Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:06 AM - Re: Z-16 ()
2. 08:11 AM - Re: Battery insulation (Doug Windhorn)
3. 08:26 AM - Z-16 (Gaye and Vaughn)
4. 08:26 AM - Z-16 (Gaye and Vaughn)
5. 08:52 AM - Re: Z-16 (Earl_Schroeder)
6. 08:58 AM - interesting failure(s) (Eric Whiteside)
7. 10:02 AM - Re: curious questions (Doug Windhorn)
8. 04:22 PM - Re: DIY Intercom System (hansriet)
9. 05:19 PM - Re: curious questions (Michael T. Ice)
10. 06:10 PM - Re: Re: DIY Intercom System (Carlos Trigo)
11. 06:12 PM - Re: Battery insulation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:54 PM - Re: Z-16-not Z-11 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 08:31 PM - Re: Battery insulation (rtitsworth)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Vaughn
The advice by Bob is good and sound but the draft regulator
schematics he refers to on the aeroelectric pages has mistakes
and a much better schematic version can be found on the page:
http://contrails.free.fr/images/large_regulator_2006.png
as pointed out by Gilles Thesee. In short the C lead both
powers the SCR firing circuits as well as provides the
battery voltage sensing input for the voltage regulation.
BR, Max
Flying and wiring 912s in Helsinki
> The C is indeed a control circuit and must power the regulator at all
> times when the engine is running. When the engine is shut off it too
> too(C terminal) must disconnect, or the battery will drain.
> The C lead must be in contact at all times while running or the
> regulator would fail internally.
>
> An analysis of the schematic for the Ducati regulator
> supplied with Rotax engines . . .
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/regul_912.jpg
>
> . . . confirms that the C terminal supplies operating power
> for the low level electronics along with a path for bus voltage
> sensing. Opening this lead while the engine running simply shuts
> the regulator down assuming that input voltages from the
> dynamo do not soar to deleterious levels . . . doubtful but
> I have no way to prove it.
>
> Further, their admonition about disconnecting "C" when
> powered down to avoid battery drain is valid for systems
> that do not have battery contactors or switches (like
> ultralights I suppose).
>
> Their response is typical of many suppliers who are exceedingly
> limited in their understanding of the product they sell and
> variabilities in how their customers might properly use
> those products. In a nutshell . . . wire per Figure Z-16
> of . . .
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>
> . . . and do not concern yourself with any disagreement
> you may perceive between the little information they have
> to offer and well considered advice you might receive
> elsewhere. It's unlikely that anyone on staff at your
> supplier can discuss applications and options with
> any logic. They're only parroting information fed to them
> by others who are equally un-informed as to how you meet
> your design goals.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery insulation |
In addition to the issues of possible heat buildup, chemical interaction,
hard landing consequences, and FAA requirements, you might want to consider
the blue plastic is most likely extruded polystyrene, one of the most
combustible of expanded plastics. Expanded polyiso insulation would be
better in that regard, but may be worse chemically (the rest of the name is
...isocyanurate!).
To me, the idea does not seem too cool. If you need the 337 for the AI to
buy off on this, could that include elimination of the battery box
altogether? In lieu of the box, install a properly anchored platform and
tie-down for the battery.
FWIW, Doug Windhorn (thankful I have an experimental).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Sent: Saturday, 14 April, 2007 19:38
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery insulation
>
> Leo,
>
> Without regard to FAA regs etc;
>
> Just a guess, I doubt there should be a problem with the battery box
> stuffed as described.
>
> If you used a hole saw to punch the foam full of holes the insulating
> quality of the foam would be reduced somewhat.
> Also the drilled foam would be less resistant to being crushed and
> therefore move out of the way reducing the chance of structural damage
> should the "overheating" or dying battery begin to expand.
> Who knows what would become of the battery in a crash scenario?
>
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo Holler" <leoh@gci.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:16 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery insulation
>
>
>>
>> A friend has a Cherokee 140 with an original battery box beneath the rear
>> seat. He has replaced the lead acid battery with a 16 AH RG battery. The
>> RG battery is oriented the same as the lead acid battery had been. To
>> keep the new battery from flopping around (it is much smaller than the
>> old lead acid one) he inserted DOW HI (blue board foam) insulation around
>> the four sides. I don't recall seeing any insulation under or over the
>> battery. My question: Is this insulation OK or is there a chance that the
>> battery could overheat if under heavy recharge? The installation looks
>> nice and tidy and is very lightweight, but I'd like to make sure he is
>> not set up for a problem in flight. Please comment if you can.
>>
>> Leo Holler
>> leoh@gci.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=106925#106925
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thank you Sir,
Unfortunately, I am so far from being able to understand the regulator
schematic that you sent, it might as well be a woman. Bob's Z-16, rev 11
does keep the R, B+, and C leads connected as Lockwood likes. Breaking
one yellow lead with the relay seems to isolate the internal alternator
from the rest of the system. Since I will have a 40 amp externally
mounted alternator as my primary power source and the internal
alternator is "idling" unless the 40 amp ddevelops a problem, I'm
wonderig if the Z-16 architecture is appropriate to my needs.
Vaughn Teegarden
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thank you Sir,
Unfortunately, I am so far from being able to understand the regulator
schematic that you sent, it might as well be a woman. Bob's Z-16, rev 11
does keep the R, B+, and C leads connected as Lockwood likes. Breaking
one yellow lead with the relay seems to isolate the internal alternator
from the rest of the system. Since I will have a 40 amp externally
mounted alternator as my primary power source and the internal
alternator is "idling" unless the 40 amp ddevelops a problem, I'm
wonderig if the Z-16 architecture is appropriate to my needs.
Vaughn Teegarden
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Gaye and Vaughn wrote:
> Thank you Sir,
>
> Unfortunately, I am so far from being able to understand the regulator
> schematic that you sent, it might as well be a woman.
Vaughn, now THAT is a GOOD one! Earl
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | interesting failure(s) |
I thought the List might be interested in this sequence of failures.
Aircraft is an A36 Bonanza.
When 10 miles out on approach to St. Pete, the right seat passenger said
he
smelled burning insulation.
The pilot did not notice anything. He dropped gear, flaps, landed and
taxied in without incident.
All appeared normal with the exception of the JPI EGT/CHT/Fuel Flow
instrument, which had gone dark at some point.
The pilot turned off the master switch, but then noticed the strobe was
still flashing and there continued to be power to the panel, radios,
etc.
The pilot disconnected a battery cable to interrupt power. I flew in
shortly after and attempted to diagnose the problem.
Based on the pilot=92s description of events, I assumed the master
contactor
had welded itself closed,
but measurements with a borrowed VOM showed no continuity across the
contactor main terminals.
Further investigation uncovered that the transorb devices attached to
the
contactor terminals had failed shorted
in such a way as to bridge current around the contactor. Measurements
showed
the contactor coil was failed open.
(All of these measurements were made out of circuit with wires & devices
isolated.)
When the mag/starter switch was subsequently turned to start, the
starter
twitched and the
transorbs instantly failed open due to the large starter current draw.
No current limiters had opened and no circuit breakers tripped.
The master contactor was replaced, the aircraft flown home and the JPI
instrument was removed and sent to the factory for repair.
There was an obvious burned smell inside the case.
My understanding is that on the Bonanza the alternator will continue to
power the buss when the master is turned off,
(or fails, as in this case). I assume that is why the large loads of
the
gear motor and flap motor were supported.
I would be interested in any analysis as to which might have been the
causes
and which might have been the effects,
of the failures described above. Is it likely that the contactor coil
failed open, and the resulting opening of the contactor
created some sort of transient that caused the transorbs to fail
shorted,
and which also damaged the JPI?
Or is some other sequence of events more likely?
Eric W.
--
9:36 PM
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: curious questions |
I'll give this a shot - specific response embedded below.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, 14 April, 2007 8:33
Subject: AeroElectric-List: curious questions
Hello,
A friend of mine that occasionally helps me work on my RV-9 has
asked me some questions that I can't answer satisfactorily. He is a
great guy and has a very curious mind, he owns and works on boats, cars,
etc, but doesn't have a history with aircraft. These are the questions
in his own words posted below. Any help will be gratefully accepted.
In the course of helping a friend construct an RV 9 I had the
opportunity to examine the electrical system design. I was puzzled at
the use of a master relay (solenoid) to switch the entire electrical
system. A number of questions occurred to me regarding this design:
The questions: How much amperage draw does the solenoid consume
simply being energized? At what voltage does the Solenoid release? And
why this design? >> Figure an amp, more or less. It won't release
until the voltage/current drops below the battery's capabilty to deliver
any useful power anywhere - see additional below. What other design
would you propose, and why? Do you know how it will work?
It seems to me inserting the master relay (solenoid) into the
electrical system has no benefit and some detriment. >> My take is that
it has significant benefits and few detriments - just depends on one's
perspective.
The detriments are: 1. constant draw on battery when energized. >>
When is this a problem - really for a few minutes before startup, after
shutdown, or when wanting to check the electrical without the alternator
being online. Otherwise, the alternator provides the juice and the
battery is (or should be, if necessary, be taking a charge off the
altenator). For long on-the-ground battery only usage, an auxillary
supply should be used.
2. greater complexity. >> How so; compared to what alternate system?
See next question.
3. increased weight (all 6 oz of the solenoid) >> Bet one could
lose that much fat in a day - just trying to keep perspective here! But
seriously, the battery solenoid is nothing more than a switch capable of
handling the aircraft load continuously, and momentarily for starting
operations. What would a 60 amp continuous capable master switch on the
panel weigh, especially once you consider the additional weight of the
#8 or 10 wire from the battery to the panel, plus the fuse and holder
that will need to be installed at the battery. Using a panel switch and
relying on the starter solenoid for starting, you now have HOT wires
from the battery to the panel and to the starter - do you want these to
remain hot while you are contemplating ditching you plane and going into
an off runway landing? The remote solenoid disconnects both, rather
elegantly I think, and addresses these concerns.
4. failure of the complete electrical system if a) the solenoid fails,
or b) if you have alternator failure and voltage drops low enough to
allow the solenoid to not close/open (we have all heard the clicking of
the starter solenoid on a run down car battery- but the radios still
work). >> Since the solenoid is nothing more than a remotely located
and controlled switch, how is the failure rate significantly different
that a panel mounted switch (and associated and now necessary fuse) that
you would propose? Item b) does not seem a realistic concern to me.
The voltage will not drop low enough to open the solenoid until the
battery voltage/current is useless anyway. Emergency procedures would
have you shed load and an alternate switched feed path from the battery
to the essential will keep the necessary electric consumers active until
the battery delivers its load. OK, so the alternate feed path is not
much different from a master switch in the panel except that it can be
considerably smaller due to a lighter load capacity (10-12 amps vs.
40-60) during emergency use.
Contrast this with the benefit- uh- what benefit? There is the same
amount of current flowing to the panel from the battery whether it comes
via the relay or via a straight run to a master switch. Starter current
continues to utilize the starter solenoid. Alternator output current can
be routed directly to the battery since the field voltage can be turned
off via the master switch (and as I understand the design, inserting a
fuse in the alternator output line). >> Don't quite understand the
line of thinking here. See above item 3 for the benefits. Think about
your emergency procedures with the recommended design vs. whatever
alternate you system you can come up with. Either system may work fine
in normal operations - its the abnormal operations that needs to be
thrown into the mix. For sure, one does not want hot wires in an
emergency landing situation - they will provide a source of ignition for
the fuel likely to be leaked.
My limited knowledge may be impeding my appreciation of the function
of the master relay- but I have been pondering this- and can't come up
with a good rationale. On large aircraft, where you have significant
electrical loads that are distant from the cockpit, it would make sense
to use a relay so that you minimize voltage drop and/or weight by
eliminating long wiring runs. But this doesn't seem to be the case here.
The argument regarding electromagnetic fields near radios does not hold
up since the loads are the same whether switched through a relay or not.
>> As you say, not really relevant parameters to the design.
I guess the bottom line is- There are some VERY smart people building
these aircraft. Surely there is a good reason for the master relay
design- I just want to know what it is? >> I can't say my explanation
is all of the reasons for the design, but it makes sense to me.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DIY Intercom System |
Thanks for all the advise.
I decided to use my time to build the plane and bought an used intercom on eBay.
Hans
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107159#107159
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: curious questions |
Doug,
Thanks for the very good reply. I forwarded this to my friend and I am
sure he will like it better than my usual, "Because that is the way it
says to do it on the Z-11 drawing".
Mike Ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Windhorn
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: curious questions
I'll give this a shot - specific response embedded below.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, 14 April, 2007 8:33
Subject: AeroElectric-List: curious questions
Hello,
A friend of mine that occasionally helps me work on my RV-9 has
asked me some questions that I can't answer satisfactorily. He is a
great guy and has a very curious mind, he owns and works on boats, cars,
etc, but doesn't have a history with aircraft. These are the questions
in his own words posted below. Any help will be gratefully accepted.
In the course of helping a friend construct an RV 9 I had the
opportunity to examine the electrical system design. I was puzzled at
the use of a master relay (solenoid) to switch the entire electrical
system. A number of questions occurred to me regarding this design:
The questions: How much amperage draw does the solenoid consume
simply being energized? At what voltage does the Solenoid release? And
why this design? >> Figure an amp, more or less. It won't release
until the voltage/current drops below the battery's capabilty to deliver
any useful power anywhere - see additional below. What other design
would you propose, and why? Do you know how it will work?
It seems to me inserting the master relay (solenoid) into the
electrical system has no benefit and some detriment. >> My take is that
it has significant benefits and few detriments - just depends on one's
perspective.
The detriments are: 1. constant draw on battery when energized. >>
When is this a problem - really for a few minutes before startup, after
shutdown, or when wanting to check the electrical without the alternator
being online. Otherwise, the alternator provides the juice and the
battery is (or should be, if necessary, be taking a charge off the
altenator). For long on-the-ground battery only usage, an auxillary
supply should be used.
2. greater complexity. >> How so; compared to what alternate
system? See next question.
3. increased weight (all 6 oz of the solenoid) >> Bet one could
lose that much fat in a day - just trying to keep perspective here! But
seriously, the battery solenoid is nothing more than a switch capable of
handling the aircraft load continuously, and momentarily for starting
operations. What would a 60 amp continuous capable master switch on the
panel weigh, especially once you consider the additional weight of the
#8 or 10 wire from the battery to the panel, plus the fuse and holder
that will need to be installed at the battery. Using a panel switch and
relying on the starter solenoid for starting, you now have HOT wires
from the battery to the panel and to the starter - do you want these to
remain hot while you are contemplating ditching you plane and going into
an off runway landing? The remote solenoid disconnects both, rather
elegantly I think, and addresses these concerns.
4. failure of the complete electrical system if a) the solenoid
fails, or b) if you have alternator failure and voltage drops low enough
to allow the solenoid to not close/open (we have all heard the clicking
of the starter solenoid on a run down car battery- but the radios still
work). >> Since the solenoid is nothing more than a remotely located
and controlled switch, how is the failure rate significantly different
that a panel mounted switch (and associated and now necessary fuse) that
you would propose? Item b) does not seem a realistic concern to me.
The voltage will not drop low enough to open the solenoid until the
battery voltage/current is useless anyway. Emergency procedures would
have you shed load and an alternate switched feed path from the battery
to the essential will keep the necessary electric consumers active until
the battery delivers its load. OK, so the alternate feed path is not
much different from a master switch in the panel except that it can be
considerably smaller due to a lighter load capacity (10-12 amps vs.
40-60) during emergency use.
Contrast this with the benefit- uh- what benefit? There is the
same amount of current flowing to the panel from the battery whether it
comes via the relay or via a straight run to a master switch. Starter
current continues to utilize the starter solenoid. Alternator output
current can be routed directly to the battery since the field voltage
can be turned off via the master switch (and as I understand the design,
inserting a fuse in the alternator output line). >> Don't quite
understand the line of thinking here. See above item 3 for the
benefits. Think about your emergency procedures with the recommended
design vs. whatever alternate you system you can come up with. Either
system may work fine in normal operations - its the abnormal operations
that needs to be thrown into the mix. For sure, one does not want hot
wires in an emergency landing situation - they will provide a source of
ignition for the fuel likely to be leaked.
My limited knowledge may be impeding my appreciation of the function
of the master relay- but I have been pondering this- and can't come up
with a good rationale. On large aircraft, where you have significant
electrical loads that are distant from the cockpit, it would make sense
to use a relay so that you minimize voltage drop and/or weight by
eliminating long wiring runs. But this doesn't seem to be the case here.
The argument regarding electromagnetic fields near radios does not hold
up since the loads are the same whether switched through a relay or not.
>> As you say, not really relevant parameters to the design.
I guess the bottom line is- There are some VERY smart people
building these aircraft. Surely there is a good reason for the master
relay design- I just want to know what it is? >> I can't say my
explanation is all of the reasons for the design, but it makes sense to
me.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DIY Intercom System |
Smart decision.
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "hansriet" <hansinla@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:19 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: DIY Intercom System
>
> Thanks for all the advise.
> I decided to use my time to build the plane and bought an used intercom on
> eBay.
>
> Hans
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107159#107159
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery insulation |
At 01:16 PM 4/14/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>A friend has a Cherokee 140 with an original battery box beneath the rear
>seat. He has replaced the lead acid battery with a 16 AH RG battery. The
>RG battery is oriented the same as the lead acid battery had been. To keep
>the new battery from flopping around (it is much smaller than the old lead
>acid one) he inserted DOW HI (blue board foam) insulation around the four
>sides. I don't recall seeing any insulation under or over the battery. My
>question: Is this insulation OK or is there a chance that the battery
>could overheat if under heavy recharge?
No
> The installation looks nice and tidy and is very lightweight, but I'd
> like to make sure he is not set up for a problem in flight. Please
> comment if you can.
The foam will be fine and lighter than plywood. We did
use thin plywood to fill the gap around an RG battery
when we STC'd the first B&C product onto the C-150 and
many other airplanes later. But with greater thickness
you're discussing, the foam would be better.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z-16-not Z-11 |
At 02:26 PM 4/14/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi all you people who prabably have functioning brain cells left. Here is
>my message again with the proper heading. It seems that I can't
>destinguish between "Z" and "Rev".
>
>I have attempted to incorporate the new rev 11 rotax alternator system
>into my dual alt system, as Mike Gregory suggested. PDF file attached. I
>have also incorporated several changes made by list members because they
>made too much sense to ignore. BOB, does this give me security in the air.
>Thank you all.
Why the changes in switch functions described
in Figure Z-13/20? Have you done a load analysis?
How much of your 40A alternator is "used up" in
max draw cruising conditions?
Bob . . ..
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery insulation |
Bob, etal,
If a foam spacer is not a problem, is there any thought behind using
something similar to help insulate/isolate a battery from the ships
vibration like thin rubber (baffling matgerial) or thin memory foam, etc.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery insulation
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:16 PM 4/14/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>A friend has a Cherokee 140 with an original battery box beneath the rear
>seat. He has replaced the lead acid battery with a 16 AH RG battery. The
>RG battery is oriented the same as the lead acid battery had been. To keep
>the new battery from flopping around (it is much smaller than the old lead
>acid one) he inserted DOW HI (blue board foam) insulation around the four
>sides. I don't recall seeing any insulation under or over the battery. My
>question: Is this insulation OK or is there a chance that the battery
>could overheat if under heavy recharge?
No
> The installation looks nice and tidy and is very lightweight, but I'd
> like to make sure he is not set up for a problem in flight. Please
> comment if you can.
The foam will be fine and lighter than plywood. We did
use thin plywood to fill the gap around an RG battery
when we STC'd the first B&C product onto the C-150 and
many other airplanes later. But with greater thickness
you're discussing, the foam would be better.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|