3. A second alternator and feed your dual fed engine and aux busses from
> > each alternator, dropping the battery feed.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM A Lumley > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
> >
> > The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few overhead
> > lights. The issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to
> > power the aux and engine busses through relays attached to the
> > battery side of the battery contactor. My engine bus will draw 15-20
> > amps (SDS EFI) when both fuel pumps are running. The Aux bus
> > includes the PFD, GPS, pitot heat, autopilot, and a few other small
> > loads that will total another 15-20 amps with the pitot heat
> operating.
> >
> > I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running
> > forward from the battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable.
> > Just wondering if there is a better way, perhaps not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
> > <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > -
> > 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: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Voyager" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
I will argue that the folks at GAMI have provided this data for many years now.
What they do in tuning injectors in mechanical systems is essentially what the
ECU can do in real-time in an EFI system. Now, I dont know if the SDS ECU
is that a sophisticated, but auto EFI systems can adjust the PWM of each individual
injector to optimized each cylinder. This absolutely improves both fuel
economy and emissions performance.
So, if you believe GAMIs data in regard to balancing mechanical injectors then
you should believe that EFI will bring similar performance improvements if properly
implemented.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503050#503050
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I did not say that EFI did not reduce fuel consumption or increase
power. What I said was electronically controlled port fuel injection is
not going to reduce fuel consumption or increase power enough to give up
the reliability of mechanical fuel injection. Electronic fuel injection
is very reliable in cars, where an electrical failure just causes the
engine to die. In an aircraft the electronic controller and injectors
are a single point of failure. Electronic fuel injection has almost zero
operating experience in aircraft, compared to 60 years of mechanical
fuel injection. When Lycoming or Continental adopt electronic fuel
injection, I might think about it. Aircraft applications are very
different from automotive engines operating characteristics.
A single battery is a single battery no matter how many alternators you
have. No different than a single master relay.
On 9/4/2021 7:48 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> Kelly it's not a single battery, it's a single battery and an
> alternator. If the alternator quits the battery gets you on the ground.
> Failures of properly maintained batteries are very rare, but if the
> battery fails in flight you won't notice because the alternator keeps
> going. A second alternator can greatly extend the time in the air, but
> most second alternators are 20A at most so for Andrew's requirements not
> enough for indefinite flight.
>
> Where are you getting your data that EFI does not reduce fuel
> consumption? I haven't seen any real world data but the advertising
> shows significant reductions (though at $2.00 / liter, not enough to
> offset the purchase price)
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 7:17 PM Kelly McMullen > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I think the real analysis is that you need two separate power sources
> for the fuel injection and the ignition. Using a single battery does
> not
> accomplish that, no matter how you wire it. I believe you would have to
> have two batteries, and probably should have two alternators.
> However, that gets back to why do you want an aircraft for IFR that
> requires the complexity of two separate electrical systems and the
> electrical components to allow them to operate separately?
> Simplicity is your friend, especially when IFR.
> Regardless of advertising claims, a port fuel injection system with 6
> individual electrically operated solenoids does not significantly
> improve power or fuel economy over the mechanical fuel injection system
> the IO-540 is designed with or the Air Flow performance experimental
> fuel injection. They also eliminate the need for electrical fuel pumps
> to operate continuously, as the stock mechanical pump is adequate for
> almost all in-flight situations.
> Having both ignitions systems electrically dependent again introduces
> complexity. You really want your engine to be able to run indefinitely
> without external power if all electrics fail.
> You can still have the benefits of electronic ignition without the need
> for external power if you install 2 PMag systems, and they only need
> external power for starting.
> Even if the full SDS system gets you an extra 10 kts (unlikely) it
> only reduces the time to fly a 500nm flight by perhaps 10-15 minutes.
>
> If you eliminate the need for external power for the engine to run, you
> can have adequate backup power for avionics without having to install
> dual electrical systems. Most EFIS have backup battery systems that
> allow shutting of the master and will continue to operate for 45 min or
> more. You can equip a Nav/com with similar backup battery.
>
> Just my opinion with 40+ yrs of IFR flying and 5 years of flying my IFR
> RV-10.
> Kelly
>
> On 9/4/2021 2:47 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> > I think you could get away with 8AWG rather than 4 AWG for the
> loads you
> > describe but let's think about this another way.
> >
> > In case of a forced landing, we want to be able to disconnect the
> 2 AWG
> > cable from the battery so that when we hit a fence post we don't
> have a
> > leaking fuel line and a big spark 5 feet from our asses. Putting the
> > relay as close to the battery accomplishes this. If we then run a
> 4 AWG
> > wire along the same route with no way to disconnect it from the
> battery,
> > are we any better off? If you're going to accept a large live wire
> > running along the fuselage, will it help that the 2 AWG is cold
> and the
> > 4 AWG is hot? Might as well just leave the 2 AWG hot and move the
> relay
> > to the front as you first described.
> >
> > The only other solutions I can think of are
> >
> > 1. Relays on both wires and dual fed engine and aux busses. In a
> forced
> > landing you shut off both relays.
> > 2. A second battery in the engine compartment.
> > 3. A second alternator and feed your dual fed engine and aux
> busses from
> > each alternator, dropping the battery feed.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM A Lumley
>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> > I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
> >
> > The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few
> overhead
> > lights. The issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to
> > power the aux and engine busses through relays attached to the
> > battery side of the battery contactor. My engine bus will
> draw 15-20
> > amps (SDS EFI) when both fuel pumps are running. The Aux bus
> > includes the PFD, GPS, pitot heat, autopilot, and a few other
> small
> > loads that will total another 15-20 amps with the pitot heat
> operating.
> >
> > I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running
> > forward from the battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable.
> > Just wondering if there is a better way, perhaps not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043>
> > <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > -
> > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> >
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > ==========
> > FORUMS -
> > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> <http://forums.matronics.com>
> > ==========
> > WIKI -
> > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> <http://wiki.matronics.com>
> > ==========
> > b Site -
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> ==========
> -
> 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: | Jeffrey Parker <foghorn757(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
Here is my dual alternator/single battery SDS schematic for my IFR RV8.
The battery will be an EarthX 900 on the firewall.
The primary ALT is set at 14.4, the AUX ALT is set at 13.9 and the
ETX-900 is the final power source. Both ALTs and the AUX ENG BUS PWR
will be on for all flight conditions. The AUX E-BUS will be open until
needed.
This has now flown yet.
Jeff Parker
757-817-4929
> On 4Sep, 2021, at 17:06, A Lumley wrote:
>
>
> I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
>
> The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few overhead
lights. The issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to power
the aux and engine busses through relays attached to the battery side of
the battery contactor. My engine bus will draw 15-20 amps (SDS EFI) when
both fuel pumps are running. The Aux bus includes the PFD, GPS, pitot
heat, autopilot, and a few other small loads that will total another
15-20 amps with the pitot heat operating.
>
> I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running forward
from the battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable. Just wondering
if there is a better way, perhaps not.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Voyager" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
Kellym wrote:
> I did not say that EFI did not reduce fuel consumption or increase
> power. What I said was electronically controlled port fuel injection is
> not going to reduce fuel consumption or increase power enough to give up
> the reliability of mechanical fuel injection. Electronic fuel injection
> is very reliable in cars, where an electrical failure just causes the
> engine to die. In an aircraft the electronic controller and injectors
> are a single point of failure. Electronic fuel injection has almost zero
> operating experience in aircraft, compared to 60 years of mechanical
> fuel injection. When Lycoming or Continental adopt electronic fuel
> injection, I might think about it. Aircraft applications are very
> different from automotive engines operating characteristics.
> A single battery is a single battery no matter how many alternators you
> have. No different than a single master relay.
>
You are making the assumption that mechanical FI is more reliable than electronic
FI and I dont agree that this is a valid assumption. I am not sure there is
good data available to make such a decision, but I think it is incorrect to
automatically assume that mechanical is more reliable than electrical. Id love
to see real data on MFI vs EFI as my experience in the auto world is that EFI
is one of the most reliable parts on an engine. Then again, most cars did skip
MFI and went straight from carbs to EFI as MFI would not have helped them
pass the emissions regulations.
Yes, a single battery is a single point of failure, but what difference does that
make other than when starting and, most of the time at least, that is done
on the ground. The EFI doesnt care where the electrons come from. So, with both
alternators and battery, you have a redundant system and the odds of both
failing on the same flight are low. And batteries rarely fail suddenly. I have
had only one battery fail suddenly in 50+ years of owning vehicles. That was
on a new Chevy Equinox that just wouldnt crank one morning. It was only 4
months old and the battery apparently had a connection open internally, obviously
due to a factory defect. Every other battery has given plenty of warning
(slow cranking generally) that it was on its last legs. As long as you dont ignore
the warning, it is almost always possible to replace the battery before
complete failure.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503053#503053
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 7:47 AM Voyager wrote:
m
> >
>
>
> Kellym wrote:
> > I did not say that EFI did not reduce fuel consumption or increase
> > power. What I said was electronically controlled port fuel injection is
> > not going to reduce fuel consumption or increase power enough to give u
p
> > the reliability of mechanical fuel injection. Electronic fuel injection
> > is very reliable in cars, where an electrical failure just causes the
> > engine to die. In an aircraft the electronic controller and injectors
> > are a single point of failure. Electronic fuel injection has almost zer
o
> > operating experience in aircraft, compared to 60 years of mechanical
> > fuel injection. When Lycoming or Continental adopt electronic fuel
> > injection, I might think about it. Aircraft applications are very
> > different from automotive engines operating characteristics.
> > A single battery is a single battery no matter how many alternators you
> > have. No different than a single master relay.
> >
>
>
> You are making the assumption that mechanical FI is more reliable than
> electronic FI and I don=99t agree that this is a valid assumption.
I am not
> sure there is good data available to make such a decision, but I think it
> is incorrect to automatically assume that mechanical is more reliable tha
n
> electrical. I=99d love to see real data on MFI vs EFI as my experi
ence in
> the auto world is that EFI is one of the most reliable parts on an engine
.
> Then again, most cars did skip MFI and went straight from carbs to EFI as
> MFI would not have helped them pass the emissions regulations.
>
> Yes, a single battery is a single point of failure, but what difference
> does that make other than when starting and, most of the time at least,
> that is done on the ground. The EFI doesn=99t care where the elect
rons come
> from. So, with both alternators and battery, you have a redundant system
> and the odds of both failing on the same flight are low. And batteries
> rarely fail suddenly. I have had only one battery fail suddenly in 50+
> years of owning vehicles. That was on a new Chevy Equinox that just
> wouldn=99t crank one morning. It was only 4 months old and the bat
tery
> apparently had a connection open internally, obviously due to a factory
> defect. Every other battery has given plenty of warning (slow cranking
> generally) that it was on its last legs. As long as you don=99t ig
nore the
> warning, it is almost always possible to replace the battery before
> complete failure.
>
>
> I've owned a MFI car, and I pray that I never have to own another. If
simple is the goal, a carb is the thing (single point of failure, BTW...).
But simple doesn't necessarily mean more reliable.
A battery *should not* be a 'single point of failure' in the sense of
terminating a flight, as long as the system architecture is properly
executed. Look at any of the Z figures; the alt B-lead is connected to the
bus on the load side of the master contactor. If the battery simply dies,
everything still works until engine shutdown. If the battery develops a
dead short internally, then your problem is either a lot (explosively)
bigger than electron supply, or you turn off the master, and everything
continues to work until engine shutdown. That business about field wound
alternators being 'unstable' without a battery attached is just old hangar
tales. A bit more 'ripple' in the DC is just about the only thing that
changes.
I don't know about every aftermarket EFI, but the SDS system does allow
tuning individual injector pulses, and they also make a fully redundant
system (two complete, independent controllers). Not available with any
'traditional' a/c system that I've ever seen. The aftermarket automotive
controllers also allow individual injector tuning, and it's possible to
configure a redundant system with those, as well.
Charlie
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
There is no question that mechanical fuel injection has been extremely
reliable on aircraft engines. They have been employed since the early
1960s. The Bendix variety generally goes to TBO with the engine. The
Continental needs periodic pressure adjustments that affect mixture but
not reliability. You just won't find aircraft accidents from mechanical
fuel injection failures....just lack of fuel or fuel selector
mismanagement. I've flown behind mechanical injection engines for 23
years, behind carburetors for 24 years.
Automotive mechanical injection systems started in the late 50s, were
widely used on more expensive autos from the late 70s (think Bosch),
were very easy to adjust for mixture and generally needed nothing else.
The early electronic injection systems used by VW and Porsche were
terrible and resulted in many engine fires.
The current automotive systems are not just electronic, but are also
direct injection, which you won't see in aircraft systems. Most of their
advantages come from the direct cylinder injection, which came from
diesel applications. Even those have fairly common failures...my 8 month
old vehicle had to go to the dealer just last month with multiple
electronic failures that were traced to a failure in the wiring
harness...in a mass manufactured vehicle, not a hand wired aircraft.
Fortunately it was designed with a limp home mode. Low power, limp home
is ok for autos, not for aircraft.
While SDS may have dual controllers, they still only have one injector
per cylinder. Yes electronic injectors fail. I had to have a set of
diesel injectors replaced less than 10 years ago because of frequent
failures, under a manufacturer service bulletin (not just my auto).
I've seen a dual electronic ignition fail on an aircraft, on takeoff,
because of an intermittent failure of an automotive voltage regulator,
fried the electronic ignitions, yes, both of them.
Automotive reliability simply does not translate directly to aviation.
There are really only two automotive engines that have endured in
aviation, and neither one normally has electronic anything.
Just my experience from 50 years of working on autos and 45 years
working on aircraft.
Kelly
A&P/IA
On 9/5/2021 6:19 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 7:47 AM Voyager > wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> Kellym wrote:
> > I did not say that EFI did not reduce fuel consumption or increase
> > power. What I said was electronically controlled port fuel
> injection is
> > not going to reduce fuel consumption or increase power enough to
> give up
> > the reliability of mechanical fuel injection. Electronic fuel
> injection
> > is very reliable in cars, where an electrical failure just causes
> the
> > engine to die. In an aircraft the electronic controller and
> injectors
> > are a single point of failure. Electronic fuel injection has
> almost zero
> > operating experience in aircraft, compared to 60 years of mechanical
> > fuel injection. When Lycoming or Continental adopt electronic fuel
> > injection, I might think about it. Aircraft applications are very
> > different from automotive engines operating characteristics.
> > A single battery is a single battery no matter how many
> alternators you
> > have. No different than a single master relay.
> >
>
>
> You are making the assumption that mechanical FI is more reliable
> than electronic FI and I dont agree that this is a valid
> assumption. I am not sure there is good data available to make such
> a decision, but I think it is incorrect to automatically assume that
> mechanical is more reliable than electrical. Id love to see real
> data on MFI vs EFI as my experience in the auto world is that EFI is
> one of the most reliable parts on an engine. Then again, most cars
> did skip MFI and went straight from carbs to EFI as MFI would not
> have helped them pass the emissions regulations.
>
> Yes, a single battery is a single point of failure, but what
> difference does that make other than when starting and, most of the
> time at least, that is done on the ground. The EFI doesnt care
> where the electrons come from. So, with both alternators and
> battery, you have a redundant system and the odds of both failing on
> the same flight are low. And batteries rarely fail suddenly. I
> have had only one battery fail suddenly in 50+ years of owning
> vehicles. That was on a new Chevy Equinox that just wouldnt crank
> one morning. It was only 4 months old and the battery apparently
> had a connection open internally, obviously due to a factory
> defect. Every other battery has given plenty of warning (slow
> cranking generally) that it was on its last legs. As long as you
> dont ignore the warning, it is almost always possible to replace
> the battery before complete failure.
>
>
> I've owned a MFI car, and I pray that I never have to own another. If
> simple is the goal, a carb is the thing (single point of failure,
> BTW...). But simple doesn't necessarily mean more reliable.
>
> A battery *should not* be a 'single point of failure' in the sense of
> terminating a flight, as long as the system architecture is properly
> executed. Look at any of the Z figures; the alt B-lead is connected to
> the bus on the load side of the master contactor. If the battery simply
> dies, everything still works until engine shutdown. If the battery
> develops a dead short internally, then your problem is either a lot
> (explosively) bigger than electron supply, or you turn off the master,
> and everything continues to work until engine shutdown. That business
> about field wound alternators being 'unstable' without a battery
> attached is just old hangar tales. A bit more 'ripple' in the DC is just
> about the only thing that changes.
>
> I don't know about every aftermarket EFI, but the SDS system does allow
> tuning individual injector pulses, and they also make a fully redundant
> system (two complete, independent controllers). Not available with any
> 'traditional' a/c system that I've ever seen. The aftermarket automotive
> controllers also allow individual injector tuning, and it's possible to
> configure a redundant system with those, as well.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
Well, yeah; it takes effort. That's why most of us are here on this list.
;-)
I'm really grateful for a place where we can 'spitball' all kinds of ideas,
and still have a few highly experienced 'shepherds' to keep us from
straying too far into danger.
Charlie
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 10:38 AM Kelly McMullen wrote:
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> I agree with the electronic ignition. There are definite advantages.
> However, there are trade-offs. AFAIK, only P Mag offers electronic
> ignition that isn't dependent on ship's power.
> Electrical systems come down to what can fail that takes the system
> down. It takes effort to design a system that can't be brought down by
> say failure of the master relay, master switch, etc. There is a recent
> article of an RV-10 that was grounded by ignition switch failure,
> fortunately on the ground.
> Kelly
>
> On 9/4/2021 5:07 PM, A Lumley wrote:
> andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca>
> >
> > Thanks for the comments Kelly. For starters while I am planning for a
> single battery, I am definitely installing dual alternators. I believe a
> second battery would be of marginal benefit given the chance of dual
> alternator failure and subsequent battery failure.
> >
> > I do appreciate the comments on the electronic fuel injection though.
> I'm quite set on electronic ignition but I'm not 100% set on electronic
> injection to go with it. I'll have to do some more research. It would
> certainly give me less electrical concerns to install a mechanical
> injection system.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503046#503046
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Voyager" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
Kellym wrote:
> There is no question that mechanical fuel injection has been extremely
> reliable on aircraft engines. They have been employed since the early
> 1960s. The Bendix variety generally goes to TBO with the engine. The
> Continental needs periodic pressure adjustments that affect mixture but
> not reliability. You just won't find aircraft accidents from mechanical
> fuel injection failures....just lack of fuel or fuel selector
> mismanagement. I've flown behind mechanical injection engines for 23
> years, behind carburetors for 24 years.
> Automotive mechanical injection systems started in the late 50s, were
> widely used on more expensive autos from the late 70s (think Bosch),
> were very easy to adjust for mixture and generally needed nothing else.
> The early electronic injection systems used by VW and Porsche were
> terrible and resulted in many engine fires.
> The current automotive systems are not just electronic, but are also
> direct injection, which you won't see in aircraft systems. Most of their
> advantages come from the direct cylinder injection, which came from
> diesel applications. Even those have fairly common failures...my 8 month
> old vehicle had to go to the dealer just last month with multiple
> electronic failures that were traced to a failure in the wiring
> harness...in a mass manufactured vehicle, not a hand wired aircraft.
> Fortunately it was designed with a limp home mode. Low power, limp home
> is ok for autos, not for aircraft.
> While SDS may have dual controllers, they still only have one injector
> per cylinder. Yes electronic injectors fail. I had to have a set of
> diesel injectors replaced less than 10 years ago because of frequent
> failures, under a manufacturer service bulletin (not just my auto).
> I've seen a dual electronic ignition fail on an aircraft, on takeoff,
> because of an intermittent failure of an automotive voltage regulator,
> fried the electronic ignitions, yes, both of them.
> Automotive reliability simply does not translate directly to aviation.
> There are really only two automotive engines that have endured in
> aviation, and neither one normally has electronic anything.
> Just my experience from 50 years of working on autos and 45 years
> working on aircraft.
I agree that aircraft MFI is very reliable. I simply disagree with your assertion
that EFI is somehow not reliable.
Early implementations of almost every new technology are less reliable than after
they have a decade or so of service. Auto style port injection EFI is hardly
a new technology now with at least three decades of refinement. GDI has some
early teething troubles, but even that is pretty well proven now.
Fabric and tube is a reliable technology, but that doesnt mean aluminum is not
reliable even though many early aluminum airplanes had issues prior to fatigue
being well understood. And as good as aluminum is now, it doesnt mean that composites
are not good. They had issues early on as the temperature dependence
and resin to fabric proportions were sorted out. Everything new goes through
a period of learning and refining.
I am not saying the wholesale adopt auto technology, as the environments are certainly
different, however, many systems such as alternators, fuel systems and
such really are not significantly different. High continuous power makes many
auto engine installations challenging, but mostly from a cooling perspective.
Cooled properly, most auto engines will run as long as most airplane engines.
And high continuous power output really doesnt matter for things like alternators
and EFI. An alternator only knows RPM and load placed on it and neither
is a function of the engines power out. Same for EFI. The injectors dont
really much care how wide the PWM signal is and that is the main thing that changes
with higher power output. I actually suspect an airplane engine is a much
nicer environment for an electronic fuel injector than is a car engine. Cars
often run at much higher RPMs that airplanes so the injectors have to fire
much faster and more often and cars often sit idling in traffic with very high
under hood temperatures that airplanes only see occasionally.
I will leave you to your carbs and magnetos and happily use my electronic ignition
and fuel injection. I do still have one carbureted motorcycle that often
reminds me of just how much better EFI is on all of my other vehicles. :-)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503057#503057
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
It seems to me that the issue of a reliable source of power has been
confronted and fully addressed in Bob's work.
"I think the real analysis is that you need two separate power sources
for the fuel injection and the ignition."
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 9:27 AM Kelly McMullen wrote:
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> I think the real analysis is that you need two separate power sources
> for the fuel injection and the ignition. Using a single battery does not
> accomplish that, no matter how you wire it. I believe you would have to
> have two batteries, and probably should have two alternators.
> However, that gets back to why do you want an aircraft for IFR that
> requires the complexity of two separate electrical systems and the
> electrical components to allow them to operate separately?
> Simplicity is your friend, especially when IFR.
> Regardless of advertising claims, a port fuel injection system with 6
> individual electrically operated solenoids does not significantly
> improve power or fuel economy over the mechanical fuel injection system
> the IO-540 is designed with or the Air Flow performance experimental
> fuel injection. They also eliminate the need for electrical fuel pumps
> to operate continuously, as the stock mechanical pump is adequate for
> almost all in-flight situations.
> Having both ignitions systems electrically dependent again introduces
> complexity. You really want your engine to be able to run indefinitely
> without external power if all electrics fail.
> You can still have the benefits of electronic ignition without the need
> for external power if you install 2 PMag systems, and they only need
> external power for starting.
> Even if the full SDS system gets you an extra 10 kts (unlikely) it
> only reduces the time to fly a 500nm flight by perhaps 10-15 minutes.
>
> If you eliminate the need for external power for the engine to run, you
> can have adequate backup power for avionics without having to install
> dual electrical systems. Most EFIS have backup battery systems that
> allow shutting of the master and will continue to operate for 45 min or
> more. You can equip a Nav/com with similar backup battery.
>
> Just my opinion with 40+ yrs of IFR flying and 5 years of flying my IFR
> RV-10.
> Kelly
>
> On 9/4/2021 2:47 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> > I think you could get away with 8AWG rather than 4 AWG for the loads you
> > describe but let's think about this another way.
> >
> > In case of a forced landing, we want to be able to disconnect the 2 AWG
> > cable from the battery so that when we hit a fence post we don't have a
> > leaking fuel line and a big spark 5 feet from our asses. Putting the
> > relay as close to the battery accomplishes this. If we then run a 4 AWG
> > wire along the same route with no way to disconnect it from the battery,
> > are we any better off? If you're going to accept a large live wire
> > running along the fuselage, will it help that the 2 AWG is cold and the
> > 4 AWG is hot? Might as well just leave the 2 AWG hot and move the relay
> > to the front as you first described.
> >
> > The only other solutions I can think of are
> >
> > 1. Relays on both wires and dual fed engine and aux busses. In a forced
> > landing you shut off both relays.
> > 2. A second battery in the engine compartment.
> > 3. A second alternator and feed your dual fed engine and aux busses from
> > each alternator, dropping the battery feed.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM A Lumley > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > I'm in Belleville, 2 hours from Toronto.
> >
> > The hot battery bus itself is only about 0.5 amps for a few overhead
> > lights. The issue is that the Z-101 schematic has the ability to
> > power the aux and engine busses through relays attached to the
> > battery side of the battery contactor. My engine bus will draw 15-20
> > amps (SDS EFI) when both fuel pumps are running. The Aux bus
> > includes the PFD, GPS, pitot heat, autopilot, and a few other small
> > loads that will total another 15-20 amps with the pitot heat
> operating.
> >
> > I'm thinking I'll need a separate cable of about 4 AWG running
> > forward from the battery in addition to the 2 AWG starter cable.
> > Just wondering if there is a better way, perhaps not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043
> > <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503043#503043>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > -
> > 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: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Agreed, however, in most cases it is to deal with two electrically
dependent ignition systems, and/or an essential bus for avionics. I
don't believe the case of electrically dependent fuel system has come
up, at least not recently.
Given your engine needs air, spark and fuel vapors, do you really want
fuel and spark to be dependent on the electrical system?
With the fuel system you both have to have the controllers powered and
both fuel pumps powered, and a means to cross feed power to them.
I'm more comfortable with a plane set up so that if there is any
electrical problem I can just shut off the master and get to nearest
suitable airport without needing electrics. Can only recall one time in
47 years of flying that I needed to do that, but was comforting to be
able to do. Just as limiting power to just an essential bus expands your
options to deal with situation.
Somewhat overlooked in the discussion is that the aircraft is to be
based in Canada, and there are times when the temperatures don't allow
work on an electrical system (ever pulled a battery at -40?) and
locations where spare parts might take a fair amount of time and money
to obtain. Likely remoteness and extreme temps can greatly influence
risks and your choices.
Kelly
On 9/5/2021 10:55 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> It seems to me that the issue of a reliable source of power has been
> confronted and fully addressed in Bob's work.
>
> "I think the real analysis is that you need two separate power sources
> for the fuel injection and the ignition."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Education is EXPENSIVE but information is FREE |
| From: | "DannyBo" <ks5560590(at)gmail.com> |
Very interesting, actually education everywhere is really expensive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503064#503064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible Z-14 error?? |
At 10:00 AM 9/2/2021, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I am looking at wiring my RANS S-21 based to a large degree on your
>Z-14 architecture. As I am reviewing it and creating my schematics
>in SolidWorks, I noticed something odd. I am looking at what I
>believe is the latest revision (dated 24-Jun-2013).
>
>On P1, the wire from the cross-feed contactor to the main battery
>contactor is 2 AWG as compared to 4 AWG from the aux battery
>contactor to the cross feed. Since both batteries are the same
>size, it seems these should be the same size conductor unless the
>lengths are dramatically different.
>
>The bigger question I have is why is the conductor on P2 from the
>main battery contactor to the starter contactor 4 AWG when 2 AWG is
>used to the starter itself from its contactor? Did the wire sizes
>from the main battery contactor to starter contactor get transposed
>with the size from the cross-feed contactor to the main battery
>contactor? Or is the assumption that the length from the cross-feed
>contactor to the main battery contactor is long and the length from
>the main battery contactor to the starter contactor is short?
>
>I plan to mount my two batteries side by side with short runs from
>the batteries to their contactors (hopefully less than 12") and
>short runs from the battery contactors to the cross-feed contactor,
>again 12" or less if practical. My batteries will likely be under
>the baggage compartment floor according to the RANS plans which is
>not my favorite location, but the firewall is too crowded and I
>really don't want to run clear back to the tail cone. This means
>that my cable from the battery contactor to the starter contactor
>will likely be 6' or more in length and then another 3-4 feet to the starter.
>
>Given the above, I am leaning towards 4 AWG for the short runs
>between batteries and main and cross-feed contactors and then 2 AWG
>from battery or cross-feed contactor to the starter contactor and 2
>AWG from starter contactor to starter. However, this isn't what I
>see on your architecture diagram hence my question. Although, RANS
>shows 4 AWG for everything from the battery to the starter so maybe
>I am being overly conservative.
Sorry for the delay on addressing this thread . . .
numerous pressing issues elsewhere . . .
The z-figures are ARCHITECTURE drawings
suggesting approaches to FAILURE TOLERANT electrical
systems for a constellation of aircraft and proposed
missions.
So yes, there are some 'anomalies' in wire and
fuse sizing . . . these drawings are assembled from
snippets of other drawings that described systems
in a constellation of aircraft. AFTER a configuration
is selected then do a LOAD ANALYSIS to confirm or
modify the suggested wire size and associated
protection.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible Z-14 error?? |
>Your plan to use 2AWG for long runs and 4AWG for short runs sounds good.
10AWG wire is 0.001 ohms per foot. For every 3AWG steps in
wire size, resistance varies by a factor of 2. Hence
7AWG wire would be 0.0005 ohms/ft; 4AWG would be
0.00025 ohms/ft; 2AWG would be approx 2/3rds of the
way between 4AWG and 1AWG of 0.00012 ohms/ft. Let's
call it about 0.00016 ohms/ft. If you'd like a hard-copy
look-up, here's but one example https://tinyurl.com/4jw4heeh
For broad brush estimating, let's assume 200A for
a average starting current. So, 10 feet total 4AWG
wire in your cranking loop would drop 200A x 10ft x
0.00025 ohms/ft = 0.5 volts. An acceptably small
value. Replacing it with 10' of 2AWG would yield
a voltage drop of 200A x 10ft x 0.00016 = 0.32 volts
or 180 millivolts! If your loop is less than 10'
then the improvement is still smaller.
The attached figure is purloined from Chapter 2
of the 'Connection. In this figure I hypothesis
cranking performance of a 4AWG cranking loop in
a canard pusher . . . i.e. LONG cranking wires.
As you can see, even with these wire lengths,
cranking voltages are rather nominal. Starter
motors EXPECT to see voltages on the order of 9
volts.
In any case, up-sizing wire from 4 to 2AWG produces
about 30% improvement only in WIRE drop while doing
nothing for internal resistance of battery and
voltage drops across other hardware in the loop.
I suggest that with few exceptions (IO-540
engines in a composite seaplane - that airplane
hand a cranking loop of 48ft! We ran doubled
up strands of 2AWG), 4AWG will suffice
nicely for the cranking loop especially
in a metal airplane. A more detailed analysis
is called for in LONG runs on composite aircraft.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
Some thoughts.
(low) chance of dual alternator failure
I plan to fly periodically with the main alternator off to stress test the backup
alternator in addition to a preflight functional check.
Note the backup alternator has a shear coupling with a 500 hour/5 year recommended
replacement interval per Vic Syracuse, Tempest says 6 years.
second alternators are 20A at most
The B&C 410 and 425 put out 29 and the 462 32A at 2300 RPM on a Lycoming. At 2700
RPM its 32 and 35A respectively. Main advantage of 462 is more current at low
RPM, ref spec sheets.
============
Z101 supports fire-the-cockpit-master-off-engine-keeps-running if you fly with
the engine bus alternate feed on. And master relay failure is benign in flight
and discoverable at preflight.
I plan to fly with the engine bus alternate feed normally on but periodically off
in order to stress test its diode feed path from the main bus.
You can easily add a 2nd stud at the opposite end of a Bussmann 15600 series fuse
block to make the engine bus feeds from the battery and from the main bus separate,
eliminates that stud as an SPOF.
RV-6A with SDS EFI+I and Z101 as a template, not flying yet.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503068#503068
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
>In the RV-10, the battery and battery contactor are located in the tailcone.
>Looking at the schematic, I will need to run a large conductor (probably 2AWG)
>forward from the contactor to the starter.
4AWG is fine
>My concern is that the "fat wire tie point" for the battery bus, aux bus,
>and engine bus will need a second large conductor run forward (my aux and
>engine busses have decent loads due to IFR and EFII equipment). This
>seems like it will add considerable weight...
"second large conductor", "decent loads", "considerable weight"
are not quantified. The best decisions are made with calculated
data. What are the loads on conductors to those busses from
their aux power relays?
>The only solution I can imagine would be to leave the battery in the tail
>and move the battery contactor forward to the firewall.
No. Battery contactors go next to batteries as do
the aux power relays. See the (*) symbol on the
upstream conductors?
>This would leave a long length of unprotected wire
Not recommended nor necessary
>This might become more clear as I start to actually run wires but
>for now it seems less than ideal. Thoughts?
You have two aux bus feeders. I suspect 10AWG would be
quite sufficient . . . but do the numbers. What are the
loads and how long are they?
10AWG is on the order of .04 lb/ft so two 8' runs
would add about 10 ounces. An 8' run of 2AWG is
right at 2 pounds; 4AWG is about 1.2 pounds. So
down-size to 4AWG and add two runs of 10AWG and
it's about a wash.
Your exact results may vary . . .
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Watzlavick" <robert(at)watzlavick.com> |
I'm also considering Z101 for my RV-10 but I'm concerned about the always hot B-lead
from the aux alternator to the rear mounted battery in a crash situation.
I see 3 options: 1) add another contactor between the aux alternator and battery,
2) use Z-12 instead, or 3) don't fret about the hot B-lead. I've searched
through the archives quite a bit and there doesn't seem to be a good consensus
whether having an always hot lead with a rear battery is a really bad idea
or not.
A different question if I may - With Z-101 and the aux alt off, if the battery
contactor fails open (unlikely I know) but the main alternator is still running,
the battery would then charge via the diode between the main and Endurance
bus assuming that relay is closed. Depending on the battery charge state, It
seems possible the charge current could blow the fuseable link between the battery
and Endurance bus, taking the battery off line. Seems like a diode is needed
between the Endurance bus and battery to prevent that. Or is the battery
charge current sufficiently limited?
-Robert
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503084#503084
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 9/7/2021 9:05 PM, Watzlavick wrote:
>
> I'm also considering Z101 for my RV-10 but I'm concerned about the always hot
B-lead from the aux alternator to the rear mounted battery in a crash situation.
I see 3 options: 1) add another contactor between the aux alternator and
battery, 2) use Z-12 instead, or 3) don't fret about the hot B-lead. I've searched
through the archives quite a bit and there doesn't seem to be a good consensus
whether having an always hot lead with a rear battery is a really bad
idea or not.
>
> A different question if I may - With Z-101 and the aux alt off, if the battery
contactor fails open (unlikely I know) but the main alternator is still running,
the battery would then charge via the diode between the main and Endurance
bus assuming that relay is closed. Depending on the battery charge state, It
seems possible the charge current could blow the fuseable link between the battery
and Endurance bus, taking the battery off line. Seems like a diode is
needed between the Endurance bus and battery to prevent that. Or is the battery
charge current sufficiently limited?
>
> -Robert
The 10ga aux B lead is protected by the 14ga fusible link. I didn't try
to read the Z101B notes, but I'd assume that wire sizes for the aux alt
assume a smaller alternator (typical B&C, etc vac pad mounted alternator
@ ~30A max). The 10ga wire with 14ga fusible link should work for 30A.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Watzlavick" <robert(at)watzlavick.com> |
Good point - after I sent the email, I started looking at charge currents and you're
right - it's limited by the alternator output. I guess you could call the
lack of a diode there a feature in that it allows the battery to be charged
via an alternate path. It also seems like it would provide some load stabilization
for the alternator.
-Robert
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503086#503086
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
> "second large conductor", "decent loads", "considerable weight"
> are not quantified. The best decisions are made with calculated
> data. What are the loads on conductors to those busses from
> their aux power relays?
My engine bus currently has loads of about 27 Amps with both fuel pumps and coils
operating. The aux bus is loaded to about 19 amps. Currently I am planning
a 10AWG feeder into each bus from their respective relays and a 6AWG second conductor
forward from the battery. These are conservative but I figure they'll
be important connections should I ever need them so would prefer them a little
larger.
I've attached my current schematic which hopefully makes things clearer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503092#503092
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_schematic_10_972.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Watzlavick" <robert(at)watzlavick.com> |
Thanks for posting the schematic. So appropriate sizing of the aux bus wires handles
my second concern which is charging the battery through the main to aux
diode. What are your thoughts about the always hot wire between the battery
and aux alt? Without an additional contactor, there's no way to make the wire
cold if needed.
-Robert
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503093#503093
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
I don't see a problem with that segment. The portion forward of the firewall will
be protected by an ANL fuse. I don't think there's a way around having a smaller
always hot wire that runs from the battery to the fat wire tie point which
I plan to mount on the cockpit side of the firewall. By adding another contactor
you're just adding another component and if I ever need to fly on battery
alone, I don't want the additional current draw of an extra contactor.
I'm planning on using an EarthX battery so I figure if for some reason that hot
battery cable was shorted to ground, at least the battery BMS would disconnect
the battery hopefully preventing a fire. Although I think the best protection
is to run that wire carefully with lots of mechanical protection in its own
conduit or similar.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503094#503094
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
You might be interested that my entire load for Day VFR in my RV-10 is
13 amps, with 2 EFIS, IFR GPS/nav/com, 2nd com, transponder, strobes,
etc. Of course engine is zero unless I run the boost pump at about 8
amps. I don't get above 30 amps unless I am running landing lights and
pitot heat.
How big a primary alternator are you planning?
On 9/8/2021 6:00 AM, A Lumley wrote:
>
>
>> "second large conductor", "decent loads", "considerable weight"
>> are not quantified. The best decisions are made with calculated
>> data. What are the loads on conductors to those busses from
>> their aux power relays?
>
>
> My engine bus currently has loads of about 27 Amps with both fuel pumps and coils
operating. The aux bus is loaded to about 19 amps. Currently I am planning
a 10AWG feeder into each bus from their respective relays and a 6AWG second
conductor forward from the battery. These are conservative but I figure they'll
be important connections should I ever need them so would prefer them a little
larger.
>
> I've attached my current schematic which hopefully makes things clearer.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503092#503092
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_schematic_10_972.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
My calculations are definitely on the conservative side. I distributed the loads
such that I could fly on the Aux bus and Engine busses alone in IMC if I were
to lose the primary alternator or otherwise had to shut down the main bus.
My aux bus looks like this:
Pitot Heat (7 Amps)
GTN 750 Xi GPS/NAV/COM (3.45 Amps)
G3X PFD 1 (2 Amps)
3x GSA28 Autopilot Servos (1.5 Amps)
3x Trim Servos (1.5 Amps)
GMA245 Audio Panel (1 Amp)
GTX 45R Transponder (1 Amp)
GEA24 (0.43 Amps)
#1 ADAHRS (0.2 Amps)
G5 Backup (0.2 Amps)
GMC 507 Autopilot (0.2 Amps)
#1 GMU11 (0.1 Amps)
Annunciator Panel (0.1 Amps)
Total: 18.7 Amps
Ideally I could quickly leave the IMC and drop the pitot heat.
I expect in real life the engine will only draw about 14 Amps at cruise with only
one pump running but I wanted to design things for most case.
I'm planning a 60A primary alternator.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503096#503096
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
You don't need 3 trim servos. The pitch trim is all you need. You may
want aileron, but really neither rudder nor aileron is needed with an
autopilot. Once you get rudder fixed trim to fly straight and level in
trim, the forces for climb and descent are minimal. Especially since you
are planning on a yaw servo. Given your loads, you might want to explore
a 70 amp alternator..not a huge difference in cost, lets it operate on
lower percent of full load. Are you figuring nav lights and strobes in
your total? Probably under 3 amps if LED.
On 9/8/2021 7:22 AM, A Lumley wrote:
>
> My calculations are definitely on the conservative side. I distributed the loads
such that I could fly on the Aux bus and Engine busses alone in IMC if I were
to lose the primary alternator or otherwise had to shut down the main bus.
>
> My aux bus looks like this:
>
> Pitot Heat (7 Amps)
> GTN 750 Xi GPS/NAV/COM (3.45 Amps)
> G3X PFD 1 (2 Amps)
> 3x GSA28 Autopilot Servos (1.5 Amps)
> 3x Trim Servos (1.5 Amps)
> GMA245 Audio Panel (1 Amp)
> GTX 45R Transponder (1 Amp)
> GEA24 (0.43 Amps)
> #1 ADAHRS (0.2 Amps)
> G5 Backup (0.2 Amps)
> GMC 507 Autopilot (0.2 Amps)
> #1 GMU11 (0.1 Amps)
> Annunciator Panel (0.1 Amps)
> Total: 18.7 Amps
>
>
> Ideally I could quickly leave the IMC and drop the pitot heat.
>
> I expect in real life the engine will only draw about 14 Amps at cruise with
only one pump running but I wanted to design things for most case.
>
> I'm planning a 60A primary alternator.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503096#503096
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Also, trim load is *very* intermittent (extremely low total energy use),
and given that you can run one on a 9V transistor radio (remember
those?) battery, I'd want to verify even the .5A per servo number.
Same for comm; much lower continuous than when transmitting.
And I can't imagine me running both fuel pumps at once for any reason,
except TO/landing. If pressure drops, my technique would be switching
pumps rather than adding one.
On 9/8/2021 10:19 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> You don't need 3 trim servos. The pitch trim is all you need. You may
> want aileron, but really neither rudder nor aileron is needed with an
> autopilot. Once you get rudder fixed trim to fly straight and level in
> trim, the forces for climb and descent are minimal. Especially since
> you are planning on a yaw servo. Given your loads, you might want to
> explore a 70 amp alternator..not a huge difference in cost, lets it
> operate on lower percent of full load. Are you figuring nav lights and
> strobes in your total? Probably under 3 amps if LED.
>
> On 9/8/2021 7:22 AM, A Lumley wrote:
>>
>>
>> My calculations are definitely on the conservative side. I
>> distributed the loads such that I could fly on the Aux bus and Engine
>> busses alone in IMC if I were to lose the primary alternator or
>> otherwise had to shut down the main bus.
>>
>> My aux bus looks like this:
>>
>> Pitot Heat (7 Amps)
>> GTN 750 Xi GPS/NAV/COM (3.45 Amps)
>> G3X PFD 1 (2 Amps)
>> 3x GSA28 Autopilot Servos (1.5 Amps)
>> 3x Trim Servos (1.5 Amps)
>> GMA245 Audio Panel (1 Amp)
>> GTX 45R Transponder (1 Amp)
>> GEA24 (0.43 Amps)
>> #1 ADAHRS (0.2 Amps)
>> G5 Backup (0.2 Amps)
>> GMC 507 Autopilot (0.2 Amps)
>> #1 GMU11 (0.1 Amps)
>> Annunciator Panel (0.1 Amps)
>> Total: 18.7 Amps
>>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
Re A Lumley RV-10 Electrical Schematic V1.0 from seventh post prior to this one.
Voltage regulators...
Grounds are redundant, should go to separate points, ref install manual, failure
of one is benign and not discoverable in flight or preflight. I put physical
inspection on annual check list.
Voltage sense draws 22mA at 12.5V (LR3C-14, measured in off state), parasitic load
on battery 1 AH in 45 hours. I put the one for the aux regulator on the engine
bus, ref schematic in signature, folder 1).
I'm curious what voltage setpoints have been chosen for the main and aux regulators.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503113#503113
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "A Lumley" <andrew.lumley(at)sympatico.ca> |
Kelly, good point about the alternating pumps. Of course normally both pumps will
be operating for takeoff and landing. The bus will be sized for both pumps
to be operating but if the main alternator fails I guess theres no reason for
more than one pump at a time.
John, the 2 grounds will be independently grounded to the same ground bus. I can
show that better in the schematic however. Also I didnt realize that the sense
pin had a parasitic draw when off, is that in the manual? Ill revisit that.
I plan on having the same voltage set points for both regulators. The aux will
be normally off. If the main fails, Ill get a low voltage indication and will
take the main alternator offline manually before engaging the aux alternator.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503116#503116
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
>
>I'm curious what voltage setpoints have been chosen for the main and
>aux regulators.
Why so expensive a regulator on the aux alternator?
That regulator will see perhaps a hand-full of hours
operation over the lifetime of the airplane under
Plan-B conditions where the need for lv warning
and ov protection is vanishingly small. That
alternator/regulator gets preflight tested each
flight-cycle. I.e. every tank full of fuel.
Since plan-b operations are stand-alone and
short duration, a full-up alternator controller
adds no value . . . only expense and complexity.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
>
>
>Voltage regulators...
>
>Grounds are redundant, should go to separate points, ref install
>manual, failure of
>one is benign and not discoverable in flight or preflight. I put
>physical inspection
>on annual check list.
But not necessary on a metal airplane where the
regulator is mounted on a high integrity airframe
ground . . . dual wired grounds are indicated
for non-metalic airframes where no 'natural',
high quality ground is available.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
At 09:22 AM 9/8/2021, you wrote:
>
>
>My calculations are definitely on the conservative side. I
>distributed the loads such that I could fly on the Aux bus and
>Engine busses alone in IMC if I were to lose the primary alternator
>or otherwise had to shut down the main bus.
>
>My aux bus looks like this:
Others have already suggested adjustments
to this list. I would add this suggestion:
Download the form at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/Blank_Form.pdf
This is similar to the form I and others used in
load analysis required for type certification of
part 23 and 25 aircraft.
Use a page per bus. Make a list of EACH feeder from
the bus that includes function label, protection
size and wire size. Then fill the blank with the
ENERGY CONSUMPTION value for each feeder under
each flight condition.
Intermittent loads are not part of the energy
consumption study. This includes transmit
current of comm radios. Taxi lights, landing
gear pump motors, trim actuators, etc.
The sums at the bottom of the form are used
to validate size selection of each power source
for adequacy to meet energy management design
goals.
`
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery contractor ground wire |
At 08:24 PM 7/7/2021, you wrote:
>>Bob, if you still want the contactor I'll gladly send it to
>>you. Just let me know where to send.
Frank,
I've examined the contactor you sent me. All
functionality is normal.
Would you like for me to send it back?
Listers,
I've laid in a stock of 1N540x series diodes
in case anyone needs a couple. They're really
cheap by the handful but prohibitively expensive
when paying shipping on small quantities. I can
put some into a first class mail envelope for
a price even my brother-in-law wouldn't get!
Just holler . . .
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio failure |
At 04:50 PM 9/1/2021, you wrote:
>>Bob,
>>
>>You answered my question about my inoperative GX65 a couple
>>of weeks ago. It came back from repair with the failed
>>component (taped to the chassis) that looks like a small
>>capacitor, not surface mount. It has burn marks on the side,
>>I can't imagine how I missed it when I looked over the boards
>>with a 3X loupe. If I sent it to you, (and where would I
>>send it?) could you possibly identify how this could have
>>failed? I'm assuming that the radio now works, I have
>>not installed it yet.
Got a chance to look over the fried capacitor you
sent. Yes, the darkened condition is strong evidence
of failure (shorted leading to overheating).
This style of tantalum chip capacitor is almost
vintage . . . very early package style that was
replaced with a more robust configuration. Yes,
it's a surface mounted part. That little pigtail
is not the remnant of a lead-wire.
I suspect that the replacement part was a
more modern design but yeah, this was quite
probably root cause of the radio failure.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Janet Amtmann <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 09/15/21 |
Thanks Bob, for your analysis. Makes me much more confident about plugging
the radio back into the panel and having communication while flying off my
hours. J=C3=BCrgen Amtmann
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:46 AM AeroElectric-List Digest Server <
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> ========================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
> the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&
Chapter 21-09-15&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&C
hapter 21-09-15&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ========================
=======================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
=======================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Wed 09/15/21: 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 01:00 PM - Re: COM radio failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: COM radio failure
>
> At 04:50 PM 9/1/2021, you wrote:
>
> >>Bob,
> >>
> >>You answered my question about my inoperative GX65 a couple
> >>of weeks ago. It came back from repair with the failed
> >>component (taped to the chassis) that looks like a small
> >>capacitor, not surface mount. It has burn marks on the side,
> >>I can't imagine how I missed it when I looked over the boards
> >>with a 3X loupe. If I sent it to you, (and where would I
> >>send it?) could you possibly identify how this could have
> >>failed? I'm assuming that the radio now works, I have
> >>not installed it yet.
>
> Got a chance to look over the fried capacitor you
> sent. Yes, the darkened condition is strong evidence
> of failure (shorted leading to overheating).
>
> This style of tantalum chip capacitor is almost
> vintage . . . very early package style that was
> replaced with a more robust configuration. Yes,
> it's a surface mounted part. That little pigtail
> is not the remnant of a lead-wire.
>
> I suspect that the replacement part was a
> more modern design but yeah, this was quite
> probably root cause of the radio failure.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Education is EXPENSIVE but information is FREE |
| From: | "Hrezf" <lifeatleemorgansmith1704(at)gmail.com> |
I'm scrolling the list and come here, such nice resources!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503180#503180
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | technical-help-support |
| From: | "messytyagi" <messytyagi(at)gmail.com> |
Looking for Technical help Support, visit on:
contact support phone number (https://www.technical-help-support.com/), apple support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/apple-support/), match support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/match-support/), tinder support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/tinder-support/), microsoft support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/microsoft-support/), microsoft account phone number (https://www.technical-help-support.com/microsoft-support/), linksys support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/linksys-support/), netgear support number (https://www.technical-help-support.com/netgear-support/), gmail help (https://www.technical-help-support.com/gmail-support/), yahoo mail customer service number (https://www.technical-help-support.com/yahoo-mail-support/), road runner customer service (https://www.technical-help-support.com/roadrunner-email-support/), sbcglobal email setup (https://www.technical-help-support.com/sbcglobal-email-support/), bellsouth customer service (https://www.technical-help-support.com/bellsouth-email-support/), at & t customer service (https://www.technical-help-support.com/att-email-support/), call netflix (https://www.technical-help-support.com/netflix-support/), roku phone number (https://www.technical-help-support.com/roku-support/), garmin customer service (https://www.technical-help-support.com/garmin-support/), kindle support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/kindle-support/), tomtom support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/tomtom-support/), arlo support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/arlo-support/), pogo support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/pogo-support/), java pogo (https://www.technical-help-support.com/pogo-support/), hp support (https://www.technical-help-support.com/hp-support/), reset alexa (https://www.technical-help-support.com/alexa-support/), meetme chat (https://www.technical-help-support.com/meetme-support/), google voice number (https://www.technical-help-support.com/google-voice-support/), onedrive setup (https://www.!
technica
l-help-support.com/onedrive-support/), contact instagram (https://www.technical-help-support.com/instagram-support/),
Looking for Call Support Group, visit on:
independent support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/),bellsouth customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/bellsouth-email-support/),garmin customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/garmin-support/),setup roku (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/roku-support/),linksys support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/linksys-support/),tomtom support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/tomtom-support/),sbcglobal email setup (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/sbcglobal-email-support/),pogo support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/pogo-support/),java pogo (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/pogo-support/),cisco support number (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/cisco-support/),arlo support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/arlo-support/),netgear support number (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/netgear-support/), brother customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/brother-support/),epson support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/epson-support/),carbonite phone number (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/carbonite-support/),lexmark support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/lexmark-support/),avg customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/avg-support/),hotmail support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/hotmail-support/),nuance support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/nuance-dragon-support/),trend micro support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/trend-micro-support/),toshiba support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/toshiba-support/),amazon prime customer service number (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/amazon-prime-video-support/),norton support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/norton-support/),mcafee support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/mcafee-support/),lenovo support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/lenovo-support/),kaspersky support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/kaspersky-support/),hewlett packard customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/hewlett-packard-support/),google chrome setup (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/google-chrome-support/),dlink support (https://www.callsup!
portgrou
p.com/dlink-support/),asus customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/asus-support/),aol customer service (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/aol-support/),acer support (https://www.callsupportgroup.com/acer-support/),
Looking for Contact voice Support, visit on:
pogo support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/pogo-support/),amazon kindle support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/amazon-kindle-support/),
setup roku (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/roku-support/),avg customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/avg-support/),garmin support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/garmin-support/),charter customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/charter-support/),lexmark support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/lexmark-support/),epson support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/epson-support/),brother customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/brother-support/),carbonite phone number (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/carbonite-support/),webroot customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/webroot-support/),pinterest help (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/pinterest-support/),facebook customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/facebook-support/),google drive support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/google-drive-support/),google hangouts chat (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/google-hangouts-support/),kodakverite support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/kodak-printer-support/),kyocera customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/kyocera-printer-support/),lorex support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/lorex-support/),firefox support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/mozilla-firefox-support/),ricoh support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/ricoh-printer-support/),samsung customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/samsung-printer-support/),samsung customer service (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/samsung-printer-support/),xerox support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/xerox-printer-support/),independent support (https://www.contactvoicesupport.com/)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503231#503231
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery contractor ground wire |
| From: | "Hrezf" <lifeatleemorgansmith1704(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for sharing, its helpful!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503239#503239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
I have the same question as the person that posted this:
https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1557258&postcount=85
Is there a good rationale for the separate fuses/breakers for the coil
power supply & the ECU supply?
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 9/22/2021 1:10 PM, David Carter wrote:
> I have the same question as the person that posted this:
>
> https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1557258&postcount=85
>
>
> Is there a good rationalefor the separatefuses/breakers for the coil
> power supply & the ECU supply?
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
I think that there is, for multiple reasons. 1st, the coil circuits are
*really* noisy. With a common wire feeding both, the noise has a direct
path into the supply for the ECU. (The 'filter' method, the battery,
would be a long ways away.) 2nd, if he's using the system fuse to
protect the cpu (not good practice, but many avionics makers have been
known to do it), 10A won't do it. 3rd (for me, anyway), I'd fuse each
coil block separately; not all coils on one fuse. All that separate
fusing means a single failure can't take out something else, like the
coil pack taking the ECU with it when the fuse blows. ATC/ATO fuse
blocks are relatively cheap and very compact for many circuits, so it's
easy to isolate each coil. If a coil goes shorted, separate fuses could
at least keep one pair of cylinders firing. Might make the difference
between the runway and the fence. (Failure modes effects analysis.)
One other thing that might be 'just me', but I would not put the engine
circuits on the main bus, or any airframe bus. My reasoning is,
training. Assuming that you have years of flying traditional a/c engines
under your belt, if you ever have the very rare but heavily trained-for
'smoke in the cockpit' situation, what's the first thing you're trained
do? Will you be able to override decades of trained-in muscle memory? I
doubt I could, so my engine stuff is on a separate, dedicated engine bus.
FWIW,
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | What is a Shield Block Ground? |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Group In process of installing Garmin GDL 82 ADS-B. Page 10-1 and 10-2 speaks
of a Shield Block Ground for USB Type B Receptacle:
https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-01810-00_06.pdf
What exactly is a Shield Block Ground?
Specifically on page 10-2 the triangle on the left side of the USB Type B Receptacle
that's pointing down, does it mean that it's not connected to anything?
Thx. Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503260#503260
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | "wsimpso1" <wsimpso1(at)comcast.net> |
First off, if Ross says run separate fusing and wiring to power things in his system,
it is a darned good thing to heed.
I do not even pretend to know what Ross did inside the box, but I suspect that
purple wires are sensor and computer power, while the red wires are stated as
coil power. Big amp difference, big noise difference and tolerance for noise,
different power needs, and suitable for separate fusing.
Had a conversation with a homebuilder of some note (who shall remain anonymous)
who has chatted with Ross about doing diode isolated independent power feeds
so that both engine buses are queued to power the ECU, spark coils, and injector
coils. Ross approved with his standard caution to make sure the pieces are
very secure or a wiring failure could be bad.
For electric fuel pumps, I would take the same perspective.
Power them from an always hot bus (or two) and know that none of this stuff can
go down for anything short of massive airframe damage.
This way you can have everything required to keep running the engine backed up
automatically, and in an emergency you can kill all other power to the airframe
while keeping the engine running, and see if you really need to go deadstick...
Billski
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503261#503261
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
>I think that there is, for multiple reasons.
>1st, the coil circuits are *really* noisy. With
>a common wire feeding both, the noise has a
>direct path into the supply for the ECU. (The
>'filter' method, the battery, would be a long
>ways away.)=C2 2nd, if he's using the system fuse
>to protect the cpu (not good practice, but many
>avionics makers have been known to do it), 10A
>won't do it. 3rd (for me, anyway), I'd fuse each
>coil block separately; not all coils on one
>fuse. All that separate fusing means a single
>failure can't take out something else, like the
>coil pack taking the ECU with it when the fuse
>blows. ATC/ATO fuse blocks are relatively cheap
>and very compact for many circuits, so it's easy
>to isolate each coil. If a coil goes shorted,
>separate fuses could at least keep one pair of
>cylinders firing. Might make the difference
>between the runway and the fence. (Failure modes effects analysis.)
Agreed. Do you KNOW what the current demands are on
each of those leads? I've communicated with perhaps
a half dozen electronic engine systems providers over
the years and I've yet to find one that could tell me
what the ENERGY requirements were on each supply line
nor could they define peak currents, duty cycles or
repetition rates. If they were being offered onto
a type certificated airplane, inquiring minds would
insist on knowing . . .
>One other thing that might be 'just me', but I
>would not put the engine circuits on the main
>bus, or any airframe bus. My reasoning is,
>training. Assuming that you have years of flying
>traditional a/c engines under your belt, if you
>ever have the very rare but heavily trained-for
>'smoke in the cockpit' situation, what's the
>first thing you're trained do? Will you be able
>to override decades of trained-in muscle memory?
>I doubt I could, so my engine stuff is on a separate, dedicated engine bus.
Why not the battery bus? Fuseblock next to battery
contactor. Conservative fuses to individual feeds.
Switches have absolute control over 'what's hot'.
Stone simple, minimal parts count distribution
system. Yes, ignitions are hot with switches ON
with the rest of the airplane shut down. Isn't
that how magnetos have operated since day-one?
I'd run electric fuel pumps and any other engine
support loads from the battery bus too. You do
have the option of crafting a Z101 style, dual
path engine bus . . . but for a simple airplane,
I would favor the battery bus support of the engine.
During conditions under which you're forced
to fly dark-panel, engine-support switching-options
might be more distraction than you need just
then.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
snipped
>
>> One other thing that might be 'just me', but I would not put the
>> engine circuits on the main bus, or any airframe bus. My reasoning
>> is, training. Assuming that you have years of flying traditional a/c
>> engines under your belt, if you ever have the very rare but heavily
>> trained-for 'smoke in the cockpit' situation, what's the first thing
>> you're trained do? Will you be able to override decades of trained-in
>> muscle memory? I doubt I could, so my engine stuff is on a separate,
>> dedicated engine bus.
>
> Why not the battery bus? Fuseblock next to battery
> contactor. Conservative fuses to individual feeds.
> Switches have absolute control over 'what's hot'.
> Stone simple, minimal parts count distribution
> system. Yes, ignitions are hot with switches ON
> with the rest of the airplane shut down. Isn't
> that how magnetos have operated since day-one?
>
> I'd run electric fuel pumps and any other engine
> support loads from the battery bus too. You do
> have the option of crafting a Z101 style, dual
> path engine bus . . . but for a simple airplane,
> I would favor the battery bus support of the engine.
>
> During conditions under which you're forced
> to fly dark-panel, engine-support switching-options
> might be more distraction than you need just
> then.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
As we're both thinking, the goal was to keep operational 'switchology'
as close to mags/carb as was practical, given the forced reality
differences. There are extra switches within the engine system that
allow switching between ECUs, etc, but the basic 'mag switch(s) at one
switch location; airframe master at another location' was a prime goal.
I've got one fusible link protected heavy duty switch that controls the
engine bus (with a backup bus-tie switch to feed the bus from the main
bus in the unlikely event of a switch failure). All engine related
stuff including both fuel pumps are on the engine bus.
I probably would have considered the battery bus if it was ignition only
(very low current demand), but all the various full-bore electronic
injection type systems are going to draw around 12-15 amps continuous
when a fuel pump is included. Using a separate engine bus also allowed
mounting the bus (fuse block) in a much more convenient location. Mine
is not a 'cookie cutter' system even compared to the SDS, etc
aftermarket controller systems, and convenient access for testing, mods,
etc was one of the design goals.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ground Power RV8 |
| From: | "Drum" <dgrinalds(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Bob -
Thanks for your design and comments on ground power for my RV8. I finally finished
it. Trying to upload pix.
--------
Drum G
RV8 - Electrical/Avionics
Southport, CT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503267#503267
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/d9fa77bb_2d9d_424c_acd4_7bae61741093_208.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/6d99df23_9c8a_4294_9146_1cabd82096d5_491.jpeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Main Power Routing RV8 |
| From: | "Drum" <dgrinalds(at)gmail.com> |
Hi - Im building RV8 with aft battery placement. From the battery contactor I
run 2AWG to a terminal block near panel where a buss bar connects main power
to main buss and some aux busses.
I am planning to run a 2AWG from same post where main power comes into terminal
block to the hot side of the starter contactor.
My would have preferred to run directly to starter contactor but I dont want to
lengthen the run with a backtrack from starter contactor to terminal block and
the busses off the terminal block - weight complexity and voltage drop reasons.
Are there compelling reasons not to break the main power wire at terminal block
with aft battery placement?
Thanks in advance.
Warm regards,
--------
Drum G
RV8 - Electrical/Avionics
Southport, CT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503268#503268
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/4278df20_bf4d_4e69_b256_ab88bcd03508_127.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/074a3389_27db_4214_bcdf_99264a413752_683.jpeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> |
On 9/23/21 1:56 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> I think that there is, for multiple reasons. 1st, the coil circuits
>> are *really* noisy. With a common wire feeding both, the noise has a
>> direct path into the supply for the ECU. (The 'filter' method, the
>> battery, would be a long ways away.) 2nd, if he's using the system
>> fuse to protect the cpu (not good practice, but many avionics makers
>> have been known to do it), 10A won't do it. 3rd (for me, anyway), I'd
>> fuse each coil block separately; not all coils on one fuse. All that
>> separate fusing means a single failure can't take out something else,
>> like the coil pack taking the ECU with it when the fuse blows.
>> ATC/ATO fuse blocks are relatively cheap and very compact for many
>> circuits, so it's easy to isolate each coil. If a coil goes shorted,
>> separate fuses could at least keep one pair of cylinders firing.
>> Might make the difference between the runway and the fence. (Failure
>> modes effects analysis.)
>
> Agreed. Do you KNOW what the current demands are on
> each of those leads? I've communicated with perhaps
> a half dozen electronic engine systems providers over
> the years and I've yet to find one that could tell me
> what the ENERGY requirements were on each supply line
> nor could they define peak currents, duty cycles or
> repetition rates. If they were being offered onto
> a type certificated airplane, inquiring minds would
> insist on knowing . . .
>
I'm the original poster of that VAF message. A few messages down I
posted this thread which explains what is going on:
https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?p=1445172
It's as expected, they are worried about the coil being too noisy, but a
counter point to this is when it switches to backup power, it pulls both
ECU and coil power from a single 18g wire to the battery.
This begs a few questions:
1. How much impedance does a switch vs a fuse vs a breaker impose on
the system? Does having a single switch and breaker directly attached
to a battery with less than 2" of wire with both ECU and coil wires
connected south of that make a significant noise difference compared to
two switches and two breakers directly attached to the battery in the
same manor with the ECU and coil on each? From a wire perspective they
are nearly the same with only 2" of wire sharing both systems so I doubt
that would make a huge difference, but I'm less sure about the switches
and breakers.
2. With the talk of a dedicated engine bus, I'm assuming that it would
be attached to the battery directly. So, if you have 2ft 10g wire from
a battery to an engine bus and another 2ft 10g wire from a battery to a
main bus that has modern avionics on it, how much does that 4ft of 10G
wire insulate the avionics from the noisy coil?
Seems to me that this has more to do with contact points, wire gauge,
and length of runs over the simplistic "dedicated bus is good and shared
bus is bad."
schu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 9/24/2021 11:55 AM, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> On 9/23/21 1:56 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>> I think that there is, for multiple reasons. 1st, the coil circuits
>>> are *really* noisy. With a common wire feeding both, the noise has a
>>> direct path into the supply for the ECU. (The 'filter' method, the
>>> battery, would be a long ways away.) 2nd, if he's using the system
>>> fuse to protect the cpu (not good practice, but many avionics makers
>>> have been known to do it), 10A won't do it. 3rd (for me, anyway),
>>> I'd fuse each coil block separately; not all coils on one fuse. All
>>> that separate fusing means a single failure can't take out something
>>> else, like the coil pack taking the ECU with it when the fuse blows.
>>> ATC/ATO fuse blocks are relatively cheap and very compact for many
>>> circuits, so it's easy to isolate each coil. If a coil goes shorted,
>>> separate fuses could at least keep one pair of cylinders firing.
>>> Might make the difference between the runway and the fence. (Failure
>>> modes effects analysis.)
>>
>> Agreed. Do you KNOW what the current demands are on
>> each of those leads? I've communicated with perhaps
>> a half dozen electronic engine systems providers over
>> the years and I've yet to find one that could tell me
>> what the ENERGY requirements were on each supply line
>> nor could they define peak currents, duty cycles or
>> repetition rates. If they were being offered onto
>> a type certificated airplane, inquiring minds would
>> insist on knowing . . .
>>
>
> I'm the original poster of that VAF message. A few messages down I
> posted this thread which explains what is going on:
>
> https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?p=1445172
>
> It's as expected, they are worried about the coil being too noisy, but
> a counter point to this is when it switches to backup power, it pulls
> both ECU and coil power from a single 18g wire to the battery.
>
> This begs a few questions:
>
> 1. How much impedance does a switch vs a fuse vs a breaker impose on
> the system? Does having a single switch and breaker directly
> attached to a battery with less than 2" of wire with both ECU and coil
> wires connected south of that make a significant noise difference
> compared to two switches and two breakers directly attached to the
> battery in the same manor with the ECU and coil on each? From a wire
> perspective they are nearly the same with only 2" of wire sharing both
> systems so I doubt that would make a huge difference, but I'm less
> sure about the switches and breakers.
>
>
> 2. With the talk of a dedicated engine bus, I'm assuming that it
> would be attached to the battery directly. So, if you have 2ft 10g
> wire from a battery to an engine bus and another 2ft 10g wire from a
> battery to a main bus that has modern avionics on it, how much does
> that 4ft of 10G wire insulate the avionics from the noisy coil?
>
> Seems to me that this has more to do with contact points, wire gauge,
> and length of runs over the simplistic "dedicated bus is good and
> shared bus is bad."
>
> schu
>
>
If the entire backup power is supposed to be supplied on a single 18 ga
wire, then you might want to get a 2nd opinion on the quality of the
design. The system will need the same current and noise immunity from
the backup supply as the primary, unless some current consumer is
deleted in backup mode. What would that current consumer be? Why is it
not needed in backup mode, but it is needed in primary mode?
1. Don't understand the 2" of wire reference. No practical system will
have that. The battery is effectively a rather large 'filter'. If noise
from the high-power noise generator (the coils) has to flow all the way
back to the battery before traveling down the other power wire to the
ECU, the battery can at least partially attenuate some of that noise.
And noise isn't the only issue, as has been pointed out in other posts.
2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated in
other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or impedance.
It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep fundamental engine
control isolated from fundamental airframe electrical control. 'Mag
switches' independent of the airframe 'Master switch'. The goal is to
mimic as closely as possible the emergency procedures we were all
trained to follow when we suspect an electrical issue in flight. The
dedicated bus also eliminates multiple potential failure points in the
supply path to the engine which are not in the loop in traditional a/c
systems (master switch, master contactor, etc).
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> |
On 9/24/21 11:47 AM, Charlie England wrote:
> If the entire backup power is supposed to be supplied on a single 18
> ga wire, then you might want to get a 2nd opinion on the quality of
> the design. The system will need the same current and noise immunity
> from the backup supply as the primary, unless some current consumer is
> deleted in backup mode. What would that current consumer be? Why is it
> not needed in backup mode, but it is needed in primary mode?
This is how it's designed:
http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi2switches.jpg
There are two wires for normal power, the red coil wire and the purple
ECU wire. For the backup battery both the coil and ECU are powered
through a single 18g wire through a fuse:
http://www.sdsefi.com/battbox1.jpg
My current plan is to tie the battery backup to my aux bus which has
it's own SD-8 alternator and a small battery. This conforms to their
recommendation of
"Please note, this battery will run a dual system for about 20 minutes
at 2500 rpm in the event that the main alternator and main battery go
down. If you need more power duration for your typical missions, we
suggest you install a larger battery than this one and/or a second
backup alternator."
Then, in the system, I would disable the charging circuit as my
alternator does that.
>
> 1. Don't understand the 2" of wire reference. No practical system will
> have that. The battery is effectively a rather large 'filter'. If
> noise from the high-power noise generator (the coils) has to flow all
> the way back to the battery before traveling down the other power wire
> to the ECU, the battery can at least partially attenuate some of that
> noise. And noise isn't the only issue, as has been pointed out in
> other posts.
The battery is not usually mounted near this stuff, typically you would
bring battery power to a bus bar with a large gauge wire, then from that
to your breakers and switches then to the device. In that case, what
exactly is the difference between powering each leg through a single
switch/breaker or dual switch/breakers assuming that the switches and
breakers are within inches of the bus bar. If there is a large
difference, how much of it is the short length of shared wire between
the bus bar and switch/breaker and how much of it is the fact that you
are sharing a switch/breaker?
Perhaps a picture is best. How much noise rejection difference would
one expect in the following:
> 2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated in
> other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or
> impedance. It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep
> fundamental engine control isolated from fundamental airframe
> electrical control. 'Mag switches' independent of the airframe 'Master
> switch'. The goal is to mimic as closely as possible the emergency
> procedures we were all trained to follow when we suspect an electrical
> issue in flight. The dedicated bus also eliminates multiple potential
> failure points in the supply path to the engine which are not in the
> loop in traditional a/c systems (master switch, master contactor, etc).
>
Noted. Thanks for that feedback.
schu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:07 PM Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> On 9/24/21 11:47 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> If the entire backup power is supposed to be supplied on a single 18 ga
> wire, then you might want to get a 2nd opinion on the quality of the
> design. The system will need the same current and noise immunity from the
> backup supply as the primary, unless some current consumer is deleted in
> backup mode. What would that current consumer be? Why is it not needed in
> backup mode, but it is needed in primary mode?
>
>
> This is how it's designed:
>
> http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi2switches.jpg
>
> There are two wires for normal power, the red coil wire and the purple ECU
> wire. For the backup battery both the coil and ECU are powered through a
> single 18g wire through a fuse:
>
> http://www.sdsefi.com/battbox1.jpg
>
> My current plan is to tie the battery backup to my aux bus which has it's
> own SD-8 alternator and a small battery. This conforms to their
> recommendation of
>
> "Please note, this battery will run a dual system for about 20 minutes at
> 2500 rpm in the event that the main alternator and main battery go down. If
> you need more power duration for your typical missions, we suggest you
> install a larger battery than this one and/or a second backup alternator."
>
> Then, in the system, I would disable the charging circuit as my alternator
> does that.
>
>
> 1. Don't understand the 2" of wire reference. No practical system will
> have that. The battery is effectively a rather large 'filter'. If noise
> from the high-power noise generator (the coils) has to flow all the way
> back to the battery before traveling down the other power wire to the ECU,
> the battery can at least partially attenuate some of that noise. And noise
> isn't the only issue, as has been pointed out in other posts.
>
>
> The battery is not usually mounted near this stuff, typically you would
> bring battery power to a bus bar with a large gauge wire, then from that to
> your breakers and switches then to the device. In that case, what exactly
> is the difference between powering each leg through a single switch/breaker
> or dual switch/breakers assuming that the switches and breakers are within
> inches of the bus bar. If there is a large difference, how much of it is
> the short length of shared wire between the bus bar and switch/breaker and
> how much of it is the fact that you are sharing a switch/breaker?
>
> Perhaps a picture is best. How much noise rejection difference would one
> expect in the following:
>
>
> 2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated in
> other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or impedance.
> It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep fundamental engine
> control isolated from fundamental airframe electrical control. 'Mag
> switches' independent of the airframe 'Master switch'. The goal is to mimic
> as closely as possible the emergency procedures we were all trained to
> follow when we suspect an electrical issue in flight. The dedicated bus
> also eliminates multiple potential failure points in the supply path to the
> engine which are not in the loop in traditional a/c systems (master switch,
> master contactor, etc).
>
> Noted. Thanks for that feedback.
>
> schu
>
Ah..the plot thins. ;-)
That 2" of #18 is telling you that no more than 2" of the small gauge wire
should be between 'unlimited' current and the fuses. That minimizes risk
from a shorted wire in the unprotected run to the fuse. The switches
*should* be able to be mounted where ever it's convenient, and if the wire
run is longer, the wire gets upsized to reduce voltage drop.
Your question about 1 wire for the backup vs 2 for normal operation is a
valid one, and should be addressed to SDS, and if you don't get a
satisfactory answer, get a 2nd opinion. If the system needs separate wires,
why is a single wire safe? If it doesn't need separate wires, then why
complicate the wiring? FWIW, the controller I'm personally familiar with
(not SDS or the other common Lyc controller) specifies a separate feed for
the ECU, and a separate feed for the coils, and a separate feed for the
injectors. I know the engineer that designed the system, and I trust his
opinion because he's who he is, and because it lines up with my decades of
experience in other fields dealing with electrical noise & interference.
BTW, there's been at least one a/c running an electronic controller system
that was lost when the master bus went down, taking the engine electrical
power with it. Food for thought....
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
>>2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated
>>in other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or
>>impedance. It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep
>>fundamental engine control isolated from fundamental airframe
>>electrical control. 'Mag switches' independent of the airframe
>>'Master switch'. The goal is to mimic as closely as possible the
>>emergency procedures we were all trained to follow when we suspect
>>an electrical issue in flight. The dedicated bus also eliminates
>>multiple potential failure points in the supply path to the engine
>>which are not in the loop in traditional a/c systems (master
>>switch, master contactor, etc).
I am mystified by incorporation of a backup battery with
this system. Are we confessing to an inability to craft
a failure tolerant electrical supply to a DUAL electronic
ignition system?
Will the engine run on ONE of the two systems? If
your engine driven supply is compromised, is there
sufficient standby power generation to sustain
flight? This means your design STARTS with a
load analysis of what items are included on the
plan-b actions list.
This was the kind of thinking from which the endurance
bus was crafted about 30 years ago. Question: how much
WELL MAINTAINED BATTERY is needed to keep the airplane
comfortably airborne for a period of time equal to or
greater than design goals?
I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
battery only operations.
Your design goals are your own but the tools
for achieving them are ancient protocol. Know
your energy budget then provide sources to equal
or exceed that budget as determined by
analysis on the bench and confirmed by
demonstration in the air.
If you've got more than one battery on board,
you're overlooking something. If you have two
engine driven power sources, will the smaller
of the two sustain cruising flight while holding
the battery in reserve for descent and approach
to landing? If you're worrying about multiple
failures of critical items, what are the failure
modes and what are probabilities of loosing
two such devices during the consumption of one
tank of fuel?
The elegant system architecture achieves design
goals with a minimum of hardware, cockpit controls,
weight, cost, etc.
Thought problem: Z101 style engine bus. Triple
energy source (60 + 30 alternators) and a
well maintained battery sized to be determined.
Engine bus energy supplied by two delivery pathways.
All functional engine loads supplied by the bus.
No standby battery.
Failure of what system feature would put this
system at risk for unplanned arrival with the
dirt? What are the limiting factors for achieving
design goals (endurance) after having experienced
the failure?
I am concerned with talk of 'noise' in this
ignition/fuel system? Exactly what has been
demonstrated as a noise problem? Is the source
identified? What appliances are victims of this
'noise'? What is being done to bring the
antagonist into a neighborly coexistence with
all players in the electrical sandbox?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 9/28/2021 12:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>> 2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated
>>> in other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or
>>> impedance. It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep
>>> fundamental engine control isolated from fundamental airframe
>>> electrical control. 'Mag switches' independent of the airframe
>>> 'Master switch'. The goal is to mimic as closely as possible the
>>> emergency procedures we were all trained to follow when we suspect
>>> an electrical issue in flight. The dedicated bus also eliminates
>>> multiple potential failure points in the supply path to the engine
>>> which are not in the loop in traditional a/c systems (master switch,
>>> master contactor, etc).
>
> I am mystified by incorporation of a backup battery with
> this system. Are we confessing to an inability to craft
> a failure tolerant electrical supply to a DUAL electronic
> ignition system?
>
> Will the engine run on ONE of the two systems? If
> your engine driven supply is compromised, is there
> sufficient standby power generation to sustain
> flight? This means your design STARTS with a
> load analysis of what items are included on the
> plan-b actions list.
>
> This was the kind of thinking from which the endurance
> bus was crafted about 30 years ago. Question: how much
> WELL MAINTAINED BATTERY is needed to keep the airplane
> comfortably airborne for a period of time equal to or
> greater than design goals?
>
> I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
> that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
> battery only operations.
>
> Your design goals are your own but the tools
> for achieving them are ancient protocol. Know
> your energy budget then provide sources to equal
> or exceed that budget as determined by
> analysis on the bench and confirmed by
> demonstration in the air.
>
> If you've got more than one battery on board,
> you're overlooking something. If you have two
> engine driven power sources, will the smaller
> of the two sustain cruising flight while holding
> the battery in reserve for descent and approach
> to landing? If you're worrying about multiple
> failures of critical items, what are the failure
> modes and what are probabilities of loosing
> two such devices during the consumption of one
> tank of fuel?
>
> The elegant system architecture achieves design
> goals with a minimum of hardware, cockpit controls,
> weight, cost, etc.
>
> Thought problem: Z101 style engine bus. Triple
> energy source (60 + 30 alternators) and a
> well maintained battery sized to be determined.
> Engine bus energy supplied by two delivery pathways.
> All functional engine loads supplied by the bus.
> No standby battery.
>
> Failure of what system feature would put this
> system at risk for unplanned arrival with the
> dirt? What are the limiting factors for achieving
> design goals (endurance) after having experienced
> the failure?
>
> I am concerned with talk of 'noise' in this
> ignition/fuel system? Exactly what has been
> demonstrated as a noise problem? Is the source
> identified? What appliances are victims of this
> 'noise'? What is being done to bring the
> antagonist into a neighborly coexistence with
> all players in the electrical sandbox?
>
Uh, not that I disagree with most of what you wrote, but you quoted my
response to the OP, not his posts. :-) I did *speculate* on several
different possible reasons that SDS recommended separate feeders for the
ECU vs coils and/or injectors.
I do think you need to remember that this:
/I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships//
// that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during//
// battery only operations.
/only applies to mags, or electronic ignition-only systems. The combo of
electronic ignition, electronic injectors, and high current fuel pump
means that a PC680 equivalent battery is good for about 40 minutes, as
long as all other airframe electrical loads are minimal. If there are
5-10 amps of unshed panel loads (not unusual these days), battery-only
operation could be as short as 15-20 minutes.
Automotive style injection changes the battery-only operation equations
by a bunch.
Thanks,
Charlie
/
/
--
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: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
Wearing a "belt and suspenders" is not elegant, but it is not necessarily a
bad idea either.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:43 AM Charlie England
wrote:
> On 9/28/2021 12:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> 2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated in
> other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or impedance.
> It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep fundamental engine
> control isolated from fundamental airframe electrical control. 'Mag
> switches' independent of the airframe 'Master switch'. The goal is to mimic
> as closely as possible the emergency procedures we were all trained to
> follow when we suspect an electrical issue in flight. The dedicated bus
> also eliminates multiple potential failure points in the supply path to the
> engine which are not in the loop in traditional a/c systems (master switch,
> master contactor, etc).
>
>
> I am mystified by incorporation of a backup battery with
> this system. Are we confessing to an inability to craft
> a failure tolerant electrical supply to a DUAL electronic
> ignition system?
>
> Will the engine run on ONE of the two systems? If
> your engine driven supply is compromised, is there
> sufficient standby power generation to sustain
> flight? This means your design STARTS with a
> load analysis of what items are included on the
> plan-b actions list.
>
> This was the kind of thinking from which the endurance
> bus was crafted about 30 years ago. Question: how much
> WELL MAINTAINED BATTERY is needed to keep the airplane
> comfortably airborne for a period of time equal to or
> greater than design goals?
>
> I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
> that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
> battery only operations.
>
> Your design goals are your own but the tools
> for achieving them are ancient protocol. Know
> your energy budget then provide sources to equal
> or exceed that budget as determined by
> analysis on the bench and confirmed by
> demonstration in the air.
>
> If you've got more than one battery on board,
> you're overlooking something. If you have two
> engine driven power sources, will the smaller
> of the two sustain cruising flight while holding
> the battery in reserve for descent and approach
> to landing? If you're worrying about multiple
> failures of critical items, what are the failure
> modes and what are probabilities of loosing
> two such devices during the consumption of one
> tank of fuel?
>
> The elegant system architecture achieves design
> goals with a minimum of hardware, cockpit controls,
> weight, cost, etc.
>
> Thought problem: Z101 style engine bus. Triple
> energy source (60 + 30 alternators) and a
> well maintained battery sized to be determined.
> Engine bus energy supplied by two delivery pathways.
> All functional engine loads supplied by the bus.
> No standby battery.
>
> Failure of what system feature would put this
> system at risk for unplanned arrival with the
> dirt? What are the limiting factors for achieving
> design goals (endurance) after having experienced
> the failure?
>
> I am concerned with talk of 'noise' in this
> ignition/fuel system? Exactly what has been
> demonstrated as a noise problem? Is the source
> identified? What appliances are victims of this
> 'noise'? What is being done to bring the
> antagonist into a neighborly coexistence with
> all players in the electrical sandbox?
>
>
> Uh, not that I disagree with most of what you wrote, but you quoted my
> response to the OP, not his posts. :-) I did *speculate* on several
> different possible reasons that SDS recommended separate feeders for the
> ECU vs coils and/or injectors.
>
> I do think you need to remember that this:
>
> *I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships*
> * that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during*
>
>
> * battery only operations. *only applies to mags, or electronic
> ignition-only systems. The combo of electronic ignition, electronic
> injectors, and high current fuel pump means that a PC680 equivalent battery
> is good for about 40 minutes, as long as all other airframe electrical
> loads are minimal. If there are 5-10 amps of unshed panel loads (not
> unusual these days), battery-only operation could be as short as 15-20
> minutes.
>
> Automotive style injection changes the battery-only operation equations by
> a bunch.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_-420879808160912622_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
Let's also recall that the CPI-2 is an ignition-only product. It does not
provide fuel injection. The PC680 would run much longer powering just a
dual CPI-2 & minimal other loads. That said, I have two alternators & a
single battery (Z101 architecture) in my CPI-2 equipped plane. As long as
there is gas to power the engine, the ignition should have electrons. The
redundantly-powered engine bus supplies both the primary & backup power
feeds to both CPI-2 ECUs & coils.
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 2:40 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> On 9/28/2021 12:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> 2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as stated in
> other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or resistance, or impedance.
> It's an *operational* requirement for me, to keep fundamental engine
> control isolated from fundamental airframe electrical control. 'Mag
> switches' independent of the airframe 'Master switch'. The goal is to mimic
> as closely as possible the emergency procedures we were all trained to
> follow when we suspect an electrical issue in flight. The dedicated bus
> also eliminates multiple potential failure points in the supply path to the
> engine which are not in the loop in traditional a/c systems (master switch,
> master contactor, etc).
>
>
> I am mystified by incorporation of a backup battery with
> this system. Are we confessing to an inability to craft
> a failure tolerant electrical supply to a DUAL electronic
> ignition system?
>
> Will the engine run on ONE of the two systems? If
> your engine driven supply is compromised, is there
> sufficient standby power generation to sustain
> flight? This means your design STARTS with a
> load analysis of what items are included on the
> plan-b actions list.
>
> This was the kind of thinking from which the endurance
> bus was crafted about 30 years ago. Question: how much
> WELL MAINTAINED BATTERY is needed to keep the airplane
> comfortably airborne for a period of time equal to or
> greater than design goals?
>
> I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
> that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
> battery only operations.
>
> Your design goals are your own but the tools
> for achieving them are ancient protocol. Know
> your energy budget then provide sources to equal
> or exceed that budget as determined by
> analysis on the bench and confirmed by
> demonstration in the air.
>
> If you've got more than one battery on board,
> you're overlooking something. If you have two
> engine driven power sources, will the smaller
> of the two sustain cruising flight while holding
> the battery in reserve for descent and approach
> to landing? If you're worrying about multiple
> failures of critical items, what are the failure
> modes and what are probabilities of loosing
> two such devices during the consumption of one
> tank of fuel?
>
> The elegant system architecture achieves design
> goals with a minimum of hardware, cockpit controls,
> weight, cost, etc.
>
> Thought problem: Z101 style engine bus. Triple
> energy source (60 + 30 alternators) and a
> well maintained battery sized to be determined.
> Engine bus energy supplied by two delivery pathways.
> All functional engine loads supplied by the bus.
> No standby battery.
>
> Failure of what system feature would put this
> system at risk for unplanned arrival with the
> dirt? What are the limiting factors for achieving
> design goals (endurance) after having experienced
> the failure?
>
> I am concerned with talk of 'noise' in this
> ignition/fuel system? Exactly what has been
> demonstrated as a noise problem? Is the source
> identified? What appliances are victims of this
> 'noise'? What is being done to bring the
> antagonist into a neighborly coexistence with
> all players in the electrical sandbox?
>
>
> Uh, not that I disagree with most of what you wrote, but you quoted my
> response to the OP, not his posts. :-) I did *speculate* on several
> different possible reasons that SDS recommended separate feeders for the
> ECU vs coils and/or injectors.
>
> I do think you need to remember that this:
>
> *I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships*
> * that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during*
>
>
> * battery only operations. *only applies to mags, or electronic
> ignition-only systems. The combo of electronic ignition, electronic
> injectors, and high current fuel pump means that a PC680 equivalent battery
> is good for about 40 minutes, as long as all other airframe electrical
> loads are minimal. If there are 5-10 amps of unshed panel loads (not
> unusual these days), battery-only operation could be as short as 15-20
> minutes.
>
> Automotive style injection changes the battery-only operation equations by
> a bunch.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_-1793440618398720696_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
>
>I do think you need to remember that this:
>
>I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
> that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
> battery only operations.
>
>only applies to mags, or electronic ignition-only systems. The combo
>of electronic ignition, electronic injectors, and high current fuel
>pump means that a PC680 equivalent battery is good for about 40
>minutes, as long as all other airframe electrical loads are minimal.
>If there are 5-10 amps of unshed panel loads (not unusual these
>days), battery-only operation could be as short as 15-20 minutes.
>
>Automotive style injection changes the battery-only operation
>equations by a bunch.
How big is 'a bunch'? I'm not suggesting that
anyone strive for multi-hour cruising ops
battery only either. I'm reading a lot of
discussion wrapped in worries with
zero quantitative analysis for meeting an
as yet un-defined design goal. There's
also a sprinkling of worries about multiple
failures which are exceedingly rare.
We had some discussions here on the List
years ago on this same topic. Some of the
participants were really hard over on
keeping BOTH ignitions running when the
engine performance was adequate on one
ignition with a significant savings of
endurance energy.
Those few Ez drivers looking for extra
ordinary battery-only endurance were flying
SD-8 but most LongEz projects needed nose
ballast. So why not make it 'useful lead'
as opposed to 'dead lead'?
Seems the really important question for
a dual alternator system is whether or not
one can sustain flight on the smaller of
the two alternators? Can CRUISING loads
be reduced to a value that CAN be supported?
If you can do that, then combined with a
properly maintained battery you've got
power to burn. Once the airport is in sight,
fire up all the electro-whizzies.
But to validate that plan-b, you need ENERGY
requirements and a checklist of what can be
put in reserve during endurance cruise.
There's a youtube presentation that measures
energy demands for this ignition system. Haven't
found one for the fuel system.
One would to well to know exactly what the
energy demands are for running an engine
fitted with these systems. We have to do
it to TC a spam-can . . . there's a good
reason for that!
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 9/28/2021 6:23 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> I do think you need to remember that this:
>>
>> /I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
>> that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
>> battery only operations.
>>
>> /only applies to mags, or electronic ignition-only systems. The combo
>> of electronic ignition, electronic injectors, and high current fuel
>> pump means that a PC680 equivalent battery is good for about 40
>> minutes, as long as all other airframe electrical loads are minimal.
>> If there are 5-10 amps of unshed panel loads (not unusual these
>> days), battery-only operation could be as short as 15-20 minutes.
>>
>> Automotive style injection changes the battery-only operation
>> equations by a bunch.
>
> How big is 'a bunch'? I'm not suggesting that
> anyone strive for multi-hour cruising ops
> battery only either. I'm reading a lot of
> discussion wrapped in worries with
> zero quantitative analysis for meeting an
> as yet un-defined design goal. There's
> also a sprinkling of worries about multiple
> failures which are exceedingly rare.
>
> We had some discussions here on the List
> years ago on this same topic. Some of the
> participants were really hard over on
> keeping BOTH ignitions running when the
> engine performance was adequate on one
> ignition with a significant savings of
> endurance energy.
>
> Those few Ez drivers looking for extra
> ordinary battery-only endurance were flying
> SD-8 but most LongEz projects needed nose
> ballast. So why not make it 'useful lead'
> as opposed to 'dead lead'?
>
> Seems the really important question for
> a dual alternator system is whether or not
> one can sustain flight on the smaller of
> the two alternators? Can CRUISING loads
> be reduced to a value that CAN be supported?
>
> If you can do that, then combined with a
> properly maintained battery you've got
> power to burn. Once the airport is in sight,
> fire up all the electro-whizzies.
>
> But to validate that plan-b, you need ENERGY
> requirements and a checklist of what can be
> put in reserve during endurance cruise.
>
> There's a youtube presentation that measures
> energy demands for this ignition system. Haven't
> found one for the fuel system.
>
> One would to well to know exactly what the
> energy demands are for running an engine
> fitted with these systems. We have to do
> it to TC a spam-can . . . there's a good
> reason for that!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
Well, I didn't just pull those numbers out of one of my body's orifices.
;-) I'm pretty sure that if you ask SDS or any of the other automotive
injection makers, they'll quote a number in the 10A+ range, minimum.
A single automotive style injection system, when the injection pump is
included, is going to draw at least 10 amps; likely closer to 15 amps to
keep the engine running. The 40 minutes of PC680 battery-only endurance
was demonstrated by an engineer friend during testing of his new
electronic injected RV9A (back in the pre-EFIS days, with minimal
current draw from the instrument panel), and can be sanity checked using
Odyssey's published discharge curves. He did the test in the air,
alternator off, at low/mid engine power levels, and discontinued the
test (brought the alternator back on line) when battery voltage equaled
Odyssey's published voltage for a discharged battery.
I repeat: It's not about keeping two, or even one, *ignitions* running.
It's about keeping the entire engine control system running, which
includes not just the ignition (most of the auto style systems will fire
all the plugs, by default), but the injectors (which require
quantifiable higher current than the coils), the ECU (relatively low
power of an amp or two, but certainly not insignificant), and the fuel
pump, which is significant at a bare minimum of 4-6 amps, and more
typically at 6-8 amps.
The alternative engine guys have been dealing with this for at least a
decade or two longer than the 'traditional' aircraft engine guys and the
numbers I'm giving have been pretty consistent among multiple users for
many years.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 Circuit Protection Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Well, this is obviously my 'Duhh' moment. I thought we were talking
about the full SDS engine control system. A 15 A feed just for ignition
coils threw me a curve.
My apologies to everyone involved for hammering on the injection issue.
Charlie
On 9/28/2021 4:24 PM, David Carter wrote:
> Let's also recall that the CPI-2 is an ignition-only product. It does
> not provide fuel injection. The PC680 would run much longer powering
> just a dual CPI-2 & minimal other loads. That said, I have two
> alternators & a single battery (Z101 architecture) in my CPI-2
> equipped plane. As long as there is gas to power the engine, the
> ignition should have electrons. The redundantly-powered engine bus
> supplies both the primary & backup power feeds to both CPI-2 ECUs &
> coils.
>
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 2:40 PM Charlie England > wrote:
>
> On 9/28/2021 12:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>> 2. My requirement in my system for a separate engine bus, as
>>>> stated in other posts, has nothing to do with noise, or
>>>> resistance, or impedance. It's an *operational* requirement for
>>>> me, to keep fundamental engine control isolated from
>>>> fundamental airframe electrical control. 'Mag switches'
>>>> independent of the airframe 'Master switch'. The goal is to
>>>> mimic as closely as possible the emergency procedures we were
>>>> all trained to follow when we suspect an electrical issue in
>>>> flight. The dedicated bus also eliminates multiple potential
>>>> failure points in the supply path to the engine which are not
>>>> in the loop in traditional a/c systems (master switch, master
>>>> contactor, etc).
>>
>> I am mystified by incorporation of a backup battery with
>> this system. Are we confessing to an inability to craft
>> a failure tolerant electrical supply to a DUAL electronic
>> ignition system?
>>
>> Will the engine run on ONE of the two systems? If
>> your engine driven supply is compromised, is there
>> sufficient standby power generation to sustain
>> flight? This means your design STARTS with a
>> load analysis of what items are included on the
>> plan-b actions list.
>>
>> This was the kind of thinking from which the endurance
>> bus was crafted about 30 years ago. Question: how much
>> WELL MAINTAINED BATTERY is needed to keep the airplane
>> comfortably airborne for a period of time equal to or
>> greater than design goals?
>>
>> I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships
>> that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during
>> battery only operations.
>>
>> Your design goals are your own but the tools
>> for achieving them are ancient protocol. Know
>> your energy budget then provide sources to equal
>> or exceed that budget as determined by
>> analysis on the bench and confirmed by
>> demonstration in the air.
>>
>> If you've got more than one battery on board,
>> you're overlooking something. If you have two
>> engine driven power sources, will the smaller
>> of the two sustain cruising flight while holding
>> the battery in reserve for descent and approach
>> to landing? If you're worrying about multiple
>> failures of critical items, what are the failure
>> modes and what are probabilities of loosing
>> two such devices during the consumption of one
>> tank of fuel?
>>
>> The elegant system architecture achieves design
>> goals with a minimum of hardware, cockpit controls,
>> weight, cost, etc.
>>
>> Thought problem: Z101 style engine bus. Triple
>> energy source (60 + 30 alternators) and a
>> well maintained battery sized to be determined.
>> Engine bus energy supplied by two delivery pathways.
>> All functional engine loads supplied by the bus.
>> No standby battery.
>>
>> Failure of what system feature would put this
>> system at risk for unplanned arrival with the
>> dirt? What are the limiting factors for achieving
>> design goals (endurance) after having experienced
>> the failure?
>>
>> I am concerned with talk of 'noise' in this
>> ignition/fuel system? Exactly what has been
>> demonstrated as a noise problem? Is the source
>> identified? What appliances are victims of this
>> 'noise'? What is being done to bring the
>> antagonist into a neighborly coexistence with
>> all players in the electrical sandbox?
>>
> Uh, not that I disagree with most of what you wrote, but you
> quoted my response to the OP, not his posts. :-) I did *speculate*
> on several different possible reasons that SDS recommended
> separate feeders for the ECU vs coils and/or injectors.
>
> I do think you need to remember that this:
>
> /I had builders crafting systems in LongEz ships//
> // that would exhaust a full tank of fuel during//
> // battery only operations.
>
> /only applies to mags, or electronic ignition-only systems. The
> combo of electronic ignition, electronic injectors, and high
> current fuel pump means that a PC680 equivalent battery is good
> for about 40 minutes, as long as all other airframe electrical
> loads are minimal. If there are 5-10 amps of unshed panel loads
> (not unusual these days), battery-only operation could be as short
> as 15-20 minutes.
>
> Automotive style injection changes the battery-only operation
> equations by a bunch.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
> /
> /
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
> <#m_-1793440618398720696_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities |
| From: | "wsimpso1" <wsimpso1(at)comcast.net> |
I and another EAA chapter member are working on architecture decisions in our respective
airplanes. In the process, I have assembled Failure Modes and Effects
Analyses for several common options. Unfortunately, we have too small an experience
base for confidence in estimating failure probabilities on the many components.
We are looking for a broader experience set in estimating a number of
things:
Likelihood of Failure
How likely individual items are to fail at engine start as opposed to in-flight?
Will we be able to detect the failures using common post-start and pre-takeoff
checklist processes?
How likely are detection measures in finding impending failures?
If an item is available from B&C, please assume they are the source. My colleague
in this exercise is using a Lycoming with factory supplied Surefly Ignition
and Bendix Fuel Injection. My homebuilt is planned with SDS fuel injection and
ignition. Estimates specific to the hardware are great.
Please help by giving your estimates of in-flight failure probabilities and any
other thoughts you might have on detection and failure modes on the following
components:
Electrical components:
Batteries;
Carling DPDT switches;
Continuous Duty Contactors;
Continuous Duty Relays;
Alternators;
Regulators;
Diode packs and Diodes;
Ignition Equipment;
Conventional Magnetos;
E-Mags;
SDS Ignition and Coils;
Sure Fly Ignition;
Fuel Handling;
Mechanical Fuel Pumps;
Electric Fuel Pumps, Traditional;
Electric Fuel Transfer Pumps, Facet;
Electric Fuel Injection Pumps, Walbro;
SDS Fuel Injection;
Fuel Selector Valves, Traditional;
Fuel Selector Valves, Andair and Newton/SPRL
Sensors supporting electronic fuel and spark;
Avionics;
Avidyne GPS/NAV/COM;
Dynon HDX Display/Processors;
Thanks in advance for any help you can give in these estimations.
Billski
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503375#503375
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities |
| From: | "wsimpso1" <wsimpso1(at)comcast.net> |
15 of you have visited this page and not even one of you will share "I have X many
hours in little planes and have had Y of this failure and Z of that failure"?
OK, I shall start. In 2200 hours I have had:
Two plugs on one cylinder foul and cut out the cylinder, with the first cutting
out only a couple minutes before the second. The Archer maintained altitude on
three cylinders;
Two Facet standby electric fuel pumps failed on the ground;
One alternator failure in flight;
One attitude gyro gave up in flight on an instrument training flight in VMC - that
made for an interesting flight;
Two vacuum pumps failed - both in VMC;
One fuel pump sending unit lost its float while IMC, causing a divert to the nearest
ILS in case the tank really was draining. It wasn't. And;
Miscellaneous light bulbs. They do not seem to be out when checked on the ground.
They must burn out during flight.
No inflight battery or contactor or switch issues, near as I can tell from review
of the logs, the switches and contactors all have 6700 hours on them. I will
look back through the logs on the airplane for other failures.
Come on guys, let's hear your totals and all the things that have broken. A perusal
of the log books for repairs won't hurt either.
Billski
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503378#503378
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 10/2/2021 12:44 PM, wsimpso1 wrote:
>
> 15 of you have visited this page and not even one of you will share "I have X
many hours in little planes and have had Y of this failure and Z of that failure"?
>
> OK, I shall start. In 2200 hours I have had:
> Two plugs on one cylinder foul and cut out the cylinder, with the first cutting
out only a couple minutes before the second. The Archer maintained altitude
on three cylinders;
> Two Facet standby electric fuel pumps failed on the ground;
> One alternator failure in flight;
> One attitude gyro gave up in flight on an instrument training flight in VMC -
that made for an interesting flight;
> Two vacuum pumps failed - both in VMC;
> One fuel pump sending unit lost its float while IMC, causing a divert to the
nearest ILS in case the tank really was draining. It wasn't. And;
> Miscellaneous light bulbs. They do not seem to be out when checked on the ground.
They must burn out during flight.
> No inflight battery or contactor or switch issues, near as I can tell from review
of the logs, the switches and contactors all have 6700 hours on them. I will
look back through the logs on the airplane for other failures.
>
> Come on guys, let's hear your totals and all the things that have broken. A perusal
of the log books for repairs won't hurt either.
>
> Billski
>
Hey Billkski,
Maybe no one's responded yet because we don't know which bite of that
elephant to take 1st. ;-)
If you're asking for brand recommendations based on reliability, that's
relatively easy; as you know, B&C would be 1st stop.
If you're asking about what's reliable 'enough', no one component is
reliable enough if finishing the flight safely depends on it (excepting
stuff we simply can't, as a practical matter, duplicate).
My 1st bite: your buddy's Bendix plane will need a different electrical
system backup energy capacity from your SDS-injected plane.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bernie <arcticarrow(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities |
Ive been wondering about all the failure preventative measures proposed on this
theme. Im building a Hatz with Verner power hence electronic ignition so have
concerns too. However my history over 55 years and 30,000 hr 10,000 in light
aircraft isnt so dramatic:
9 engine failures, jets, a bleed valve failure, turbine blade disintegration,
seizure from starter failure to disengage after start. Recips, massive valve guide
disintegration which led to spark plug electrode shorting, oil dip stick
failure- parts punched holes through case and let the oil out, fuel vents icing
two times, engine fire - broken fuel line on ground, planitary gear drive on
GSIO engine.
Electrical failures: 2 master contractors on the ground, 1 alternator-broken field
wire, loose generator drive belt on Lycoming, engine pressure ratio gauge
failure, couple dead batteries from neglect.
Landing gear: main gear tire blew out, metal brake line pulled from fitting.
Props: 1 while taxing in soft sand, another when a main gear fell into ice covered
hole on twin.
Im an IA and do my own maintenance, my father started with cars then Lockheed for
35 yrs. which leads me to believe stuff rarely fails but we do. Inspection
and preventative maintenance are never wrong.
Bernie Willis
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 2, 2021, at 10:10 AM, wsimpso1 wrote:
>
>
> 15 of you have visited this page and not even one of you will share "I have X
many hours in little planes and have had Y of this failure and Z of that failure"?
>
> OK, I shall start. In 2200 hours I have had:
> Two plugs on one cylinder foul and cut out the cylinder, with the first cutting
out only a couple minutes before the second. The Archer maintained altitude
on three cylinders;
> Two Facet standby electric fuel pumps failed on the ground;
> One alternator failure in flight;
> One attitude gyro gave up in flight on an instrument training flight in VMC -
that made for an interesting flight;
> Two vacuum pumps failed - both in VMC;
> One fuel pump sending unit lost its float while IMC, causing a divert to the
nearest ILS in case the tank really was draining. It wasn't. And;
> Miscellaneous light bulbs. They do not seem to be out when checked on the ground.
They must burn out during flight.
> No inflight battery or contactor or switch issues, near as I can tell from review
of the logs, the switches and contactors all have 6700 hours on them. I will
look back through the logs on the airplane for other failures.
>
> Come on guys, let's hear your totals and all the things that have broken. A perusal
of the log books for repairs won't hurt either.
>
> Billski
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503378#503378
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
I'll be using a Rotax 912iS in my Kitfox build. I'm considering how best to integrate
it into a fault-tolerant electrical system architecture. At first glance,
it appears that Rotax has done much of the heavy lifting, but let me describe
the engine's systems for anyone who is not familiar:
The engine is controlled by a dual channel Rockwell Collins ECU. It has dual electronic
ignition and redundant electronic fuel injection. The fuel rail is
fed by two electric fuel pumps. There are two independent built-in alternators,
"A" (16A) and "B" (30A), feeding two rectifier/regulators. The engine's "Fuse
Box" and ECU manage these components so that the "A" alternator is dedicated
to engine loads and the "B" alternator to battery charging and airframe loads.
The 912iS Installation Manual contains the following relevant notes:
1. If generator A fails, generator B takes over its functions. The airframe electrical
components and the instruments will be supplied by the battery. The battery
will no longer be charged.
2. If generator B fails, the battery will no longer be charged. The engine still
runs on generator A and the instruments will be supplied by the battery.
The operator's manual states: "Failure of both ... power supplies (alternator A/B)
results in engine stoppage. Remedy: Switch ON the Battery Backup switch (in
this case the power supply is provided by the aircraft battery). Restart engine."
The Installation Manual lists engine electrical loads as follows:
- ECU and Fuse Box: ~1.6A
- Warning lamps (2): maximum 240mA [LED: 40mA]
- Fuel pumps (2): maximum 10A each
Some internet searching suggests that the actual combined running load for the
fuel pumps is 7-9A, which seems reasonable, but I couldn't find a definitive answer.
In any case, the Operator's Manual only requires both pumps ON for takeoff
and landing. Let's assume the high end of the Rotax number and say the engine
needs 10A in cruise with one fuel pump operating.
My endurance goal is to continue flight for 45 minutes after loss of both alternators
(time equal to night VFR fuel reserve). I plan to use an EarthX battery.
Their ETX900 discharge curve shows (with a bit of interpolation) that it can
support a 15A load for ~60 min. At 80% capacity (the figure that EarthX cites
as end-of-life), it still meets my design goal, at ~48 min.
Assuming a maintained/tested ETX900 and an engine load of 10A, I would need to
reduce continuous airframe loads to 5A if both alternators fail. I can easily
operate the battery contactor, comm radio, multi-function standby instrument
and intermittent use of the trim motor and cabin lights within that budget, while
saving the landing light for use on short final.
So, I propose the following: Let the Rotax hardware take care of the engine and
alternators, and configure the airframe as shown in the attached simplified diagram.
In normal operation, with the Battery Master switch closed and the Battery
Backup switch open, the Endurance Bus is powered directly from the Battery
Contactor and the Main Bus is powered through a relay with redundant parallel
contacts. If both alternators fail and the Battery Backup switch is closed,
the 40A relay is automatically opened, taking down the Main Bus and reducing
the airframe to minimum endurance loads.
I don't want to carry the weight or maintenance burden of a dedicated EFIS backup
battery just for this extremely unlikely scenario. Engine start brownout protection
will be provided by other means.
I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. Thanks!
Eric
LINKS TO ROTAX & EARTHX MANUALS:
Rotax 912iS Installation Manual (7.24Mb): https://www.rotax-owner.com/pdf/IM_912_iSeries_ED2_R1.pdf
Rotax 912iS Operator's Manual (36.5Mb): https://www.rotax-owner.com/manuals/OM_912iSeries_ED2_R1.pdf
EarthX Battery User's Manual (1.16Mb): https://earthxbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ETX_Manual_111017_Y-1.pdf
[ETX900 data on pages 12-13]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503385#503385
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_electrical_architecture_rev_b_144.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/912is_wiring_diagram_237.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities |
There isn't much evidence based information available.
My observation is electromechanical devices often fail during use/in flight due
to vibration, solid state devices fail at start up. Vibration related failures
are difficult to quantify because very few experimental owners have any kind
of objective measure of the level of vibration (frequency vs amplitude) their
equipment is exposed to. Those who have their engines dynamically balanced may
have relatively low levels of vibration (0.2 ips at engine speeds & harmonics?)
but how many do that?
The only items I have any experience of failure rates are,
Switches / relays - I've never had a failure in 2000 hours
Alternators - 1 failure in 10x3 hours or less (not B&C)
Magnetos - AvWeb did a survey some time ago, failure rate was 1 in 500 hrs.
P-Mags - Better than magnetos by a factor of 2 to 5 (possibly more going forwards)
SDS & Surefly - too early in their lifetime to really know, probably better than
magnetos!
Fuel systems - all pretty reliable, failures are often gradual. Lyc mech pumps
have 2 diaphragms so will work with 1 ruptured. Isn't a Facet pump a traditional
pump?
Traditional fuel selectors leak all the time, Andair (my favourite) and SPRL are
much better.
Sensors do fail from time to time, if the system is well engineered the failure
of any one sensor will not take the whole system down and is just an annoyance.
Modern avionics very rarely fail and any failures are often due to installation
errors, particularly in Experimentals.
Although you didn't ask, vacuum systems have a failure rate of 1 in 500 hrs (AvWeb
survey again), pretty much any EFIS will better that by a factor of 2 to 5
(data is about 8 years old). Installing a back-up attitude indicator with a battery
(G5, AV-30, Horis, etc) will bring loss of attitude information into the
1 in 10^6 hours realm.
Smart electrical systems (VPX, Expbus, etc) seem to be about as reliable as alternators
in service.
Hope this helps, but there just isn't much hard data available.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of wsimpso1
Sent: 02 October 2021 14:27
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities
-->
I and another EAA chapter member are working on architecture decisions in our respective
airplanes. In the process, I have assembled Failure Modes and Effects
Analyses for several common options. Unfortunately, we have too small an experience
base for confidence in estimating failure probabilities on the many components.
We are looking for a broader experience set in estimating a number of
things:
Likelihood of Failure
How likely individual items are to fail at engine start as opposed to in-flight?
Will we be able to detect the failures using common post-start and pre-takeoff
checklist processes?
How likely are detection measures in finding impending failures?
If an item is available from B&C, please assume they are the source. My colleague
in this exercise is using a Lycoming with factory supplied Surefly Ignition
and Bendix Fuel Injection. My homebuilt is planned with SDS fuel injection and
ignition. Estimates specific to the hardware are great.
Please help by giving your estimates of in-flight failure probabilities and any
other thoughts you might have on detection and failure modes on the following
components:
Electrical components:
Batteries;
Carling DPDT switches;
Continuous Duty Contactors;
Continuous Duty Relays;
Alternators;
Regulators;
Diode packs and Diodes;
Ignition Equipment;
Conventional Magnetos;
E-Mags;
SDS Ignition and Coils;
Sure Fly Ignition;
Fuel Handling;
Mechanical Fuel Pumps;
Electric Fuel Pumps, Traditional;
Electric Fuel Transfer Pumps, Facet;
Electric Fuel Injection Pumps, Walbro;
SDS Fuel Injection;
Fuel Selector Valves, Traditional;
Fuel Selector Valves, Andair and Newton/SPRL
Sensors supporting electronic fuel and spark;
Avionics;
Avidyne GPS/NAV/COM;
Dynon HDX Display/Processors;
Thanks in advance for any help you can give in these estimations.
Billski
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503375#503375
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Top Cheap Essay Writing Service |
| From: | "nesan" <seoexecutive2.sassol(at)gmail.com> |
You've spent so much time on other things and have less time doing your academic work now. The deadline is close and you have already gone a long way. This is why several experienced academic professionals offer top-of-the-range writing solutions and are accessible to help students achieve high standards online. These specialists are committed to providing the top cheap essay writing service (https://www.masterpaperwriter.com/cheap-essay-help). You may ask academic professionals to do my college essay cheaply because it offers your job at affordable prices in no time. You therefore have to get to your academic writings with the greatest academic professionals.
------------------------------------
Today Publisher (https://todaypublisher.wordpress.com/)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503391#503391
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I suggest that the relay be eliminated. It is an unnecessary failure point.
X3-3 is missing from your schematic.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503393#503393
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/joe_rotax_is__166.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Estimates of Component Failure Probabilities |
>Please help by giving your estimates of in-flight failure
>probabilities and any other thoughts you might have on detection and
>failure modes on the following components:
Suppose I gave you a library of numbers on each of these
components/systems . . . now what?
If I were handed such a list along with their predicted
failure rates and tasked with crafting a failure tolerant
system . . . my first act would be to pitch the data
into a 'round file'.
MTBF, MTBO, service difficulty reports, dark-n-stormy
night stories ALL go to make us afraid of the unknown/
unexpected.
Know this about 'failure rates': They go much more to
cost of ownership than to system reliability. The
gold standard for rate studies tests a LARGE constellation
of test articles to failure and then plots numbers
of failures against time.
Time to failure in simple systems will often plot
in a nice bell-shaped curve that will tell you
where the majority of parts will fail. But wait!
A few of the parts can fail right out of the box.
A few will last a very long time. YOUR part will
fall somewhere on that curve.
So you got some numbers . . . now what? Of what
value is it to pick a part with more 'comfortable'
numbers when in fact, the thing can still crap
out about any time.
Those MTBF numbers can be quite useful to the
maintenance logistics manager of a large fleet . . .
but for the guy sitting in the left seat . . .
not so much.
I could wax long and sorrowfully on the time
I think I wasted doing MTBF studies for
the boss . . . but the customer wanted them
and paid for them.
But now YOU are the customer . . . and your
constellation of reasons for going OBAM
aircraft are your own. No doubt SYSTEM
reliability is high on the list along with
cost of ownership, time to first flight,
etc . . . where reliability speaks to
probability of any single failure getting
you or your airplane bent . . . or worse.
This is really a rather simple task. What
items in your ship's construct are things
you cannot LIVE without? Obviously, wings
need to stay on, propellers need to stay
attached and it's nice if the engine runs.
But as you run down the criticality list
from greatest to least, you'll find that
many things on the list do not create
hazards to flight where failures are simply
maintenance items. If things didn't break
on airplanes, FBOs would be out of business.
What you need to focus on are those items
that add value to your system reliability
such that you can get back to the FBO and
haggle with him over the warranty.
So once you've identified those can't-live-
without systems then consider what features
of those systems are under YOUR control.
All you can do personally is install, operate
and maintain. If something breaks inside,
you're SOL. Solution? Plan-B. Have a back-up
for every such appliance.
But when it comes to owner/operator prophylactics
against failure, careful attention to INSTALLATION
(safety wire, bolt torque, lock nut, chaffing
protection, gas tight joints etc), OPERATION (is
that fuel selector valve getting stiff, new noise
during starter engagement, new 'stumble' in one
cylinder after startup, intermittent battery
contactor, etc), and MAINTENANCE (oil changes, battery
cap checks, propeller nicks, slop in belcrank
hinges, etc).
Note that not one of these potential failures
is related to any MTBF study.
Most engine stoppages are 'cause it ran out of
gas. Most unplanned contacts with the earth
terminate after a chain of poor decisions often
combined with a lack of understanding as to how
the ship's systems work. Consider the studies
we've done here on the List for the Dark-n-Stormy
Night stories so beloved by the journals.
Few if any of those studies went to designing
the probability of repeating the failure OUT
of the airplane. None of the went offered any
discovery follow-up by the mechanic that fixed
anything. Virtually all went to crafting
a mind set in the pilot (YOU) for dealing with
a similar failure in the future. Virtually every
electrical issue I've worked over the years
had a foundation in human frailties . . . NOT
in the failure of a components to function within
its design goals and limits.
Hogwash. We either design the failure OUT -or-
make the failure INSIGNIFICANT with respect
to comfortable termination of flight. Trust
me. MTBF studies may be intellectually satisfying
but they have nothing to do with your risks
for a bad day in the cockpit.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Joe. I appreciate you taking a look at this and posting your schematic.
user9253 wrote:
> X3-3 is missing from your schematic.
Yeah, I didn't bother with the Start Power switch since the Fuse Box wasn't shown.
I'll definitely include X3-2 and X3-3 when I flesh out the schematic.
> I suggest that the relay be eliminated. It is an unnecessary failure point.
> Simpler is better. If it is not installed, it can not fail.
> Having 2 buses seems like a good idea, but complicates the electrical system.
> If panel switches are arranged in order of importance from left to right, then
in the event of alternator failure, the pilot can shut off switches on the right
side to conserve battery energy. There is no need to shut off a whole bus.
The pilot has the option of turning individual loads back on when needed.
That's certainly true, but the likelihood of relay failure is very remote and I
much prefer a hidden relay to a row of additional switches on the panel. I also
like the simplicity of a 1-step response that properly configures the aircraft
for maximum endurance. When the engine quits my IQ will drop by at least
half, and the Engine Failure Checklist will already be long enough:
- Landing Site - CONSIDER
- Fuel Quantity - CHECK
- Fuel Shutoff Valve - ON
- Fuel Pumps - BOTH ON
- Lane Switches - BOTH ON
- Backup Battery Switch - ON
- Engine Start Switch - PUSH
The relay module can easily be tested before each flight:
- Backup Battery Switch - ON
- Battery Master Switch - ON
- EFIS Display - CHECK OFF
- Backup Battery Switch - OFF
- EFIS Display - CHECK ON
It could fail two ways, open or closed. If it fails open on the ground, it will
be immediately apparent before flight. If it fails open in flight, some avionics
are lost but there is no jeopardy to the engine. If it fails closed any
time after the pre-flight test, it has no effect unless both alternators also
fail (near-zero chance on the same flight), and the failure will be detected
before the next flight. The cost of components is ~$5 per module, so I would
probably build two and keep a spare on the shelf.
I don't think shutting off a bus carrying only non-essential items is a major concern.
Losing the EFIS sounds ugly but I'm comfortable flying without engine
instruments long enough to get on the ground, I'll still have a fully charged
iPad to navigate with, and the comm radio will still be working, so I can get
help if needed.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503408#503408
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It looks like the relay will be energized whenever the engine is running. If the
engine quits, you will turn on the backup switch. So the relay will still
be energized and depleting the battery that is needed to keep the engine running.
Or is my reasoning wrong?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503416#503416
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Figure 3.18: Wiring Powerside (optional)
in the install manual shows backup power bypassing the battery contactor
which seems like the preferred architecture to me.
Interestingly I recently had a battery contactor go high resistance. It
would run the panel and lights but instantly went open circuit when the
starter was engaged. Looked like new except the internal copper parts
had a black coating.
Ken
On 05/10/2021 8:19 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> It looks like the relay will be energized whenever the engine is running. If
the engine quits, you will turn on the backup switch. So the relay will still
be energized and depleting the battery that is needed to keep the engine running.
Or is my reasoning wrong?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503416#503416
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> It looks like the relay will be energized whenever the engine is running.
Correct. As long as the Backup Battery switch is open, the P-channel MOSFET is
turned on by the pull-down resistor on its gate, allowing current to flow through
the relay coil.
> If the engine quits, you will turn on the backup switch. So the relay will still
be energized and depleting the battery that is needed to keep the engine
running. Or is my reasoning wrong?
No, turning on the Backup Battery switch applies ~12V to the MOSFET gate, turning
it off, which stops current flow to the relay coil. I've confirmed that there's
no current path from pin X3-3 (normal power input) to pin X3-1, so there's
no voltage on pin X3-1 in normal operation.
HOWEVER... It turns out that pins X3-1 and X3-2 are shorted inside the Fuse Box,
which makes sense given that the Backup Battery and Start Power switches do
essentially the same thing. This means that closing the Start Power switch will
open my relay, which is definitely not the behavior I want.
Thanks for making me think this through, Joe. VERY helpful!
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503425#503425
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There might be voltage on X3-1 when the engine is running if using EMS Ground as
the reference point. That should not disable the transistor which uses airframe
ground. Isolated grounds make it confusing.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503432#503432
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "edwardmcgrath" <platformbedexpert(at)gmail.com> |
Hello guys, I am new here.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503448#503448
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
CiAgICAKU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IFZlcml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3MgNEcgTFRFIHNtYXJ0cGhvbmUKCi0t
LS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0tLS0KRnJvbTogZWR3YXJkbWNncmF0aCA8cGxh
dGZvcm1iZWRleHBlcnRAZ21haWwuY29tPiAKRGF0ZTogMTAvMDYvMjAyMSAgMDU6MjMgIChHTVQt
MDU6MDApIApUbzogYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSAKU3ViamVjdDogQWVy
b0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3Q6IEhlbGxvIAoKLS0+IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9z
dGVkIGJ5OiAiZWR3YXJkbWNncmF0aCIgPHBsYXRmb3JtYmVkZXhwZXJ0QGdtYWlsLmNvbT5IZWxs
byBndXlzLCBJIGFtIG5ldyBoZXJlLldlIGFsbCB3ZXJlIGF0IG9uZSB0aW1lIcKgIPCfmJU
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (30) New Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max 5G 128GB $13,470CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
The Price is Canadian dollar. Buy On Our Website www.esellibuy.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503456#503456
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Integration of Rotax 912iS |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
yellowduckduo(at)gmail.co wrote:
> Figure 3.18: Wiring Powerside (optional)
> in the install manual shows backup power bypassing the battery contactor which
seems like the preferred architecture to me.
>
> Interestingly I recently had a battery contactor go high resistance. It would
run the panel and lights but instantly went open circuit when the starter was
engaged. Looked like new except the internal copper parts had a black coating.
That diagram shows several changes to the basic installation, including use of
the RS Flight Systems EMU. I presume you're meant to pick-and-choose the features
you prefer, and modify the basic installation accordingly.
I'm not sure I understand the point of wiring the Backup Battery switch to the
hot side of the Battery Contactor. I presume it's intended to protect against
a failed-open (or, as in your case, failed-high-resistance) contactor. However,
consider how and when the Backup Battery switch is used: both alternators
have failed, which the Operator's Manual says causes engine stoppage. The procedure
says to close the Backup Battery switch, restoring power to the engine's
electronics, then restart the engine. If the Battery Contactor has failed,
then the starter won't turn and you're no better off having the Backup Battery
switch connected to the hot side of the Contactor than to the switched side.
I suppose if you have enough altitude you could dive the airplane and hope to restart
the engine by windmilling, but you're sacrificing precious time/altitude/distance
if it doesn't work.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503457#503457
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:23 AM 10/6/2021, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello guys, I am new here.
SPAM
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Buy (30) New Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max 5G 128GB |
$13,470CAD
At 07:13 AM 10/6/2021, you wrote:
>
>
>The Price is Canadian dollar. Buy On Our Website www.esellibuy.com
>
> SPAM . . . not a subscribed individual
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (10 Pieces) New Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $3,990CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
Selling Wholesale Price Apple iPhone 13 5G
Capacity Available: 128GB / 256GB / 512GB
All New Original Unlocked With one Year Apple Warranty
All Prices Are Canadian Dollars
Website www.esellibuy.com
WhatsApp Chat +12898070703
Fast Free Shipping Worldwide
We are Located in Canada
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $2,995
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $3,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $4,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $5,370
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $3,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $4,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $6,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $7,470
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $4,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $6,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $10,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $13,470
======================================
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503476#503476
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (20 Pieces) New Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $4,980CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
Selling Wholesale Price Apple iPhone 13 5G
Capacity Available: 128GB / 256GB / 512GB
All New Original Unlocked With one Year Apple Warranty
All Prices Are Canadian Dollars
WhatsApp Chat +12898070703
Fast Free Shipping Worldwide
We are Located in Canada
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $2,995
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $3,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $4,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $5,370
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $3,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $4,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $6,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $7,470
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $4,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $6,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $10,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $13,470
======================================
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503495#503495
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (30 Pieces) New Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $5,370CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
Selling Wholesale Price Apple iPhone 13 5G
Capacity Available: 128GB / 256GB / 512GB
All New Original Unlocked With one Year Apple Warranty
All Prices Are Canadian Dollars
WhatsApp Chat +12898070703
Fast Free Shipping Worldwide
We are Located in Canada
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $2,995
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $3,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $4,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 128GB $5,370
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $3,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $4,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $6,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 256GB $7,470
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $4,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $6,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $10,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 5G 512GB $13,470
======================================
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503497#503497
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (5 Pieces) New Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $3,995CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
Selling Wholesale Price Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G
Capacity Available: 128GB / 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
All New Original Unlocked With one Year Apple Warranty
All Prices Are Canadian Dollars
Website www.esellibuy.com
WhatsApp Chat +12898070703
Fast Free Shipping Worldwide
We are Located in Canada
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $3,995
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $5,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $8,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $10,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $4,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $6,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $10,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $13,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $5,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $8,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $14,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $19,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $6,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $10,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $18,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $25,470
=========================================
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503501#503501
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Ivan Haecker" <hivanhaecker(at)gmail.com> |
I need to replace a rotary switch on my TKM Com 11/A radio. I inadvertently
broke the shaft while exiting the airplane. It is soldered to a pc board in
13 locations (12 around the perimeter and 1 in the center. I have no
experience with desoldering things from a board. My questions are as
follows: Is this a particularly difficult thing for a novice? Is there a
tool I should purchase for desoldering? If I really need to farm this out,
are there any suggestions where to find someone capable of doing this?
Thanks for any and all suggestions.
Ivan Haecker
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | recapen(at)earthlink.net |
I have used a product called solder wick. It's a copper wire mesh that absorbs
heated solder. I have also seen vacuum devices to extract the headted solder.
Sent using myEarthLink
I need to replace a rotary switch on my TKM Com 11/A radio. I inadvertently broke
the shaft while exiting the airplane. It is soldered to a pc board in 13 locations
(12 around the perimeter and 1 in the center. I have no experience with
desoldering things from a board. My questions are as follows: Is this a particularly
difficult thing for a novice? Is there a tool I should purchase for desoldering?
If I really need to farm this out, are there any suggestions where
to find someone capable of doing this? Thanks for any and all suggestions.
Ivan Haecker
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
If it=99s a well made circuit board, you have a good powerful solderin
g iron with the right size bit (not too big, not too small) and know how to u
se desolder braid and solder sucker, and are ready for eventualities (like a
re equipped to snip the last couple of pins that won=99t come away wit
h the rest of the switch) - then it=99s straightforward.
If not then you=99ll start to lift tracks and damage the board.
An expensive piece of working equipment is a bold starting place to learn re
work techniques.
> On Oct 11, 2021, at 2:44 PM, H. Ivan Haecker wrot
e:
>
> =EF=BB
> I need to replace a rotary switch on my TKM Com 11/A radio. I inadvertentl
y broke the shaft while exiting the airplane. It is soldered to a pc board i
n 13 locations (12 around the perimeter and 1 in the center. I have no exper
ience with desoldering things from a board. My questions are as follows: Is t
his a particularly difficult thing for a novice? Is there a tool I should pu
rchase for desoldering? If I really need to farm this out, are there any sug
gestions where to find someone capable of doing this? Thanks for any and all
suggestions.
>
> Ivan Haecker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Probably not a big deal for an experienced electronics tech, but I'm not
sure I'd advise that as a novice exercise. Might be worth asking at your
next EAA chapter meeting if anyone there is a HAM operator (a lot of
pilots are HAMs), or if anyone has experience with board-level electronics
repair.
If you're determined to do it yourself, and you have the new switch in
hand, you might be able to cut the individual terminals on the old switch.
If you can do that without damaging the board, removing individual pins
from the holes becomes a lot easier.
Again, not a beginner level task.
Charlie
electronics tech in a couple of prior lives
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:14 PM Alec wrote:
> If it=99s a well made circuit board, you have a good powerful solde
ring iron
> with the right size bit (not too big, not too small) and know how to use
> desolder braid and solder sucker, and are ready for eventualities (like a
re
> equipped to snip the last couple of pins that won=99t come away wit
h the rest
> of the switch) - then it=99s straightforward.
>
> If not then you=99ll start to lift tracks and damage the board.
>
> An expensive piece of working equipment is a bold starting place to learn
> rework techniques.
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2021, at 2:44 PM, H. Ivan Haecker
> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> I need to replace a rotary switch on my TKM Com 11/A radio. I
> inadvertently broke the shaft while exiting the airplane. It is soldered
to
> a pc board in 13 locations (12 around the perimeter and 1 in the center.
I
> have no experience with desoldering things from a board. My questions are
> as follows: Is this a particularly difficult thing for a novice? Is there
a
> tool I should purchase for desoldering? If I really need to farm this out
,
> are there any suggestions where to find someone capable of doing this?
> Thanks for any and all suggestions.
>
> Ivan Haecker
>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (10 Pieces) New Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $5,990CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
Selling Wholesale Price Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G
Capacity Available: 128GB / 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
All New Original Unlocked With one Year Apple Warranty
All Prices Are Canadian Dollars
WhatsApp Chat +12898070703
Fast Free Shipping Worldwide
We are Located in Canada
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $3,995
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $5,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $8,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $10,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $4,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $6,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $10,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $13,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $5,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $8,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $14,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $19,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $6,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $10,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $18,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $25,470
=========================================
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503508#503508
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
I'll second Charlie's advice. Getting 13 pins desoldered successfully using a
desoldering pump (a manual device that looks like a fat pencil) or desoldering
braid/wick is going to be very frustrating, with potential to damage traces on
the board.
If you can access all of the pins around the perimeter of the switch to cut them
free with a small, sharp pair of snips, then you'll just have to melt the solder
on the center pin to remove the switch. With that done, removing the pin
ends that remain in the outer holes will be MUCH easier, and you'll just have
to clean up the holes with braid/wick.
There is a tool designed for this task, called a vacuum desoldering tool. It has
a base station that sits on the bench, connected with a hose and cable to a
gun-shaped tool with a heated tip. A vacuum pump in the base pulls air through
the hollow tip of the tool to remove solder once it's melted. You'll spend
at least $100 for a minimally acceptable Chinese tool.
As others have said, this probably isn't a first-timer's project. Where in the
country are you located? Maybe someone on this forum has the tools and is near
you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503510#503510
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Ivan Haecker" <hivanhaecker(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for your responses. I=99ve got a new switch on the way, as wel
l as
some desoldering devices. I will try my hand at it after a little practice
on some trash bin stuff. Besides, it=99s at least 30 years old and th
e worst
that can happen is that I end up with a new com radio. Nothing ventured,
nothing gained.
Ivan Haecker
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:10 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> Probably not a big deal for an experienced electronics tech, but I'm not
> sure I'd advise that as a novice exercise. Might be worth asking at your
> next EAA chapter meeting if anyone there is a HAM operator (a lot of
> pilots are HAMs), or if anyone has experience with board-level electronic
s
> repair.
>
> If you're determined to do it yourself, and you have the new switch in
> hand, you might be able to cut the individual terminals on the old switch
.
> If you can do that without damaging the board, removing individual pins
> from the holes becomes a lot easier.
>
> Again, not a beginner level task.
>
> Charlie
> electronics tech in a couple of prior lives
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_-6886492928612108844_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:14 PM Alec wrote:
>
>> If it=99s a well made circuit board, you have a good powerful sold
ering
>> iron with the right size bit (not too big, not too small) and know how t
o
>> use desolder braid and solder sucker, and are ready for eventualities (l
ike
>> are equipped to snip the last couple of pins that won=99t come awa
y with the
>> rest of the switch) - then it=99s straightforward.
>>
>> If not then you=99ll start to lift tracks and damage the board.
>>
>> An expensive piece of working equipment is a bold starting place to lear
n
>> rework techniques.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2021, at 2:44 PM, H. Ivan Haecker
>> wrote:
>>
>> =EF=BB
>> I need to replace a rotary switch on my TKM Com 11/A radio. I
>> inadvertently broke the shaft while exiting the airplane. It is soldered
to
>> a pc board in 13 locations (12 around the perimeter and 1 in the center.
I
>> have no experience with desoldering things from a board. My questions ar
e
>> as follows: Is this a particularly difficult thing for a novice? Is ther
e a
>> tool I should purchase for desoldering? If I really need to farm this ou
t,
>> are there any suggestions where to find someone capable of doing this?
>> Thanks for any and all suggestions.
>>
>> Ivan Haecker
>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy (20 Pieces) New Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $8,980CAD |
| From: | "daddyfizonli" <daddyfizonli(at)gmail.com> |
Selling Wholesale Price Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G
Capacity Available: 128GB / 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
All New Original Unlocked With one Year Apple Warranty
All Prices Are Canadian Dollars
WhatsApp Chat +12898070703
Fast Free Shipping Worldwide
We are Located in Canada
=====================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $3,995
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $5,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $8,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 128GB $10,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $4,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $6,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $10,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 256GB $13,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $5,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $8,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $14,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 512GB $19,470
=========================================
Buy (5 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $6,495
Buy (10 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $10,990
Buy (20 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $18,980
Buy (30 Pieces) Apple iPhone 13 Pro 5G 1TB $25,470
=========================================
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503515#503515
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Can someone provide a research paper help? |
| From: | "davidway195" <davidway195(at)gmail.com> |
Are you a university student looking for research paper help (https://www.doassignmenthelp.com/research-paper-help)? Then, your life must be on a roller coaster ride while managing assignments, classes, and over that research for the thesis. Whatever it is, we are here to help you 24/7. We have assisted university students around the world so you do not need to worry. Our professional writers will help you in writing the research papers from scratch. You can connect with us anytime and get the best of our services. We will be happy to help.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503522#503522
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
Hi Bob,
I've read your list and many other contributions for several years, and
have learned a tremendous amount. I think this list and others of its type
are examples of the best of the internet.
I've had some experiences and a significant recent failure with a Plane
Power/Hartzell alternator and Lithium Iron Phosphate battery installation
which might be interesting to the community.
I built the Carbon Cub EX over 2013-2017 using resources from this list and
the Aeroelectric Connection to design and install the electrical system.
The electrical system, panel and firewall forward installation are
different from stock. The engine is an IO-340 with mods for a bit of
increased power and with weight control in mind. LiFePo4 battery location
is on the firewall perimeter about the 2 o'clock standing at the spinner.
No battery box. No dedicated blast air. I have a thermocouple placed
between the back of the battery and its mount made of some aluminum angle.
I sought out a LiFe battery with no BMS because I felt the eccentricities
in chemistry could be mitigated, but that the BMS systems available at the
time (2017) were problematic for my application. Battery is Deltran PN:
BTL35A480C, PB Eq: 26-35A, LCA:480, 96 Watt Hours. (96/12=8 AH). (I *think*
they still sell about the same battery but now only with a BMS: BTL24A480CW
.)
The alternator is a Plane Power Hartzel internally regulated 60 Amp
experimental. Charging rate is monitored with a Hall Effect sensor on the B
lead reading to a Dynon HDX.
Operating Experience:
Following normal starting I see 60 amp charging rates into the battery for
about 30 seconds. The charge rate tapers and stabilizes under 10 amps over
another 30 secs or so. This is usual behavior since new over 100's of
starts. (Well over 500 hours on all these components). The B lead is
protected by a 60 amp ANL fuse which has never blown.
Alternator Failure:
About 30 flight hours ago the panel mounted 'Alternator Out' LED became
permanently illuminated. This lamp had flickered from time to time since
original installation. Alternator behavior was normal otherwise. I
contacted Hartzell and for initial troubleshooting, they chose to send me
an incandescent lamp to replace the LED for testing purposes. I was not
able to do that test before departing on a cross country trip. On this trip
the field breaker popped during cruise flight. First time ever. I saw no
indications of any other issues. I reset the breaker and the system
appeared to be functioning normally again, except for the persistent Alt
Out indication.
Following a takeoff about 10 hours after the breaker had popped, the
charging output remained over 30 amps for several minutes. I was fortunate
to be at a 'big' airport and remained in the pattern. Alternator output
then dropped close to zero and system voltage read ambient battery
(about12.7v).
I had to beg a bit, but mfg overnighted me a replacement alternator. Said
they believed I burned it up by not running a battery management system.
But I have a few questions:
Does this failure mode, that the battery is 'too hungry' for the
alternator, seem plausible?
Would there be a straightforward means to 'throttle' charging current
through the B lead to 'protect' the alternator?
My workflow since installing the new alternator around 15 flight hours ago
has been to manually cycle the field (using the master switch) every 5
seconds after start until the charging current stabilizes below 25 amps or
so. Is this a reasonable procedure? Or am I just creating more unintended
consequences?
Other suggestions about how to improve this system?
I think I am most likely heading for a replacement battery with a BMS. I
think this would be ok as they seem to be more refined devices at this
point.
Thanks to all for your participation on this List!
Chris Mullins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
Chris,
Lithium batteries are great energy resources. However, one of its benefits
can bite you in the "alternator". Here's how....
The internal resistance of these batteries are so low that they can easily
take and give huge amounts of current.
When the alternator is turning at low (idle) rpm's it has minimal cooling
going on from it's pulley air fan.
However, the "L" battery is designed to take its maximum current output
even at alternator idle.. This kind of demand quickly overheats many of
the components in the alternator; connectors, contacts, wiring, etc.
Sooner or later, that alternator is going to fail due to excessive heat
related damage.
If the alternator was never operated at idle rpms it would probably be
cooled enough via its fan related cooling system. Butl, at idle it is
cooking.
There is a technical way to get around this. And, that is to add a smart
DC to DC converter that can be set to not exceed a certain charging current
level.
Thus, instead of a 60 amp alternator trying to put out 60+ amps at low
rpm's, the converter could be set to, say, 30 amps.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:07 PM Chris Mullins wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> I've read your list and many other contributions for several years, and
> have learned a tremendous amount. I think this list and others of its type
> are examples of the best of the internet.
> I've had some experiences and a significant recent failure with a Plane
> Power/Hartzell alternator and Lithium Iron Phosphate battery installation
> which might be interesting to the community.
> I built the Carbon Cub EX over 2013-2017 using resources from this list
> and the Aeroelectric Connection to design and install the electrical
> system.
>
> The electrical system, panel and firewall forward installation are
> different from stock. The engine is an IO-340 with mods for a bit of
> increased power and with weight control in mind. LiFePo4 battery location
> is on the firewall perimeter about the 2 o'clock standing at the spinner.
> No battery box. No dedicated blast air. I have a thermocouple placed
> between the back of the battery and its mount made of some aluminum angle.
> I sought out a LiFe battery with no BMS because I felt the eccentricities
> in chemistry could be mitigated, but that the BMS systems available at the
> time (2017) were problematic for my application. Battery is Deltran PN:
> BTL35A480C, PB Eq: 26-35A, LCA:480, 96 Watt Hours. (96/12=8 AH). (I *think*
> they still sell about the same battery but now only with a BMS:
> BTL24A480CW.)
> The alternator is a Plane Power Hartzel internally regulated 60 Amp
> experimental. Charging rate is monitored with a Hall Effect sensor on the B
> lead reading to a Dynon HDX.
>
> Operating Experience:
> Following normal starting I see 60 amp charging rates into the battery for
> about 30 seconds. The charge rate tapers and stabilizes under 10 amps over
> another 30 secs or so. This is usual behavior since new over 100's of
> starts. (Well over 500 hours on all these components). The B lead is
> protected by a 60 amp ANL fuse which has never blown.
>
> Alternator Failure:
> About 30 flight hours ago the panel mounted 'Alternator Out' LED became
> permanently illuminated. This lamp had flickered from time to time since
> original installation. Alternator behavior was normal otherwise. I
> contacted Hartzell and for initial troubleshooting, they chose to send me
> an incandescent lamp to replace the LED for testing purposes. I was not
> able to do that test before departing on a cross country trip. On this trip
> the field breaker popped during cruise flight. First time ever. I saw no
> indications of any other issues. I reset the breaker and the system
> appeared to be functioning normally again, except for the persistent Alt
> Out indication.
>
> Following a takeoff about 10 hours after the breaker had popped, the
> charging output remained over 30 amps for several minutes. I was fortunate
> to be at a 'big' airport and remained in the pattern. Alternator output
> then dropped close to zero and system voltage read ambient battery
> (about12.7v).
> I had to beg a bit, but mfg overnighted me a replacement alternator. Said
> they believed I burned it up by not running a battery management system.
>
> But I have a few questions:
> Does this failure mode, that the battery is 'too hungry' for the
> alternator, seem plausible?
> Would there be a straightforward means to 'throttle' charging current
> through the B lead to 'protect' the alternator?
> My workflow since installing the new alternator around 15 flight hours ago
> has been to manually cycle the field (using the master switch) every 5
> seconds after start until the charging current stabilizes below 25 amps or
> so. Is this a reasonable procedure? Or am I just creating more unintended
> consequences?
> Other suggestions about how to improve this system?
>
> I think I am most likely heading for a replacement battery with a BMS. I
> think this would be ok as they seem to be more refined devices at this
> point.
>
> Thanks to all for your participation on this List!
>
> Chris Mullins
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Would there be a straightforward means to 'throttle' charging current through
the B lead to 'protect' the alternator?
Put a diode in series with the alternator output to reduce the current.
An option is to install a switch in parallel with the diode. The pilot can close
the switch one minute after takeoff to bypass the diode.
Another option is to use a delay-on timing relay instead of a manual switch. That
would automate the process. No pilot action required.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503529#503529
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
| From: | Bevan Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Joe,
Do you have a type/rating for the diode you're recommending? I don't
think of a diode as a current limiting device.
Bevan
On 2021-10-14 3:20 p.m., user9253 wrote:
>
>
>> Would there be a straightforward means to 'throttle' charging current through
the B lead to 'protect' the alternator?
> Put a diode in series with the alternator output to reduce the current.
> An option is to install a switch in parallel with the diode. The pilot can close
the switch one minute after takeoff to bypass the diode.
> Another option is to use a delay-on timing relay instead of a manual switch.
That would automate the process. No pilot action required.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503529#503529
>
>
--
Bevan Tomm Senior Technician Fraser Valley Alarm Services Inc. 604-854-2994
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
EarthX recommends using a diode to limit charge current.
https://earthxbatteries.com/dual-bus-lithium-battery-design
A diode reduces the charging voltage that the battery sees, thus reducing the charge
current.
Another way to look at it is that the diode adds resistance to the circuit, thus
reducing current.
Any diode rated for the current will work. Mount the diode with heat conductive
paste so that it doesn't get too hot.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503532#503532
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
Put a thermister on the lead that controls the input to the alternator wou
ld be a much simpler solution.Alternator gets hot, resistance increases, in
put current decreases, life is good. On Thursday, October 14, 2021, 05:3
Chris,Lithium batteries are great energy resources.=C2- However, one of
its benefits can bite you in the "alternator".=C2- Here's how....The inte
rnal resistance of these batteries are so low that they can easily take and
give huge amounts of current.
When the alternator is turning at low (idle) rpm's it has minimal cooling g
oing on from it's pulley air fan.=C2-=C2-However, the "L" battery is de
signed to take its maximum current output even at alternator idle..=C2- T
his kind of demand quickly overheats many of the components in the alternat
or; connectors, contacts, wiring, etc.Sooner or later, that alternator is g
oing to fail due to excessive heat related damage.If the=C2-alternator wa
s never operated at idle rpms it would probably be cooled enough via its fa
n related cooling system. Butl, at idle it is cooking.There is a technical
way to get around this.=C2- And, that is to add a smart DC to DC converte
r that can be set to not exceed a certain charging current level.Thus, inst
ead of a 60 amp alternator trying to put out 60+ amps at low rpm's, the con
verter could be set to, say, 30 amps.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:07 PM Chris Mullins wrote:
Hi Bob,I've read your list and many other contributions for several years,
and have learned a tremendous amount. I think this list and others of its t
ype are examples of the best of the internet.I've had some experiences and
a significant recent failure with a Plane Power/Hartzell alternator and Lit
hium Iron Phosphate battery installation which might be interesting to the
community.I built the Carbon Cub EX over 2013-2017 using resources from thi
s list and the Aeroelectric Connection to design and install the electrical
system.
The electrical system, panel and firewall forward installation are differen
t from stock. The engine is an IO-340 with mods for a bit of increased powe
r and with weight control in mind. LiFePo4 battery location is on the firew
all perimeter about the 2 o'clock standing at the spinner. No battery box.
No dedicated blast air. I have a thermocouple placed between the back of th
e battery and its mount made of some aluminum angle. I sought out a LiFe ba
ttery with no BMS because I felt the eccentricities in chemistry could be m
itigated, but that the BMS systems available at the time (2017) were proble
matic for my application. Battery is Deltran PN: BTL35A480C, PB Eq: 26-35A,
LCA:480, 96 Watt Hours. (96/12=8 AH). (I *think* they still sell about t
he same battery but now only with a BMS:=C2-BTL24A480CW.)The alternator i
s a Plane Power Hartzel internally regulated 60 Amp experimental. Charging
rate is monitored with a Hall Effect sensor on the B lead reading to a Dyno
n HDX.
Operating Experience: Following normal starting I see 60 amp charging rates
into the battery for about 30 seconds. The charge rate tapers and stabiliz
es under 10 amps over another 30 secs or so. This is usual behavior since n
ew over 100's of starts. (Well over 500 hours on all these components). The
B lead is protected by a 60 amp ANL fuse which has never blown.
Alternator Failure:About 30 flight hours ago the panel mounted 'Alternator
Out' LED became permanently illuminated. This lamp had flickered from time
to time since original installation. Alternator behavior was normal otherwi
se. I contacted Hartzell and for initial troubleshooting,=C2- they chose
to send me an incandescent lamp to replace the LED for testing purposes. I
was not able to do that test before departing on a cross country trip. On t
his trip the field breaker popped during cruise flight. First time ever. I
saw no indications of any other issues.=C2- I reset the breaker and the s
ystem appeared to be functioning normally again, except for the persistent
Alt Out indication.
Following a takeoff about 10 hours after the breaker had popped, the chargi
ng output remained over 30 amps for several minutes. I was fortunate to be
at=C2- a 'big' airport and remained in the pattern. Alternator output the
n dropped close to zero and system voltage read ambient battery (about12.7v
).I had to beg a bit, but mfg overnighted me a replacement alternator. Said
they believed I burned it up by not running a battery management system.
But I have a few questions:Does this failure mode, that the battery is 'too
hungry' for the alternator, seem plausible?
Would there be a straightforward means to 'throttle' charging current throu
gh the B lead to 'protect' the alternator?
My workflow since installing the new alternator around 15 flight hours ago
has been to manually cycle the field (using the master switch) every 5 seco
nds after start until the charging current stabilizes below 25 amps or so.
Is this a reasonable procedure? Or am I just creating more unintended conse
quences?
Other suggestions about how to improve this system?
I think I am most likely heading for a replacement battery with a BMS. I th
ink this would be ok as they seem to be more refined devices at this point.
Thanks to all for your participation on this List!
Chris Mullins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
At 02:59 PM 10/14/2021, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>I've read your list and many other contributions
>for several years, and have learned a tremendous
>amount. I think this list and others of its type
>are examples of the best of the internet.
>I've had some experiences and a significant
>recent failure with a Plane Power/Hartzell
>alternator and Lithium Iron Phosphate battery
>installation which might be interesting to the community.
>I built the Carbon Cub EX over 2013-2017 using
>resources from this list and the Aeroelectric
>Connection to design and install the electrical system.
>Operating Experience:
>Following normal starting I see 60 amp charging
>rates into the battery for about 30 seconds. The
>charge rate tapers and stabilizes under 10 amps
>over another 30 secs or so. This is usual
>behavior since new over 100's of starts. (Well
>over 500 hours on all these components). The B
>lead is protected by a 60 amp ANL fuse which has never blown.
good background
>Alternator Failure:
>About 30 flight hours ago the panel mounted
>'Alternator Out' LED became permanently
>illuminated. This lamp had flickered from time
>to time since original installation. Alternator
>behavior was normal otherwise. I contacted
>Hartzell and for initial troubleshooting,=C2 they
>chose to send me an incandescent lamp to replace
>the LED for testing purposes. I was not able to
>do that test before departing on a cross country
>trip. On this trip the field breaker popped
>during cruise flight. First time ever. I saw no
>indications of any other issues.=C2 I reset the
>breaker and the system appeared to be
>functioning normally again, except for the persistent Alt Out indication.
I'm mystified as to why you opted for
continued flight operations without
diagnosis and mitigation of an
anomalous condition . . . but that's
just me.
>Following a takeoff about 10 hours after the
>breaker had popped, the charging output remained
>over 30 amps for several minutes.
What was your bus voltage during this interval?
>I was fortunate to be at=C2 a 'big' airport and
>remained in the pattern. Alternator output then
>dropped close to zero and system voltage read ambient battery (about12.7v).
>I had to beg a bit, but mfg overnighted me a
>replacement alternator. Said they believed I
>burned it up by not running a battery management system.
Horse feathers. The only way to 'smoke' a
normally functioning alternator is to operate
it at near max rated output for extended
periods of time with INADEQUATE cooling.
Given the track record of this installation
I suspect you're not even close to over-taxing
this alternator under any condition.
>But I have a few questions:
>Does this failure mode, that the battery is 'too
>hungry' for the alternator, seem plausible?
No
>Would there be a straightforward means to
>'throttle' charging current through the B lead to 'protect' the alternator?
>My workflow since installing the new alternator
>around 15 flight hours ago has been to manually
>cycle the field (using the master switch) every
>5 seconds after start until the charging current
>stabilizes below 25 amps or so. Is this a
>reasonable procedure? Or am I just creating more unintended consequences?
>Other suggestions about how to improve this system?
Absolutely not necessary. If you're seeing the same
after-start alternator output currents as described
in your narrative, all is well with the new alternator.
>I think I am most likely heading for a
>replacement battery with a BMS. I think this
>would be ok as they seem to be more refined devices at this point.
The BMS is necessary/useful ONLY for situations where
the ship's system does not include those features
as a design goal. It's REALLY EASY to design
an system that totally negates the need for a
BMS. The BMS only adds cost and complexity to
the battery's design while adding nearly zero performance
enhancement.
Does your alternator installation include ov protection?
BMS item 1 (ov management) covered.
Is your alternator's demonstrated output within
operational limits for the battery? You've
operated this configuration for many hours and
observed no really anomalous behaviors. A high
recharge rate after cranking is expected and
normal no matter what kind of battery is
present . . . and certainly well within the
alternator's capabilities.
If your new alternator is functioning like
the old one did when new, then you're good
to go.
The only thing a BMS does that the ship's
system cannot normally do is cell charge balancing.
This is necessary only as the battery ages and
has been subjected to numerous deep cycles.
The cranking battery of a vehicle normally NEVER
sees a deep discharge. Cranking the engine
takes but a few percent of total capacity. After
that, the alternator is supposed to pick up
the loads. This is why cranking batteries often
last so long.
BTW . . . I've worked a couple issues for clients
involving alternator failures from this manufacturer.
Failures of process control . . . not design.
Your non-BMS battery, unless subjected to
a (1) sustained ov condition before your breaker
tripped or (2) numerous deep discharges is
probably just fine. Do a cap and load check on
it and drive on. Failure of a CAP check is
good reason for replacement due to one or more
cells failing. PUSHING a failing LiFePO4 is
morel likely to precipitate an in-flight battery
issue than anything else . . . a condition that
a BMS cannot fix (but might warn via serial
data busses on 'smart' designs).
P.S. There's an hangar-legend floating around out
there that blames a particular alternator failure on
replacement of a wet lead-acid with an SVLA
battery. Turns out to be a gross failure of
design in the alternator magnetics. Ergo,
a competently designed, manufactured, installed
and operated alternator is virtually bullet-proof.
Completely impervious to choice of battery
technology.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
At 04:28 PM 10/14/2021, you wrote:
>Chris,
>Lithium batteries are great energy
>resources.=C2 However, one of its benefits can
>bite you in the "alternator".=C2 Here's how....
>The internal resistance of these batteries are
>so low that they can easily take and give huge amounts of current.
Alternator's are inherently current limited by
their magnetics. An alternator cannot open it's
own b-lead protection by 'overloading' . . . it
just won't put out that kind of current. They're
generally capable of a few percent above nameplate
rating. This number falls off as the alternator
gets hot but the battery's demand for recharge
current is not a potential hazard to any alternator
or legacy generator configuration.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
Bob said:
"The only thing a BMS does that the ship's
system cannot normally do is cell charge balancing."
Isn't it also true that LiFePO batteries can be damaged by charging when
the battery is too cold, and that the BMS will protect against that?
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 8:33 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:28 PM 10/14/2021, you wrote:
>
> Chris,
> Lithium batteries are great energy resources.=C3=82 However, one of its
> benefits can bite you in the "alternator".=C3=82 Here's how....
> The internal resistance of these batteries are so low that they can easil
y
> take and give huge amounts of current.
>
>
> Alternator's are inherently current limited by
> their magnetics. An alternator cannot open it's
> own b-lead protection by 'overloading' . . . it
> just won't put out that kind of current. They're
> generally capable of a few percent above nameplate
> rating. This number falls off as the alternator
> gets hot but the battery's demand for recharge
> current is not a potential hazard to any alternator
> or legacy generator configuration.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
At 11:38 AM 10/15/2021, you wrote:
>Bob said:
>
>"The only thing a BMS does that the ship's
>=C2 system cannot normally do is cell charge balancing."
>
>Isn't it also true that LiFePO batteries can be
>damaged by charging when the battery is too
>cold, and that the BMS will protect against that?
The term 'BMS' is kinda foggy . . . some
manufacturers add a PTC current limiter
in the end of an 18650 cell and advertise
it as having a BMS.
Then there are products like True Blue for
TC aircraft where the BMS is nothing less
than a small computer with a boat-load of
duties for managing performance and risks.
One needs access to the performance specifications
of each product claiming to offer a BMS. True Blue's
devices are designed and qualified to FAA
TSO documents that specify all pertinent
operating requirements . . . requirements
easily demonstrated during qualification
testing.
So without specific documentation speaking
to management of low temperature charging
limits, one cannot assume that the feature
exists.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax vacuum pad gear ratio? |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Group I have a B&C SD20S alternator on the vacuum pad of a 914. Speed is not
ideal for the SD20S, a bit too slow.
I'm looking at the parts diagram and there is a 29T vacuum pad drive gear that's
driven off of a spline on the dog hub. It drives a 22T driven gear that engages
to the vacuum pad drive sleeve.
>From the pictures it looks possible to have a larger than 29T drive gear and smaller
than 22T driven gear.
Does anyone offers such a set of gears? Thx. Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503539#503539
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
>I had to beg a bit, but mfg overnighted me a replacement alternator.
>Said they believed
>I burned it up by not running a battery management system.
I'd really like to talk to the individual who
produced this analysis . . . ESPECIALLY if he/she
is in the business of marketing alternators.
The assertion is completely without foundation
in either physics or practice.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Below are the results of a poll taken on VansAirforce. https://vansairforce.net/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=403
Alternator Failures in 250 hours of use:
Automotive conversion: 5.6 %
Plane Power: 13.5 %
B&C: Less than 1 %
Due to the small number of respondents, the results might not be statistically
significant.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503541#503541
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna ground plane |
Greetings,
I'm preparing to install the ground plane for the transponder antenna on my
steel tube fabric covered plane. It would be more convenient to mount the
transponder antenna ground plane on the inside of the fuselage, on the
bottom behind the baggage compartment. This would require a 7/8" thick
spacer so the antenna would mount flush with the fabric. If I machined such
a spacer from solid aluminum and made sure of low resistance connections
between the spacer and the ground plane, would this adversely affect the
antenna performance?
Any advice appreciated.
Tom Barter
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antenna ground plane |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Read this thread:
http://www.matronics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16762861
I would mount the transponder antenna to a 5.3 inch diameter ground plane.
Make sure the outer braid of the coaxial cable is electrically connected to the
ground plane.
The antenna ground plane does not need to be electrically connected to the tubular
steel airframe.
Wood could be used between the ground plane and airframe steel tubes to support
the antenna where desired.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503543#503543
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antenna ground plane |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 10/16/2021 11:55 AM, Tom Barter wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Im preparing to install the ground plane for the transponder antenna
> on my steel tube fabric covered plane. It would be more convenient to
> mount the transponder antenna ground plane on the inside of the
> fuselage, on the bottom behind the baggage compartment. This would
> require a 7/8 thick spacer so the antenna would mount flush with the
> fabric. If I machined such a spacer from solid aluminum and made sure
> of low resistance connections between the spacer and the ground plane,
> would this adversely affect the antenna performance?
>
> Any advice appreciated.
>
> Tom Barter
>
Have you considered just flipping the assy over, so the xpndr spike
points up? Fabric skin does little to attenuate RF, so if you can avoid
punching another hole, why not? There might be a little 'shadowing' of
the signal if you're too close to an aluminum baggage compartment, but I
doubt you'd ever know without taking the plane to an 'antenna range'
with a lot of expensive measuring hardware. I've heard of people putting
them inside cowlings, and the uAvionix tech recommended that I mount
their Echo UAT box, the WAAS GPS, and the antenna spike all on a plate
within the fiberglass wingtip of my RV6. Obviously, there's much more
shadowing by the wing rib than anything you'd see, and he told me that
they have numerous examples flying that way.
To answer your actual question, extra aluminum on the back side of the
ground plane should have no effect on the antenna's performance. Think
of it as a much fatter, stronger 'bulkhead', as you would see inside
aluminum skinned a/c near the xpndr antenna mount.
FWIW,
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Audio panel move |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7atis(at)gmail.com> |
I am in the process of upgrading my panel and would like to move the Garmin GMA
240 audio panel across the instrument panel. It would be a move of about two
feet. Can I make two extension wire harnesses and just connect across? I would
use shielded wires where they are already in use but I am concerned about the
integrity of the extensions? Is there a feedback/noise potential doing this?
Is there a better way?
Thanks
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503547#503547
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 10/17/2021 9:47 AM, RV7ASask wrote:
>
> I am in the process of upgrading my panel and would like to move the Garmin GMA
240 audio panel across the instrument panel. It would be a move of about two
feet. Can I make two extension wire harnesses and just connect across? I would
use shielded wires where they are already in use but I am concerned about the
integrity of the extensions? Is there a feedback/noise potential doing this?
Is there a better way?
> Thanks
> David
SubD connectors? If it were me, I'd certainly make up a male-female
extension. All the impedances in an audio panel are quite low,
minimizing noise pickup risk. I'd consider the biggest risk the
fabricator him/her-self. If using the quality gold plated machined pins,
I wouldn't think twice about making up extensions.
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: Audio panel move |
>SubD connectors? If it were me, I'd certainly make up a male-female
>extension. All the impedances in an audio panel are quite low,
>minimizing noise pickup risk. I'd consider the biggest risk the
>fabricator him/her-self. If using the quality gold plated machined
>pins, I wouldn't think twice about making up extensions.
>
>Charlie
Agreed! What connectors are you needing Dave?
I may have some in the project residuals.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z 16 Charging question |
I have a Rotax 912 with a Z16 and Dynon Skyview
The ammeter sometimes ( defined as once every 25 flights) goes off the
chart to 60a. I get the red X over the instrument. Then it comes back and
goes down to normal and sits there at whatever loads I have on the system.
I have always assumed that this was a Dynon bug.
My Dynon has a shunt installed between the generator and the bus
which measures the entire load normally rock steady at 7A or 8A when using
the autopilot. I also have an independant hall effect sensor measuring
amps on the fat wire to the battery.
Today I noticed on climb out that the hall effect sensor was showing
battery charge oscillating from +1.7A to +2.5A - normally it is steady. I
switched off the alternator and the hall effect sensor showed steady -7A in
agreement with the load shown on my dynon (7A). (I turned around and
landed immediately.) Voltage is steady.
I checked the alternator as per
https://pointsforpilots.blogspot.com/2012/12/testing-rotax-912914-generator-and.html.
All within limits.
So my next steps are to change the regulator, which involves taking out the
crowbar because the BandC had one internally, (I had already bought a
BandC voltage regulator some time ago) and the battery which is pretty much
due for a change.
Any other thoughts?
Thanks
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7atis(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks gentlemen. The GMA 240 has two 44-pin connectors so, I presume, I would
require four connectors, two male and two female to make extension harnesses.
Bob, if you have these connectors in your stores, I would certainly be interested
in purchasing them and paying postage to Canada.
Thanks again.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503552#503552
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z 16 Charging question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There is no way that a faulty regulator can make a Rotax dynamo put out 60 amps.
It is only capable of 20 amps or so. There must be a bad connection somewhere.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503553#503553
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Why install connectors in a location that will never need to be taken apart?
Just splice in extra wire and solder or crimp.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503554#503554
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move |
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z 16 Charging question |
Joe
Thanks. Yes ...the first time it happened it caused a bit of worry until i
realised i had no smoke in the cockpit...and everything was working
normally. And once id calmed down i came to the same conclusion. I have
to fault find that.
But what do you think of the fluctuating battery charging level? Is that
normal? Or might it be the instrument?
Will
William Daniell
+1 786 878 0246
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 07:36 user9253 wrote:
>
> There is no way that a faulty regulator can make a Rotax dynamo put out 60
> amps.
> It is only capable of 20 amps or so. There must be a bad connection
> somewhere.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503553#503553
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move |
At 07:18 AM 10/18/2021, you wrote:
>I think I would find it much easier to make a short extension on the
>bench than to crawl up into the instrument panel with my soldering
>iron and various other tools, but that's only me, a very old fart!
From one ol' fart to another, agreed. MUCH reduced
chance for errors that are EASY to make and very
difficult to find/fix.
44 pin devices would be the sub-miniature D-Subs.
Sorry. No inventory on that series of devices.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z 16 Charging question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It is unlikely that the Skyview is at fault. The vast majority of electrical problems
are
caused by bad connections. Take every related connection apart and reassemble.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503558#503558
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z 16 Charging question |
....sadly I think you're right.
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:50 AM user9253 wrote:
>
> It is unlikely that the Skyview is at fault. The vast majority of
> electrical problems are
> caused by bad connections. Take every related connection apart and
> reassemble.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503558#503558
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
Thanks to the group for your responses on this problem.
Follow up on questions asked:
Bus voltage before the alternator failed was about 13.8. This was the
standard voltage seen with this alternator during it's life. I believe the
Plane Power alternators do have overvoltage protection. Battery cell
balancing has been accomplished using a Li specific maintainer on the
ground. The last capacity check on this battery was June 2021 and it was
about 20% reduced from new.
I'm hearing Bob loud and clear that theoretically the alternator should be
able to tolerate these conditions without problems. I am understanding Bob
to suggest that I keep flying it like it is. But allusions have also been
made to lower reliability for these units.
Bob, would you please explain the phrase "failure of process control"?
(manufacturing tolerances?)
Also, do you assume this failure was related more to an individual fault in
the failed alternator and that it is not likely the replacement will have
the same vulnerability?
I'm focused more on the practical side of how to make this less likely to
happen again.
Bob made this statement:
The only way to 'smoke' a
normally functioning alternator is to operate
it at near max rated output for extended
periods of time with INADEQUATE cooling.
I am wondering if my installation is creating this exact scenario after
startup - max demand (abruptly from 0 to 60amps) and minimal airflow for
cooling. Undercowl preheating of the alternator during hot starts could be
additive.
The mfgr says his product can't tolerate a Li battery with no BMS, and
under the circumstances, I'm inclined to believe him. He has basically
asked me to de-rate the alternator after startup until the battery recovers
it's baseline charge.
Respectfully, if I end up choosing to modify the system, there were several
suggestions to place components in the B lead. This approach would need
'devices' rated to handle the full current and heat energy of the
alternator output - big connections, dollars etc.
This is probably a foolish question, but could one accomplish the same
thing by restricting the field circuit in some way? (It seems any of these
modifications will end up de-rating the alternator under all flight
conditions. In my installation I can accept that.)
Thanks again to all for sharing your expertise.
Chris Mullins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
Chris,
I don't know how helpful this input is, but I'd consider de-rating the
Plane Power alternator by converting it to a product from B&C. I made the
buy-once, cry-once decision based on reliability reports on VAF and haven't
looked back.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:46 PM Chris Mullins wrote:
> Thanks to the group for your responses on this problem.
>
> Follow up on questions asked:
> Bus voltage before the alternator failed was about 13.8. This was the
> standard voltage seen with this alternator during it's life. I believe the
> Plane Power alternators do have overvoltage protection. Battery cell
> balancing has been accomplished using a Li specific maintainer on the
> ground. The last capacity check on this battery was June 2021 and it was
> about 20% reduced from new.
>
> I'm hearing Bob loud and clear that theoretically the alternator should be
> able to tolerate these conditions without problems. I am understanding Bob
> to suggest that I keep flying it like it is. But allusions have also been
> made to lower reliability for these units.
> Bob, would you please explain the phrase "failure of process control"?
> (manufacturing tolerances?)
> Also, do you assume this failure was related more to an individual fault
> in the failed alternator and that it is not likely the replacement will
> have the same vulnerability?
>
> I'm focused more on the practical side of how to make this less likely to
> happen again.
> Bob made this statement:
>
> The only way to 'smoke' a
> normally functioning alternator is to operate
> it at near max rated output for extended
> periods of time with INADEQUATE cooling.
>
> I am wondering if my installation is creating this exact scenario after
> startup - max demand (abruptly from 0 to 60amps) and minimal airflow for
> cooling. Undercowl preheating of the alternator during hot starts could be
> additive.
>
> The mfgr says his product can't tolerate a Li battery with no BMS, and
> under the circumstances, I'm inclined to believe him. He has basically
> asked me to de-rate the alternator after startup until the battery recovers
> it's baseline charge.
>
> Respectfully, if I end up choosing to modify the system, there were
> several suggestions to place components in the B lead. This approach would
> need 'devices' rated to handle the full current and heat energy of the
> alternator output - big connections, dollars etc.
> This is probably a foolish question, but could one accomplish the same
> thing by restricting the field circuit in some way? (It seems any of these
> modifications will end up de-rating the alternator under all flight
> conditions. In my installation I can accept that.)
>
> Thanks again to all for sharing your expertise.
>
> Chris Mullins
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery and Alternator Failure |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Excellent joke (and advice), but I suspect that it won't be a '/de/rating'.
;-)
I don't think it will help your situation any, but there is a European
regulator made for 'dynamo' style (permanent magnet) alternators that
starts out with lower charge *voltage*, and slowly ramps up, which is
what you're effectively asking for.
FWIW, 55-60A internally regulated automotive alternators get hammered
like that all the time in cars, in much worse temperature environments,
and seem to survive just fine. (And you can buy one for way less than
$100, too). You'd have to go through the inconvenience of adding $50
worth of external OV protection, of course...
Charlie
On 10/18/2021 11:59 AM, Bill Boyd wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I don't know how helpful this input is, but I'd consider de-rating the
> Plane Power alternator by converting it to a product from B&C. I made
> the buy-once, cry-once decision based on reliability reports on VAF
> and haven't looked back.
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:46 PM Chris Mullins wrote:
>
> Thanks to the group for your responses on this problem.
>
> Follow up on questions asked:
> Bus voltage before the alternator failed was about 13.8. This was
> the standard voltage seen with this alternator during it's life. I
> believe the Plane Power alternators do have overvoltage
> protection. Battery cell balancing has been accomplished using a
> Li specific maintainer on the ground. The last capacity check on
> this battery was June 2021 and it was about 20% reduced from new.
>
> I'm hearing Bob loud and clear that theoretically the alternator
> should be able to tolerate these conditions without problems. I am
> understanding Bob to suggest that I keep flying it like it is. But
> allusions have also been made to lower reliability for these units.
> Bob, would you please explain the phrase "failure of process
> control"? (manufacturing tolerances?)
> Also, do you assume this failure was related more to an individual
> fault in the failed alternator and that it is not likely the
> replacement will have the same vulnerability?
>
> I'm focused more on the practical side of how to make this less
> likely to happen again.
> Bob made this statement:
>
> The only way to 'smoke' a
> normally functioning alternator is to operate
> it at near max rated output for extended
> periods of time with INADEQUATE cooling.
>
> I am wondering if my installation is creating this exact scenario
> after startup - max demand (abruptly from 0 to 60amps) and minimal
> airflow for cooling. Undercowl preheating of the alternator during
> hot starts could be additive.
>
> The mfgr says his product can't tolerate a Li battery with no BMS,
> and under the circumstances, I'm inclined to believe him. He has
> basically asked me to de-rate the alternator after startup until
> the battery recovers it's baseline charge.
>
> Respectfully, if I end up choosing to modify the system, there
> were several suggestions to place components in the B lead. This
> approach would need 'devices' rated to handle the full current and
> heat energy of the alternator output - big connections, dollars etc.
> This is probably a foolish question, but could one accomplish the
> same thing by restricting the field circuit in some way? (It seems
> any of these modifications will end up de-rating the alternator
> under all flight conditions. In my installation I can accept that.)
>
> Thanks again to all for sharing your expertise.
>
> Chris Mullins
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Aero Electric Post |
Bob et al-
One of my neighbors has experienced two sheared alternator couplings
recently. Prior to the first event, his electrical system ran
trouble-free for approximately 500 hours. More detail in his narrative
below.
Neal
=====
Within the last ~250 hours I've had two alternator shear couplings fail
on my RV-6. The first failed after ~248 hours of flying, the second
failed at less than two. The alternator is a Plane Power FS1-14B (30A,
internally regulated, bolted to the accessory pad) and the airplane is
wired using Bob Nuckoll's Z-11 diagram in the Aero Electric connection.
This is the only alternator on the plane.
The airplane is a full-up Dynon system (10" Skyview, ADS-B, transponder,
wx rcvr), a Garmin GTR200 radio, landing light, strobes, nav light. None
of the lights were turned on between repairing the first failure and the
second one.
The going failure theory is an intermittent connection in the field
circuit that induces a heavy alternator load by turning it on and off
but there isn't anything in the 1Hz data traces from the Dynon that
indicates this is the case. Nor is there evidence of any loose
connections or nicked wires in the field circuit.
The image shows the volt and amp trace for the last 1.7 hour flight. The
failure occurred around count #6184. The noise on the front end is
startup and taxi. The blip around 2291 was plugging in an iPad.
Any ideas on the failure mode?
Keystone Aerospace LLC
Gregg Costabile, President/Owner
(850) 585-3149
gcostabile(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Aero Electric Post |
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Neal George wrote:
> Bob et al-
> One of my neighbors has experienced two sheared alternator couplings
> recently. Prior to the first event, his electrical system ran trouble-free
> for approximately 500 hours. More detail in his narrative below.
>
> Neal
> =====
>
> Within the last ~250 hours I've had two alternator shear couplings fail on
> my RV-6. The first failed after ~248 hours of flying, the second failed at
> less than two. The alternator is a Plane Power FS1-14B (30A, internally
> regulated, bolted to the accessory pad) and the airplane is wired using Bob
> Nuckoll's Z-11 diagram in the Aero Electric connection. This is the only
> alternator on the plane.
>
> The airplane is a full-up Dynon system (10" Skyview, ADS-B, transponder,
> wx rcvr), a Garmin GTR200 radio, landing light, strobes, nav light. None of
> the lights were turned on between repairing the first failure and the
> second one.
>
> The going failure theory is an intermittent connection in the field
> circuit that induces a heavy alternator load by turning it on and off but
> there isn't anything in the 1Hz data traces from the Dynon that indicates
> this is the case. Nor is there evidence of any loose connections or nicked
> wires in the field circuit.
>
> The image shows the volt and amp trace for the last 1.7 hour flight. The
> failure occurred around count #6184. The noise on the front end is startup
> and taxi. The blip around 2291 was plugging in an iPad.
>
> Any ideas on the failure mode?
>
>
> Keystone Aerospace LLC
> Gregg Costabile, President/Owner
> (850) 585-3149
> gcostabile(at)cox.net
>
Likely unrelated to failure, but,
What caused the current to drop from ~25A to zero, then jump back to ~25A
at the 230 point?
Again likely unrelated to failure, but,
5A continuous seems pretty low for a full Dynon system plus transponder
plus ADSB (if that means 'Out'), plus weather receiver, plus the idle
current for a comm radio. Have you verified that number using a separate
amp meter in-line with the bus?
To the shear coupling failures:
Is there any 'soft' element in their coupling to handle any torsional
resonance issues? Failing a shear coupling that quickly almost sounds like
either misalignment issues or torsional resonance related fatigue.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move - 10/18/21 |
>
> ______________________________
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio panel move
>
> At 07:18 AM 10/18/2021, you wrote:
> >I think I would find it much easier to make a short extension on the
> >bench than to crawl up into the instrument panel with my soldering
> >iron and various other tools, but that's only me, a very old fart!
>
> From one ol' fart to another, agreed. MUCH reduced
> chance for errors that are EASY to make and very
> difficult to find/fix.
>
> 44 pin devices would be the sub-miniature D-Subs.
> Sorry. No inventory on that series of devices.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> I used a couple of these (cut to expose the needed conductors) when
installing my old Garmin in my Glasair panel. They screwed right into the
Garmin tray and make great contact.
I know the insulation isn't aviation-rated. But for this use in a protected
area, I just cant get too excited about it. (Especially in my
somewhat-flammable airplane.)
Amphenol CS-DSDHD44MF0-005 44-Pin HD44 Deluxe D-Sub Cable, Shielded,
Male/Female, 5', Gray https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O072X3Q
The cable is plenty flexible, though a bit long. With a little looking, you
can likely find something closer to just the length you need.
Saves a lot of crimping and testing, or just cut it and do one end.
Probably costs about the same as 88 (plus re-dos) pins and a tool if you
don't have one.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7atis(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the input. I was just surfing Amazon when the email came in from Ron
suggesting "Amphenol CS-DSDHD44MF0-005 44-Pin HD44 Deluxe D-Sub Cable, Shielded,
Male/Female, 5', Gray". I see they also have one in 2.5' "AMPHENOL CS-DSDHD44MF0-002.5"
which I think will be perfect.
Thanks Again.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503567#503567
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Aero Electric Post |
>The going failure theory is an intermittent connection in the field
>circuit that induces a heavy alternator load by turning it on and
>off but there isn't anything in the 1Hz data traces from the Dynon
>that indicates this is the case. Nor is there evidence of any loose
>connections or nicked wires in the field circuit.
>
>The image shows the volt and amp trace for the last 1.7 hour flight.
>The failure occurred around count #6184. The noise on the front end
>is startup and taxi. The blip around 2291 was plugging in an iPad.
>
>Keystone Aerospace LLC
>Gregg Costabile, President/Owner
>(850) 585-3149
>gcostabile(at)cox.net
>
There is no way to externally 'induce a heavy load' in the
alternator drive shaft by manipulating the field voltage.
Recall that alternator driving torque is proportional
to field flux which is proportional to field excitation
current. The field winding is an inductor . . . the reactive
opposite of a capacitor. Rapid changes in applied voltage to
a capacitor will indeed produce higher currents. Not so
with an inductor. A magnetic field building in response
to applied voltage changes in an inductor are OPPOSED
by that building field. This is called 'counter emf'.
This physical constraint tells us that an alternator's
shaft torque cannot be caused to 'spike' in response
to an application of normal voltage. Voltage available
to excite the field can only come from the bus which
in this case is battery driven. Further, the speed with
which shaft torque changes is moderated by the field's
natural tendency to RESIST variations in current due
to changes in applied voltage.
Example in point. Modern switching regulators in
TC aircraft operate at switching frequencies on
the order of 200 to 1000 cycles per second. An
oscilloscope on the field terminal will show a
variable pulse width, square wave peak to peak
amplitude equal to bus voltage.
Looking at the b-lead terminal, one cannot see
any artifacts that might correspond to those
large, rapid fluctuations in applied field
voltage.
So the idea that a plastic shear coupling can
be 'overstressed' by some anomaly in field
excitation simply has no foundation in physics.
It is far more likely that material or a process
used to fabricate the coupling is deficient.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Vacuum pad shear couplers |
So the idea that a plastic shear coupling can
be 'overstressed' by some anomaly in field
excitation simply has no foundation in physics.
It is far more likely that material or a process
used to fabricate the coupling is deficient.
I found some exemplar shear couplers from a
vacuum pump pad. The two disks at each end
are engaged by pins on hard, drive parts.
The cylinder of plastic between the disks
is the shear section.
Being plastic, it is not a trivial matter to
craft a well calibrated part for shear strength.
B&C went through some iterations of materials
before settling on a production configuration.
I'm pretty confident that Plane Power is having
difficulty with their present batch of parts.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum pad shear couplers |
Another response to accessory drive couplings
https://www.kitplanes.com/disintegrated-drive-coupling/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=KITPLANES+Weekly&utm_campaign=KP+Weekly+2021%2F10%2F12
...chris
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 3:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> So the idea that a plastic shear coupling can
> be 'overstressed' by some anomaly in field
> excitation simply has no foundation in physics.
> It is far more likely that material or a process
> used to fabricate the coupling is deficient.
>
> I found some exemplar shear couplers from a
> vacuum pump pad. The two disks at each end
> are engaged by pins on hard, drive parts.
> The cylinder of plastic between the disks
> is the shear section.
>
> Being plastic, it is not a trivial matter to
> craft a well calibrated part for shear strength.
> B&C went through some iterations of materials
> before settling on a production configuration.
>
> I'm pretty confident that Plane Power is having
> difficulty with their present batch of parts.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Aero Electric Post |
Gentlemen -
A new Tempest-branded alternator coupler was installed and tested
yesterday.
New graph and comments from Gregg follow
Neal
The graph below was from the test flight yesterday, 19 Oct. The gray
line is normalized rpm (actual rpm/150) from the left mag, blue line is
volts, amber is amps. Takeoff power was applied around 22:13:13. The
alternator field was turned on at around 13:31. The dips at 11:25,
12:55. 14:25, 16:49, etc are curious.
This graph is from =9Cblack box data=9D which is recorded at
16 Hz. The one Hz data shows similar results.
The flight to Gainesville today was uneventful on all counts. I=99m
now thinking material failure due to heat and possibly bad stock, as
Bob mentioned in his email to you yesterday (thanks for passing that
along).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | WIFI Cable And Antenna |
Greetings,
I have a Wi-Fi router in my hanger and it works throughout the hangar
however outside it is a bit limited and I can only imagine that it is
because of the steel walls.
What I would like to do is to get a coaxial cable and run it from the
second antenna jack of the router and run the cable to the outside of the
building and install a router antenna.
Another option would be to buy a Wi-Fi extender (relay) but I would still
have to figure out how to mount one of the antenna outside.
First question is does anybody know what the heck I'm talking about... and
the second question would be if you do know what the heck I'm talking about
can you be so kind as to tell me how to do what I am talking about ...
THANKS!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIFI Cable And Antenna |
At 01:19 PM 10/21/2021, you wrote:
>Greetings,=C2
>
>I have a Wi-Fi router in my hanger and it works throughout the hangar
>however outside it is a bit limited and I can only imagine that it
>is because of the steel walls.
agreed
>
>
>What I would like to do is to get a coaxial cable and run it from the
second
>antenna jack of the router and run the cable to the outside of the building
>and install a router antenna.
Here's a cheap experiment with a high order
probability for success:
https://tinyurl.com/4jffpbd3
There are numerous examples of this type of
antenna. Magnet mount(I presume you have
steel roof too).
5' cable built in. Note connector style.
There are 4 variations on a theme for
SMA connectors. It's likely that this antenna
will mate with one of the jacks on your router
but not a 100% bet. You might search around
eBay for one that DOES mate . . . or get an
adapter.
This is not a free lunch endeavor. Energy
that USED to circulate around the interior
will be approximately halved. One half
being conducted outside. Radiation patterns
are a toss up too. But the outside
performance WILL be improved.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allan Chong <allanychong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIFI Cable And Antenna |
It's a lot easier to run an Ethernet cable outside than getting the right
coax cable and crimp ends for the antennae.
You can locate another wifi access point outside. Just make sure to get
one that is outdoor rated or put it under the eaves
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIFI Cable And Antenna |
At 10:31 AM 10/22/2021, you wrote:
>It's a lot easier to run an Ethernet cable
>outside than getting the right coax cable and crimp ends for the antennae.
=C2 =C2
>
>You can locate another wifi access point
>outside.=C2 Just make sure to get one that is
>outdoor rated or put it under the eaves
Finding one that stands up to the outdoor
elements is problematic. You usually have
to settle for a plain vanilla device and
put it in an rf transparent enclosure (wood
or plastic) with perhaps a little fan for
venting/cooling. Then you need to bring
both power and cat6 cable out to the router's
location.
The antenna cited comes with coax and connector
already crimped on. There are antennas offered
with longer cables . . . but tiny cables at those
frequencies are not friendly to power stream
swimming to the far end of the cable.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel move - 10/18/21 |
| From: | "candymika" <candy3072020(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the nice articles. It is very useful for me. I am so glad I found this
article. Thank you for sharing with us, I also always learn something new from
your posts. minesweeper (https://minesweepers.co)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503618#503618
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BNC connectors - Types of cable and installation |
tools
| From: | "encreed" <newshopsavvy.mobi(at)gmail.com> |
Valuable devices during link establishment incorporate creasing pincers, link joining
blades, can torque for admittance to payphones and platforms, voltage identifiers
for assurance against unsafe voltages, secluded crimpers for phone
fittings, and test pics to check for free or harmed associations.I just got wholesale
cables (https://shopsavvy.mobi/wholesale-cables/) with an installation
tool from a online store.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503623#503623
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GPS Puck Antenna Ground Plane? |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
I will be installing a MCX High Gain GPS puck antenna that says for best reception
mount on a metal surface. I'll be putting it on a plastic glare shield.
Would placing aluminum foil on the back side of the glare shield help? (sorry
if this has been covered, my search technique didn't find it if it was). John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503651#503651
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS Puck Antenna Ground Plane? |
At 10:25 PM 10/31/2021, you wrote:
>
>I will be installing a MCX High Gain GPS puck antenna that says for
>best reception mount on a metal surface. I'll be putting it on a
>plastic glare shield. Would placing aluminum foil on the back side
>of the glare shield help? (sorry if this has been covered, my
>search technique didn't find it if it was). John
The difference between 'best' and 'slightly compromised' may
well be insignificant. I've used the pucks on a variety
of non-metallic surfaces with good results . . . after all,
our hand-held gps devices don't have 'ground planes'.
Give it a try, your risks are low.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z 16 Charging question |
Update:
I installed a bandc AVC 1 voltage regulator. This has integral overvoltage
protection and an internal relay simplifying the installation. I changed
the voltage pick up location from the shunt to the bus.
Voltage, bus amps and battery charging amps are stable.
Interestingly the headset howl which I suppressed by turning down mic gain
has also gone away and I can turn the mic gain up to 50%.
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 7:55 PM William Daniell
wrote:
> I have a Rotax 912 with a Z16 and Dynon Skyview
>
> The ammeter sometimes ( defined as once every 25 flights) goes off the
> chart to 60a. I get the red X over the instrument. Then it comes back and
> goes down to normal and sits there at whatever loads I have on the system.
> I have always assumed that this was a Dynon bug.
>
> My Dynon has a shunt installed between the generator and the bus
> which measures the entire load normally rock steady at 7A or 8A when using
> the autopilot. I also have an independant hall effect sensor measuring
> amps on the fat wire to the battery.
>
> Today I noticed on climb out that the hall effect sensor was showing
> battery charge oscillating from +1.7A to +2.5A - normally it is steady. I
> switched off the alternator and the hall effect sensor showed steady -7A in
> agreement with the load shown on my dynon (7A). (I turned around and
> landed immediately.) Voltage is steady.
>
> I checked the alternator as per
> https://pointsforpilots.blogspot.com/2012/12/testing-rotax-912914-generator-and.html.
> All within limits.
>
> So my next steps are to change the regulator, which involves taking out
> the crowbar because the BandC had one internally, (I had already bought a
> BandC voltage regulator some time ago) and the battery which is pretty much
> due for a change.
>
> Any other thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> William Daniell
> LONGPORT
> +1 786 878 0246
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - Matronics Email List 2018 Fund Raiser |
During November!
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation
and upgrade of the Email List and Fourm Services at Matronics. It's solely through
the Contributions of List members (you) that these Matronics Lists are possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site http://forums.matronics.com , Wiki site http://wiki.matronics.com , or other related pages such as the List Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search , List Browse http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse , etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisements.
During the month of November, I will be sending out List messages every couple
of days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular
messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all
of the bills associated with running these lists. YOUR personal Contribution
counts!
This year we have a really HUGE and TERRIFIC line up of free gifts to go along
with the various Contribution levels. In fact, there are 10 great gifts to choose
from! There's something for everyone, to be sure.
Last year because of the COVID hardships everyone was feeling, I opted to not have
a Fund Rasiser, and carried the finicial burden solely myself. I'm hoping
this year everyone will dig in make make up for the lost year.
Please make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods including
using a Credit Card, PayPal, or by Personal Check. All three methods afford
you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying
Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure web site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Terms usenet customers email address by profession |
ought to
| From: | "Tamanna Akter" <tamanna(at)seoexpartebd.com> |
A few terminology usenet users must be acquainted with maximum customers are familiar with email address by profession (https://www.latestdatabase.com/job-function-email-database/) . E mail account holders receive mail in their inboxes. Usually email users segregate their email address by profession based on its nature or challenge and preserve it in separate folders. This way the mail is easy to song, study and use. The messages received thru e-mail are similar to the articles acquired on usenet. The email address by professionfolders are comparable to usenet newsgroups. Usenet users get admission to the newsgroup theyre interested by primarily based on its contents. Email customers comply with a whole lot the equal ordinary when they open a folder on a particular subject. Users will study, write, ahead, and reply to articles just like the objects contained within the newsgroups. Different usenet customers can receive such articles and ship messages or posts.
There are presently greater than 110,000 newsgroups available for get entry to
to usenet customers. Permits discuss some of the relevant terms associated with
newsgroups. The idea of an newsgroup is much like forums on the world extensive
web. Internet boards have threads and associated posts which users study
email address by profession in line with their possibilities. Usenet has discussions
beneath newsgroups, which package deal comparable articles collectively.
The newsgroups observe a hierarchical enterprise machine. The naming shape that
usenet uses is known as newsgroup hierarchies. Topical prefixes categorize
articles into relevant newsgroup lessons. Newsgroup hierarchies are divided into
8 fundamental categories. Some of the most popular classes encompass email
address by profession:
The purpose of an editorial in a newsgroup is to talk about a topic or share records.
The phrase retention is used generally with newsgroup articles. Retention
is a time period used to describe email address by profession the length of
time a usenet server keeps an article. Every other time period that pops up with
articles is of completion. Crowning glory indicates the ratio of real available
articles at the server to the variety of articles that need to preferably
be at the server. Choosing a information purchaser
Deciding on a information consumer can be an intimidating venture. There are without
difficulty around a hundred such customers available. To narrow the choice
down, the benchmark standards for a specific usenet news client must be performance,
rate, seek functionality, and compatibility. The maximum popular news
customers email address by profession are also the easiest to apply for a amateur.
Customers ought to read the policies and rules before getting commenced
with posting, readingarticle search, and dialogue on usenet.
--------
RTDRUJHULOJHIKLHYUJTGIU
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503731#503731
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8=B4=D8=B1=D9=83=D8=A9?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8=D9=86=D8=B8=D9=8A=D9=81?= |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D9=81=D9=8A?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8=A7=D9=84=D8=B9=D9=8A=D9=86?
| From: | "remo-dubai" <remodubai11(at)gmail.com> |
. . (https://remodubai.com/ar/%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%81-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D9%8A/)
:
. . . .
. ( ) . .
. ( ).
. .
. .
. . 15 . . .
.
45 . : + / / .
(https://remodubai.com/ar/%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%81-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%84-%D8%B9%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86/)
: .
.
.
.
. . . . . (
).
(https://www.remodubai.com/ar/%d8%aa%d9%86%d8%b8%d9%8a%d9%81-%d9%83%d9%86%d8%a8-%d9%81%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b9%d9%8a%d9%86/) .
:
( ) .
:
.
.
:
.
:
. (https://remodubai.com/ar/%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%81-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86/)
.
:
.
.
. .
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503737#503737
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists |
Dear Listers,
There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums.
The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November
Fund Raiser.
Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade
of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution
too!
You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here:
https://matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you in advance for your generous support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make |
A Contribution Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least as valuable a building/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the
Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your
Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
https://matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Wheeler <markwheelermd(at)icloud.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please |
Make A Contribution Today!
Matt,
How do we access the list?
Mark
> On Nov 5, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging
everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my
way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
>
> Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least as valuable a building/entertainment tool as your typical magazine
subscription!
>
> Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate
the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using
your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
>
> https://matronics.com/contribution
>
> or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
>
> Matt Dralle / Matronics
> 581 Jeannie Way
> Livermore CA 94550
>
> I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Administrator
> RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please |
Make A Contribution Today!
http://forums.matronics.com
and/or
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Matt
At 11/5/2021 10:21 AM Friday, you wrote:
>
>
>Matt,
>
>How do we access the list?
>
>Mark
>
> > On Nov 5, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> >
> >
> > Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message
> acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to
> support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that
> took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists.
> >
> > Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of
> Contributors (LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over
> the years, the List seems at least as valuable a
> building/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription!
> >
> > Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that
> you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the
> Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
> >
> > https://matronics.com/contribution
> >
> > or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
> >
> > Matt Dralle / Matronics
> > 581 Jeannie Way
> > Livermore CA 94550
> >
> > I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a
> Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember
> that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and
> improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the
> Lists have helped you!
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Matt Dralle
> > Matronics Email List Administrator
> > RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser... |
Since the beginning, the Matronics List and Forum experience has been free from
advertising. I have been approached by fair number of vendors wanting to tap
into the large volume of activity across the various lists hosted here, but have
always flatly refused. Everywhere you go on the Internet these days, a user
is pummeled with flashing banners and videos and ads for crap that they don't
want. Yahoo, Google and that ilk are not "free". The user must constantly
endure their barrage of commercialism thrust into their face at an ever increasing
rate. Enough is enough, and the Lists at Matronics choose not to succumb
to that.
That being said, running a service of this size is not "free". It costs a lot
of money to maintain the hardware, pay for the electricity, Commercial-greade
Internet Connection, air conditioning, maintenance contracts, etc, etc. etc.
I choose to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year during the month of November
where I simply send out a short email every other day asking the members to make
a small contribution to support the operation. That being said, that contribution
is completely voluntary and non-compulsory. Many members choose not
to contribute and that's fine.
However, a very modest percentage of the members do choose to make a contribution
and it is that financial support that keeps the Lists running. And that's
it. To my way of thinking, it is a much more pleasant way of maintaining the
Lists and Forums. The other 11 months of the year, you don't see a single advertisement
or request for support. That's refreshing and that is a List and Forum
that I want to belong to. I think other people feel the same way.
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these
Lists?
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | "melstien" <michael(at)elstien.us> |
Hello,
I am looking to finalize my electrical system prior to running wires and electronics.
Mission - IFR cross country trips with my wife around the US
Airplane Specifics:
-RV-10
-BPE IO-540 D4A5 with 9:1 compression
-Fly EFII System 32 with dual controller and electronic injection and ignition
-BnC Primary belt driven alternator and controller
-BnC rear spline driven alternator and controller
-VPX-Pro to run most electronics, the engine will not be on the VPX Pro
-Electric Air Conditioner 12 volts DC at 40 Amps Max
-Electronics are all Garmin 2 screen with GTN750, audio panel, second radio, remote
transponder, and 3 axis autopilot
-IBBS batteries (qty2) to keep critical flight electronics running when -Master(s)
are turned off
-Batteries planned to be in rear as per plans (Earthx ETX900) qty 2 planned.
-Fly LED works Package plus one extra dual LED landing light in the cowing
Summary of electrical schematic: I have leveraged the Z101 architecture and added
a second battery and master switch for it, mostly for separate Air Conditioner
control and second battery charging/isolation. The AC connection is a relay
or contactor and is on the hot side of the second battery master. This was
done to isolate the second battery from all other ships power when needed, like
when running AC on the ground or during take-off and landing operations.
During flight I can turn on the second master, re-charge the second battery,
run the AC off the alternator and have the extra capacity available if needed
for emergency flight ops.
Alternators: Only one will be providing power at any one time. The second one
on the vac pad will be set to a lower voltage and will only output power when
the primary alternator voltage goes low or craps out. I may not have the sense
wire or field wires correctly connected. I wish to have them both active/standby
at the same time. Can one switch do this or is it best to have two switches?
Loads. The engine will require 11 Amps at full load to run the dual ECUs, 6 injectors
and 3 quad coil packs and misc. engine instruments, according the manufacturer.
I have individual fused power wires from each injector and each coil
going to the engine bus.
One EarthX ETX900 will run a 16 amp load for close to 60 minutes.
Mission critical electronics will be powered in an emergency from the IBBS batteries
if no other power is available.
I do have a hot buss that is used only for some minor items.
Example of emergency: Fire/smoke in the cockpit- both masters off, fuel off.
Engine gets really quite. Select location and turn to it for landing and stabilize
the aircraft in a best glide. Smart glide will be useful. If needed
and if advisable, I could turn on the Emergency engine power switch and energize
the engine bus. The engine buss isolated from the main power feeds using
diodes.
I have read many discussions about the EFI systems vs mechanical/traditional systems.
I am not asking for feedback on that aspect unless there is new information
or facts that can contribute to the discussion.
One additional idea I was thinking about was to just add the second battery to
the firewall and have it run just the engine in an emergency. The cable runs
will be much shorter and keep everything a bit more location contained. W&B
will be impacted and needs to be considered.
I welcome and appreciate feedback on the design based on my mission.
Michael
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504034#504034
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_11_8_2021_review_draft_285.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There is a 15 amp breaker in series with the engine bus. Increase its size to
30 or 40 or eliminate it completely.
It is best that each alternator field have its own switch and breaker. Eliminate
the single point of failure.
B&C calls for an incandescent low voltage lamp. A LED can be used if connected
with series and parallel resistors of the proper size.
The alternator ANL fuses should be located at the battery end of the "B" leads,
not close to the alternators.
Those fuses will limit battery current. Alternator output does not need to be
fused because alternators are self current limiting.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504035#504035
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Interesting panel voltmeter |
Ran across this product while searching a solution
for a client:
https://tinyurl.com/yeedoayu
Got one in today. Accuracy is very good. Current draw
is 0.015A, mounting simple . . . back nut installation
thru single hole. Small size.
Price is right too.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Simple EFIS backup battery wiring |
| From: | "kennedystewart" <kennedystewart341893(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for your answer, it helped me
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504037#504037
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
My dual EFII32, 2 GRT 7 inch EFIS and strobes runs 18-19 amps on my RV-6A and
21 with wigwags.
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 8, 2021, at 5:12 PM, melstien wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am looking to finalize my electrical system prior to running wires and electronics.
>
> Mission - IFR cross country trips with my wife around the US
>
> Airplane Specifics:
> -RV-10
> -BPE IO-540 D4A5 with 9:1 compression
> -Fly EFII System 32 with dual controller and electronic injection and ignition
> -BnC Primary belt driven alternator and controller
> -BnC rear spline driven alternator and controller
> -VPX-Pro to run most electronics, the engine will not be on the VPX Pro
> -Electric Air Conditioner 12 volts DC at 40 Amps Max
> -Electronics are all Garmin 2 screen with GTN750, audio panel, second radio,
remote transponder, and 3 axis autopilot
> -IBBS batteries (qty2) to keep critical flight electronics running when -Master(s)
are turned off
> -Batteries planned to be in rear as per plans (Earthx ETX900) qty 2 planned.
> -Fly LED works Package plus one extra dual LED landing light in the cowing
>
> Summary of electrical schematic: I have leveraged the Z101 architecture and
added a second battery and master switch for it, mostly for separate Air Conditioner
control and second battery charging/isolation. The AC connection is a
relay or contactor and is on the hot side of the second battery master. This
was done to isolate the second battery from all other ships power when needed,
like when running AC on the ground or during take-off and landing operations.
During flight I can turn on the second master, re-charge the second battery,
run the AC off the alternator and have the extra capacity available if needed
for emergency flight ops.
>
> Alternators: Only one will be providing power at any one time. The second
one on the vac pad will be set to a lower voltage and will only output power
when the primary alternator voltage goes low or craps out. I may not have the
sense wire or field wires correctly connected. I wish to have them both active/standby
at the same time. Can one switch do this or is it best to have two
switches?
>
> Loads. The engine will require 11 Amps at full load to run the dual ECUs, 6
injectors and 3 quad coil packs and misc. engine instruments, according the manufacturer.
I have individual fused power wires from each injector and each
coil going to the engine bus.
> One EarthX ETX900 will run a 16 amp load for close to 60 minutes.
>
> Mission critical electronics will be powered in an emergency from the IBBS batteries
if no other power is available.
>
> I do have a hot buss that is used only for some minor items.
>
> Example of emergency: Fire/smoke in the cockpit- both masters off, fuel off.
Engine gets really quite. Select location and turn to it for landing and
stabilize the aircraft in a best glide. Smart glide will be useful. If needed
and if advisable, I could turn on the Emergency engine power switch and energize
the engine bus. The engine buss isolated from the main power feeds using
diodes.
>
>
> I have read many discussions about the EFI systems vs mechanical/traditional
systems. I am not asking for feedback on that aspect unless there is new information
or facts that can contribute to the discussion.
>
> One additional idea I was thinking about was to just add the second battery to
the firewall and have it run just the engine in an emergency. The cable runs
will be much shorter and keep everything a bit more location contained. W&B
will be impacted and needs to be considered.
>
> I welcome and appreciate feedback on the design based on my mission.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504034#504034
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_11_8_2021_review_draft_285.png
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien S <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting panel voltmeter |
I replaced my analog voltmeter which was vibrating all over the place with o
ne of those and was very pleased with the result. I bought two so that I wou
ld have a spare but years later it was still working perfectly.
> On Nov 9, 2021, at 01:13, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr
ic.com> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
>
> Ran across this product while searching a solution
> for a client:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yeedoayu
>
> Got one in today. Accuracy is very good. Current draw
> is 0.015A, mounting simple . . . back nut installation
> thru single hole. Small size.
>
> Price is right too.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
Some quick thoughts re RV-10 Dual Battery - Dual Alternator rev 2.0 schematic:
Excellent you put a rev level on your schematic.
Be cautious about unintended consequences of altering Z schematics. An FMEA is
in order; FWIW mine is called Failure Analysis and is in Engineering Basic Stuff
folder at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K?usp=sharing
Complying with FAR 23.1361 Master Switch Arrangement is desirable
also.
With a 40A air contidioner, total load could sag the main alternator and cause
total field current to both alternators to trip a 5A breaker; as pointed out earlier,
that CB is an SOP for both alternators so separate CBs are called for
anyway.
Engine bus:
FYI for context my plan is SDS EFI+I on a Lycoming four cylinder.
Excellent that you put each fuel pump, coilpack, and injector on it's own feed
and eliminated the automatic fuel pump relay; these are SOPs in the EFII System
32 install manual.
I believe a 10A fuse/CB for a fuel pump is OK but I take SDS' recommendation of
15A fuse for a pump and 10A fuse for a coilpack.
I calculate 14.2A for a four-cylinder SDS system at low altitude, a six-cylinder
system will add a coilpack and two injectors resulting in 15.9A. I imagine EFII
brand SDS brand current draws are close to one another. Ref Load Analysis
in Engineering Basic Stuff folder, same link as above.
You could use 10 awg to the engine bus.
Question: With EFII brand EFI+I, if you lose one coilpack, does your six cylinder
engine become a four cylinder?
The latest B&C LR3, rev D (LR3D), will drive an LED. LR3C will drive an LED as
shown in a Bob Nuckolls' sketch; when I google "LR3_LV_Led_1.jpg" it's the top
result.
BTW FYI the terminal "OV Sense", in addition to being the V sense for the crowbar,
is also the V sense for the regulator.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504049#504049
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 11/8/2021 5:10 PM, melstien wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am looking to finalize my electrical system prior to running wires and electronics.
>
> Mission - IFR cross country trips with my wife around the US
>
> Airplane Specifics:
> -RV-10
> -BPE IO-540 D4A5 with 9:1 compression
> -Fly EFII System 32 with dual controller and electronic injection and ignition
> -BnC Primary belt driven alternator and controller
> -BnC rear spline driven alternator and controller
> -VPX-Pro to run most electronics, the engine will not be on the VPX Pro
> -Electric Air Conditioner 12 volts DC at 40 Amps Max
> -Electronics are all Garmin 2 screen with GTN750, audio panel, second radio,
remote transponder, and 3 axis autopilot
> -IBBS batteries (qty2) to keep critical flight electronics running when -Master(s)
are turned off
> -Batteries planned to be in rear as per plans (Earthx ETX900) qty 2 planned.
> -Fly LED works Package plus one extra dual LED landing light in the cowing
>
> Summary of electrical schematic: I have leveraged the Z101 architecture and
added a second battery and master switch for it, mostly for separate Air Conditioner
control and second battery charging/isolation. The AC connection is a
relay or contactor and is on the hot side of the second battery master. This
was done to isolate the second battery from all other ships power when needed,
like when running AC on the ground or during take-off and landing operations.
During flight I can turn on the second master, re-charge the second battery,
run the AC off the alternator and have the extra capacity available if needed
for emergency flight ops.
>
> Alternators: Only one will be providing power at any one time. The second
one on the vac pad will be set to a lower voltage and will only output power
when the primary alternator voltage goes low or craps out. I may not have the
sense wire or field wires correctly connected. I wish to have them both active/standby
at the same time. Can one switch do this or is it best to have two
switches?
>
> Loads. The engine will require 11 Amps at full load to run the dual ECUs, 6
injectors and 3 quad coil packs and misc. engine instruments, according the manufacturer.
I have individual fused power wires from each injector and each
coil going to the engine bus.
> One EarthX ETX900 will run a 16 amp load for close to 60 minutes.
>
> Mission critical electronics will be powered in an emergency from the IBBS batteries
if no other power is available.
>
> I do have a hot buss that is used only for some minor items.
>
> Example of emergency: Fire/smoke in the cockpit- both masters off, fuel off.
Engine gets really quite. Select location and turn to it for landing and
stabilize the aircraft in a best glide. Smart glide will be useful. If needed
and if advisable, I could turn on the Emergency engine power switch and energize
the engine bus. The engine buss isolated from the main power feeds using
diodes.
>
>
> I have read many discussions about the EFI systems vs mechanical/traditional
systems. I am not asking for feedback on that aspect unless there is new information
or facts that can contribute to the discussion.
>
> One additional idea I was thinking about was to just add the second battery to
the firewall and have it run just the engine in an emergency. The cable runs
will be much shorter and keep everything a bit more location contained. W&B
will be impacted and needs to be considered.
>
> I welcome and appreciate feedback on the design based on my mission.
>
> Michael
Hi Michael,
Some stuff I'd look at:
The ETX900 is rated at 16AH. While lithium tech does better at
maintaining voltage deep into discharge than lead-acid, the AH rating is
still real. I wouldn't trust one to supply 16A for an hour when it was
brand new, and I certainly wouldn't expect it when the battery has some
age on it. Might not be an issue with dual alternators, but I wouldn't
plan on a full hour without alternator power.
Smoke/fire: My choice with my electronic injection engine is to have a
totally separate engine bus, with its own switching, and a 'cross-tie'
switch from the main airframe bus as the power source backup. I have one
alt tied to the main bus and the other alt tied to the engine bus. My
process for smoke will be to 1st shut off the airframe (leaves the
engine running, just like carb/mags system). If still smoke, *then* shut
down the engine bus and pray for a landing spot.
Circuit protection: Like Joe said, setting circuit protection anywhere
near the potential demand of the load is inviting 'nuisance trips',
which get a lot bigger than nuisance level if it's the engine. I chose
to use a soldered-in fusible link for the primary supply on the engine
bus feed from the battery. I did the same as you on the injectors/coils,
but I'm seriously considering going to fusible links there, too.
I'd consider that 11A figure for engine amps somewhat optimistic, based
on typical fuel pump & injector power consumption. I'd verify before
trusting.
VPX Pro: Can't address the VPX brand directly from memory, but there are
some electronic control boxes on the market that have multiple 'single
points of failure' inherent in their design that can shut down
everything attached to them. Might be worth a deep dive, especially for
an IFR platform.
I've never had the luxury of air conditioning in an a/c, but IIRC,
certified stuff specs turning it off for takeoff. Have you run the
numbers on how much it will suck out of one of those 16AH batteries
while running battery-only, and what the lithium battery will do to
alternator output if it's significantly discharged when it's tied back
into the system? I think I've read accounts of the smaller EX battery
drawing 50-60 amps, if it was even slightly discharged when it came on line.
Alternators: I don't see circuit protection shown at the feed from the
battery(s), and both alt B leads are tied together at the dual diodes
feeding the engine bus. Any fault on any B lead could take out both alts.
I might have misinterpreted or misread some stuff; if I did I apologize.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)GMAIL.COM> |
On 11/9/2021 1:47 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> On 11/8/2021 5:10 PM, melstien wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am looking to finalize my electrical system prior to running wires
>> and electronics.
>>
>> Mission - IFR cross country trips with my wife around the US
>>
>> Airplane Specifics:
>> -RV-10
>> -BPE IO-540 D4A5 with 9:1 compression
>> -Fly EFII System 32 with dual controller and electronic injection and
>> ignition
>> -BnC Primary belt driven alternator and controller
>> -BnC rear spline driven alternator and controller
>> -VPX-Pro to run most electronics, the engine will not be on the VPX Pro
>> -Electric Air Conditioner 12 volts DC at 40 Amps Max
>> -Electronics are all Garmin 2 screen with GTN750, audio panel, second
>> radio, remote transponder, and 3 axis autopilot
>> -IBBS batteries (qty2) to keep critical flight electronics running
>> when -Master(s) are turned off
>> -Batteries planned to be in rear as per plans (Earthx ETX900) qty 2
>> planned.
>> -Fly LED works Package plus one extra dual LED landing light in the
>> cowing
>>
>> Summary of electrical schematic: I have leveraged the Z101
>> architecture and added a second battery and master switch for it,
>> mostly for separate Air Conditioner control and second battery
>> charging/isolation. The AC connection is a relay or contactor and is
>> on the hot side of the second battery master. This was done to
>> isolate the second battery from all other ships power when needed,
>> like when running AC on the ground or during take-off and landing
>> operations. During flight I can turn on the second master,
>> re-charge the second battery, run the AC off the alternator and have
>> the extra capacity available if needed for emergency flight ops.
>>
>> Alternators: Only one will be providing power at any one time.
>> The second one on the vac pad will be set to a lower voltage and will
>> only output power when the primary alternator voltage goes low or
>> craps out. I may not have the sense wire or field wires correctly
>> connected. I wish to have them both active/standby at the same
>> time. Can one switch do this or is it best to have two switches?
>>
>> Loads. The engine will require 11 Amps at full load to run the dual
>> ECUs, 6 injectors and 3 quad coil packs and misc. engine instruments,
>> according the manufacturer. I have individual fused power wires
>> from each injector and each coil going to the engine bus.
>> One EarthX ETX900 will run a 16 amp load for close to 60 minutes.
>>
>> Mission critical electronics will be powered in an emergency from the
>> IBBS batteries if no other power is available.
>>
>> I do have a hot buss that is used only for some minor items.
>>
>> Example of emergency: Fire/smoke in the cockpit- both masters off,
>> fuel off. Engine gets really quite. Select location and turn to
>> it for landing and stabilize the aircraft in a best glide. Smart
>> glide will be useful. If needed and if advisable, I could turn on
>> the Emergency engine power switch and energize the engine bus. The
>> engine buss isolated from the main power feeds using diodes.
>>
>>
>> I have read many discussions about the EFI systems vs
>> mechanical/traditional systems. I am not asking for feedback on
>> that aspect unless there is new information or facts that can
>> contribute to the discussion.
>>
>> One additional idea I was thinking about was to just add the second
>> battery to the firewall and have it run just the engine in an
>> emergency. The cable runs will be much shorter and keep everything a
>> bit more location contained. W&B will be impacted and needs to be
>> considered.
>>
>> I welcome and appreciate feedback on the design based on my mission.
>>
>> Michael
> Hi Michael,
> Some stuff I'd look at:
> The ETX900 is rated at 16AH. While lithium tech does better at
> maintaining voltage deep into discharge than lead-acid, the AH rating
> is still real. I wouldn't trust one to supply 16A for an hour when it
> was brand new, and I certainly wouldn't expect it when the battery has
> some age on it. Might not be an issue with dual alternators, but I
> wouldn't plan on a full hour without alternator power.
>
> Smoke/fire: My choice with my electronic injection engine is to have a
> totally separate engine bus, with its own switching, and a 'cross-tie'
> switch from the main airframe bus as the power source backup. I have
> one alt tied to the main bus and the other alt tied to the engine bus.
> My process for smoke will be to 1st shut off the airframe (leaves the
> engine running, just like carb/mags system). If still smoke, *then*
> shut down the engine bus and pray for a landing spot.
>
> Circuit protection: Like Joe said, setting circuit protection anywhere
> near the potential demand of the load is inviting 'nuisance trips',
> which get a lot bigger than nuisance level if it's the engine. I chose
> to use a soldered-in fusible link for the primary supply on the engine
> bus feed from the battery. I did the same as you on the
> injectors/coils, but I'm seriously considering going to fusible links
> there, too.
>
> I'd consider that 11A figure for engine amps somewhat optimistic,
> based on typical fuel pump & injector power consumption. I'd verify
> before trusting.
>
> VPX Pro: Can't address the VPX brand directly from memory, but there
> are some electronic control boxes on the market that have multiple
> 'single points of failure' inherent in their design that can shut down
> everything attached to them. Might be worth a deep dive, especially
> for an IFR platform.
>
> I've never had the luxury of air conditioning in an a/c, but IIRC,
> certified stuff specs turning it off for takeoff. Have you run the
> numbers on how much it will suck out of one of those 16AH batteries
> while running battery-only, and what the lithium battery will do to
> alternator output if it's significantly discharged when it's tied back
> into the system? I think I've read accounts of the smaller EX battery
> drawing 50-60 amps, if it was even slightly discharged when it came on
> line.
>
>
> Alternators: I don't see circuit protection shown at the feed from the
> battery(s), and both alt B leads are tied together at the dual diodes
> feeding the engine bus. Any fault on any B lead could take out both alts.
>
> I might have misinterpreted or misread some stuff; if I did I apologize.
>
> Charlie
followup/edit:
Just noticed the ANLs drawn next to the alternators. They need to be at
the battery-end of the B leads; not at the alts. Electrically it *looks*
the same, but the physical location matters. The danger to the wire is
from the battery. The wire should be sized large enough to handle
anything the alternator (which is self-limiting at slightly above rated
amps) can throw at it, but the battery can throw hundreds (a thousand?)
of amps at the wire.
I think Joe mentioned the 15A CB that feeds the engine bus. Another
concern with it would be that if you for any reason lose the B lead
connection to the main bus, it looks like that feeder would be the path
from alts to the main bus. If that's the case, loss of the main B lead
would put you on battery power if alt output exceeds CB rating by very much.
One thing I've seen recommended is to play 'what if' with any proposed
wiring diagram. Likely worthwhile to build a spreadsheet while doing it.
The process is to pick a wire, open it, and ask what happens; is it a
problem, and what alternative is available to work around it. Then short
it to ground and ask the same questions. Repeat for each wire in the
diagram. It will usually reveal issues & limitations in the diagram.
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: | out of town for a few days |
Dr. Dee and I are attending the EAA Hall of Fame banquet on
Nov 11 in OSH. Not taking a computer with me . . . Dr. Dee
sez this is a 'cheese and beer shopping' trip. I do get to
talk shop at the banquet . . .
Aye aye Captain!
See you in a few days.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | "melstien" <michael(at)elstien.us> |
Hello John,
Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags. I don't
always remember.
I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to the Z101
and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will also allow
me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently it is just
electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure and that
was one of my questions.
The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the alternator
load except during level flight at altitude and near an airport. AC is a luxury.
The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100 amps continuously so I think
they will pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are also
meant to do that as well.
Engine Bus answers:
6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have a fusable
link and a breaker
Injectors will have a fusible link only
I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them both during
takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not suggest
that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing
using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated that running both
at the same time more than doubled the current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and
the fule flow increased marginally. I think they were both fighting each
other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still only going through
qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed into 2
wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with diode isolation.
The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many connections points
which would probably have increased failures.
FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing indicates
they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires size I used
and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered separately. They
have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse. I
suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack because
they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3 does not reduce
the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I am
looking for guidance on that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII and requested
guidance.
FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs. That is
all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up the
ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp load for
80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600 (120Amp/hours).
Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680. Money is just the issue.
Not a place to skimp.
Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and B so
they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working plug per cylinder
1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinders 5
and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest a
different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same coil pack. I do know
of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran without too much vibration,
but I need to check into that story.
I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed they come
with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but a good light
is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better vibration and longer
life.
OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used to increase
or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the Main Bus,
but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a possibility the
main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only with
the second battery.
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser... |
Since the beginning, the Matronics List and Forum experience has been free from
advertising. I have been approached by fair number of vendors wanting to tap
into the large volume of activity across the various lists hosted here, but have
always flatly refused. Everywhere you go on the Internet these days, a user
is pummeled with flashing banners and videos and ads for crap that they don't
want. Yahoo, Google and that ilk are not "free". The user must constantly
endure their barrage of commercialism thrust into their face at an ever increasing
rate. Enough is enough, and the Lists at Matronics choose not to succumb
to that.
That being said, running a service of this size is not "free". It costs a lot
of money to maintain the hardware, pay for the electricity, Commercial-greade
Internet Connection, air conditioning, maintenance contracts, etc, etc. etc.
I choose to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year during the month of November
where I simply send out a short email every other day asking the members to make
a small contribution to support the operation. That being said, that contribution
is completely voluntary and non-compulsory. Many members choose not
to contribute and that's fine.
However, a very modest percentage of the members do choose to make a contribution
and it is that financial support that keeps the Lists running. And that's
it. To my way of thinking, it is a much more pleasant way of maintaining the
Lists and Forums. The other 11 months of the year, you don't see a single advertisement
or request for support. That's refreshing and that is a List and Forum
that I want to belong to. I think other people feel the same way.
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these
Lists?
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: out of town for a few days |
A well deserved award awaits... My hat is off to you for your tireless
efforts to educate and elucidate!
cheers!
rv8iator
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 6:17 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> Dr. Dee and I are attending the EAA Hall of Fame banquet on
> Nov 11 in OSH. Not taking a computer with me . . . Dr. Dee
> sez this is a 'cheese and beer shopping' trip. I do get to
> talk shop at the banquet . . .
>
> Aye aye Captain!
>
> See you in a few days.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien S <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
Hello Michael,
Im currently debugging a FLYEFII install on a Murphy Rebel. The fuel pumps are
definitely a conundrum. Fuel pump dependant aircraft are nothing new and for a
century the solution has been to run both the primary and the backup pump during
critical phases of flight. This doesnt seem to work well with the FLYEFII
system so they have that relay to enable only one pump at a time. If you install
their Bus Manager it includes a circuit to keep an eye on the fuel pressure
and switch to the backup pump if necessary. Without this system I see only two
options:
1. Create your own monitoring and automatic switching system,
2. Run both pumps during critical phases of flight. This will require careful testing
since it might cause problems in an effort to avoid a potentially catastrophic
one.
As for your second battery, I would suggest putting it in the front. Youll need
to be careful not to overheat it and youll end up carrying ballast in the baggage
compartment when light, but when heavy youll have more useful load.
> On Nov 9, 2021, at 18:49, melstien wrote:
>
>
> Hello John,
>
> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags. I don't
always remember.
>
> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to the
Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will also
allow me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently it is just
electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>
> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure and
that was one of my questions.
>
> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the alternator
load except during level flight at altitude and near an airport. AC is a
luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100 amps continuously so I think
they will pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are
also meant to do that as well.
>
> Engine Bus answers:
> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have a fusable
link and a breaker
> Injectors will have a fusible link only
> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them both during
takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not
suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing
using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated that running both
at the same time more than doubled the current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo)
and the fule flow increased marginally. I think they were both fighting each
other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still only going through
qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed into
2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with diode isolation.
The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many connections points
which would probably have increased failures.
>
> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing indicates
they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires size I used
and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>
> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered separately.
They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse.
I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack because
they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3 does not reduce
the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I
am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII and requested
guidance.
>
> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs. That
is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up
the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp load
for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600 (120Amp/hours).
Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680. Money is just the issue.
Not a place to skimp.
>
> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and B so
they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working plug per
cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinders
5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest
a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same coil pack. I do
know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran without too much vibration,
but I need to check into that story.
>
> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed they
come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but a good light
is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better vibration and longer
life.
>
> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used to
increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the Main Bus,
but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a possibility
the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
>
> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only with
the second battery.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: out of town for a few days |
>
>
> Have fun Bob!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
Here is the bottom line,in this Marines opinion, having flown dual EFII and now
system 32 since 2017. If anything goes wrong, it is wise to land, rent a car,
call a friend, or whatever. Do you want yourself, let alone possibly 3 others
in jeopardy over your clever planning.
Initially I flew myRV-6A Subaru conversion with Ross Farnums system and then after
a piston failure and immediate return to my airport it took me 4 years to
get an O360 Lycoming with dual EFII flying. For a few months I have been flying
with the system 32. Have always had the Bus Manager. Now I have 270 hours on
the Lycoming, and dual Oddessey PC-680 batteries on the firewall. I buy one
new battery each year but if the alternator quits, personally I wouldnt fly more
than 20-30 minutes max.
Good luck, but remember there is always a weak link somewhere.
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 9, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Sebastien S wrote:
>
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Im currently debugging a FLYEFII install on a Murphy Rebel. The fuel pumps are
definitely a conundrum. Fuel pump dependant aircraft are nothing new and for
a century the solution has been to run both the primary and the backup pump during
critical phases of flight. This doesnt seem to work well with the FLYEFII
system so they have that relay to enable only one pump at a time. If you install
their Bus Manager it includes a circuit to keep an eye on the fuel pressure
and switch to the backup pump if necessary. Without this system I see only
two options:
>
> 1. Create your own monitoring and automatic switching system,
>
> 2. Run both pumps during critical phases of flight. This will require careful
testing since it might cause problems in an effort to avoid a potentially catastrophic
one.
>
> As for your second battery, I would suggest putting it in the front. Youll need
to be careful not to overheat it and youll end up carrying ballast in the baggage
compartment when light, but when heavy youll have more useful load.
>
>> On Nov 9, 2021, at 18:49, melstien wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags. I don't
always remember.
>>
>> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to the
Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will also
allow me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently it is just
electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>>
>> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure and
that was one of my questions.
>>
>> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the alternator
load except during level flight at altitude and near an airport. AC is
a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100 amps continuously so I
think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are
also meant to do that as well.
>>
>> Engine Bus answers:
>> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
>> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have a
fusable link and a breaker
>> Injectors will have a fusible link only
>> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them both during
takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not
suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing
using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated that running both
at the same time more than doubled the current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo)
and the fule flow increased marginally. I think they were both fighting
each other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still only going through
qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
>> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed into
2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with diode isolation.
The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many connections points
which would probably have increased failures.
>>
>> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing indicates
they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires size I used
and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>>
>> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered separately.
They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse.
I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack because
they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3 does not reduce
the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so
I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII and requested
guidance.
>>
>> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs. That
is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up
the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp load
for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600 (120Amp/hours).
Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680. Money is just the
issue. Not a place to skimp.
>>
>> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and B
so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working plug per
cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinders
5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest
a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same coil pack. I do
know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran without too much vibration,
but I need to check into that story.
>>
>> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed they
come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but a good
light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better vibration and longer
life.
>>
>> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used to
increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the Main Bus,
but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a possibility
the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
>>
>> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only with
the second battery.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric |
AC and FlyEFII
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Besides your cautions the one other is weight and balance. The stock
RV-10 with stock battery location and weight needs ballast in baggage
compartment when flown with 2 upfront and no baggage, as in training
flight. Depending on where air conditioning components are and how they
affect the C.G.; battery placement and weight could be an issue. Going
with the latest lithium batteries to save weight may not be prudent for
c.g. location.
I don't think I would want to be managing a complex electrical
design(with electrically dependent engine) in IFR if one electrical
component fails. At least not for any extended period.
Kelly
On 11/10/2021 6:55 AM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
> Here is the bottom line,in this Marines opinion, having flown dual EFII and now
system 32 since 2017. If anything goes wrong, it is wise to land, rent a car,
call a friend, or whatever. Do you want yourself, let alone possibly 3 others
in jeopardy over your clever planning.
>
> Initially I flew myRV-6A Subaru conversion with Ross Farnums system and then
after a piston failure and immediate return to my airport it took me 4 years to
get an O360 Lycoming with dual EFII flying. For a few months I have been flying
with the system 32. Have always had the Bus Manager. Now I have 270 hours
on the Lycoming, and dual Oddessey PC-680 batteries on the firewall. I buy one
new battery each year but if the alternator quits, personally I wouldnt fly
more than 20-30 minutes max.
>
> Good luck, but remember there is always a weak link somewhere.
>
> Ron Burnett
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run both
pumps, they will each require their own full rated current while running.
Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator
is sized properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to the
tank. Upside is that if one pump fails during a critical phase of flight,
fuel delivery doesn't even 'hiccup'.
Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black box', do
you *know* that black box doesn't have a single-point-of-failure inside?
Knowing means having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and a
full understanding of the circuit.
If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is powered via
pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions are described in their
manual, here
.
Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says overvoltage
is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' line that the
regulator uses to accurately measure bus voltage so it can set proper
voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs typically
consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors. Injectors can have
relatively high inrush current each time they fire.
This: "*They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15
amp fuse.*" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could be
wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short
one wire to ground or short one coil internally to ground, etc, somewhere
downstream of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
Charlie
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien wrote:
>
> Hello John,
>
> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags. I
> don't always remember.
>
> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to
> the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will
> also allow me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently
> it is just electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>
> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure
> and that was one of my questions.
>
> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the
> alternator load except during level flight at altitude and near an
> airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100
> amps continuously so I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS
> batteries on critical avionics are also meant to do that as well.
>
> Engine Bus answers:
> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have
> a fusable link and a breaker
> Injectors will have a fusible link only
> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them both
> during takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII
> did not suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet.
> My testing using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated
> that running both at the same time more than doubled the current draw (4.9
> amps per pump solo) and the fule flow increased marginally. I think they
> were both fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it
> was still only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed
> into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with
> diode isolation. The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many
> connections points which would probably have increased failures.
>
> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing
> indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires
> size I used and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>
> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered
> separately. They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1
> 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse
> per coil pack because they all charge at different times, so splitting them
> into 3 does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I
> am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached
> out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>
> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs.
> That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always
> move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an
> 18 amp load for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the
> ETX1600 (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680.
> Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
>
> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and
> B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working
> plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs
> for cylinders 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that
> I would suggest a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
> coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran
> without too much vibration, but I need to check into that story.
>
> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed
> they come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but
> a good light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better
> vibration and longer life.
>
> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used
> to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the
> Main Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a
> possibility the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your
> thoughts?
>
> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only
> with the second battery.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>
>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary fuel
pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches pumps is NO
passing current to the primary pump, or energized and switching current to
the backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could be mechanically damaged
and shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could break cutting off fuel as
well.
The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but it's
actually a pretty well thought out unit.
It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about
cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a concern.
So instead of fancy switching logic, install a *third* pump to feed the two
EFII pumps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just use different pumps
and run them in series (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in
parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
wrote:
> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run both
> pumps, they will each require their own full rated current while running.
> Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator
> is sized properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to the
> tank. Upside is that if one pump fails during a critical phase of flight,
> fuel delivery doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>
> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black box', do
> you *know* that black box doesn't have a single-point-of-failure inside?
> Knowing means having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and a
> full understanding of the circuit.
>
> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is powered
> via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions are described in
> their manual, here
> .
> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says overvoltage
> is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' line that the
> regulator uses to accurately measure bus voltage so it can set proper
> voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs typically
> consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors. Injectors can have
> relatively high inrush current each time they fire.
> This: "*They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15
> amp fuse.*" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could be
> wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short
> one wire to ground or short one coil internally to ground, etc, somewhere
> downstream of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags.
>> I don't always remember.
>>
>> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to
>> the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will
>> also allow me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently
>> it is just electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>>
>> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure
>> and that was one of my questions.
>>
>> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the
>> alternator load except during level flight at altitude and near an
>> airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100
>> amps continuously so I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS
>> batteries on critical avionics are also meant to do that as well.
>>
>> Engine Bus answers:
>> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
>> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have
>> a fusable link and a breaker
>> Injectors will have a fusible link only
>> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them
>> both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at
>> FLYEFII did not suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the
>> inlet. My testing using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator
>> indicated that running both at the same time more than doubled the current
>> draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the fule flow increased marginally. I
>> think they were both fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump
>> outlet and it was still only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
>> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed
>> into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with
>> diode isolation. The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many
>> connections points which would probably have increased failures.
>>
>> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing
>> indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires
>> size I used and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>>
>> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered
>> separately. They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1
>> 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse
>> per coil pack because they all charge at different times, so splitting them
>> into 3 does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I
>> am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached
August 21, 2021 - November 10, 2021
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-qg