Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:29 AM - Value of the List... (Matt Dralle)
1. 05:51 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:56 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Sam Hoskins)
3. 08:25 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:54 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Sam Hoskins)
5. 11:07 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:27 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Sam Hoskins)
7. 11:45 AM - Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? (Peter Pengilly)
8. 03:15 PM - Alternator noise (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
9. 07:36 PM - Z13/8 Battery Contactor Failure (Jeff Page)
Message 0
| 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: | Value of the List... |
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30
worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a
subscription to some lame magazine or even just a single dinner out. Isn't the
List worth at least that much to you?
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the
Lists?
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far
during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively
through YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
At 08:41 PM 11/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>I never understood why guys like this sort of thing. It means you do
>NOT have redundant systems since one switch failure can fail both
>sources of power.
>
>FWIW my engine continues to run if I energize both injection systems
>and feed twice the normal fuel to it. Definitely rich but not a show stopper.
>
>Ken
It is a product of design goals that do not consider every
single component's vulnerability to failure. In the certified
side of the house, we like to fill spread sheets with lots
of calculations derived from failure rate numbers that are
too often assumed and combinations that are too seldom
confirmed for reliability. The final insult comes when all
potential consequences for failure have not been mitigated
even when a backup for the failed part exists. Remember
Apollo 13? Somebody cranked the numbers on that thermostat
and was "comfortable" with the probability of failure. Shucks,
the vehicle had a service life of less than 1000 hours. Just
how good does it need to be? Oh yeah, if it DOES croak . . .
can I live with getting my tail blasted off?
I will suggest that the term "redundant" is most useful when
Plan-A has no components in common with Plan-B. The icing
on the cake comes from consideration of the consequences of
any single failure . . . the "best" failures do not propagate
their effects beyond a need to replace the failed part after
a comfortable termination of flight has been accomplished.
Sam, the best advice we can give you is to craft your redundant
systems with as much electrical isolation as possible/practical.
This would include separate control switches for each set of
injectors.
Bob . . .
>Sam Hoskins wrote:
>>I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped.
>>I have two possible power inputs A or B.
>>I have two possible devices, C or D.
>>I want the three position switch to have the following conditions,
>>with no other combinations.
>>A powers C
>>B powers D
>>Off
>>Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure
>>couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it
>>with only one switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)?
>>This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to
>>two sets of fuel injectors.
>>Thanks,
>>Sam
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: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
Thanks, Bob, et al.
This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of
unintended consequences.
The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster and more
efficient.
The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel Injection.
The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many items
not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain in weight - in
direct opposition to The Goal.
I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control power and
fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed endurance loads! I
am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty much run out of real estate for
the switch grouping.
That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power source
with one switch.
There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has been
fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for another #@$*%
switch.
FWIW, here is my current power distribution:
http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf
And the wire page for the coils and injectors:
http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf
And the load analysis:
http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf
Regards,
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 08:41 PM 11/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>>
>> I never understood why guys like this sort of thing. It means you do NOT
>> have redundant systems since one switch failure can fail both sources of
>> power.
>>
>> FWIW my engine continues to run if I energize both injection systems and
>> feed twice the normal fuel to it. Definitely rich but not a show stopper.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> It is a product of design goals that do not consider every
> single component's vulnerability to failure. In the certified
> side of the house, we like to fill spread sheets with lots
> of calculations derived from failure rate numbers that are
> too often assumed and combinations that are too seldom
> confirmed for reliability. The final insult comes when all
> potential consequences for failure have not been mitigated
> even when a backup for the failed part exists. Remember
> Apollo 13? Somebody cranked the numbers on that thermostat
> and was "comfortable" with the probability of failure. Shucks,
> the vehicle had a service life of less than 1000 hours. Just
> how good does it need to be? Oh yeah, if it DOES croak . . .
> can I live with getting my tail blasted off?
>
> I will suggest that the term "redundant" is most useful when
> Plan-A has no components in common with Plan-B. The icing
> on the cake comes from consideration of the consequences of
> any single failure . . . the "best" failures do not propagate
> their effects beyond a need to replace the failed part after
> a comfortable termination of flight has been accomplished.
>
> Sam, the best advice we can give you is to craft your redundant
> systems with as much electrical isolation as possible/practical.
> This would include separate control switches for each set of
> injectors.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Sam Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped.
>>> I have two possible power inputs A or B.
>>> I have two possible devices, C or D.
>>> I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, with
>>> no other combinations.
>>> A powers C
>>> B powers D
>>> Off
>>> Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure couldn't
>>> figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it with only one
>>> switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)?
>>> This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two
>>> sets of fuel injectors.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sam
>>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote:
>Thanks, Bob, et al.
>
>This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of
>unintended consequences.
>
>The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster
>and more efficient.
>The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel Injection.
>The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many
>items not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain
>in weight - in direct opposition to The Goal.
>
>I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control
>power and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed
>endurance loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty
>much run out of real estate for the switch grouping.
>
>That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power
>source with one switch.
>
>There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has
>been fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for
>another #@$*% switch.
>
>FWIW, here is my current power distribution:
><http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf
>
>And the wire page for the coils and injectors:
><http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf
>
>And the load analysis:
><http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf
It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's
axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches
in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the
optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the
more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus
creating a situation that causes you to take some action.
Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure
from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting
the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to
single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the
process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running
quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity,
ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
Bob,
Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design.
The RWS EFI controller <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> (ECU)
has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single
board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate.
They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and
fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can
each supply the A or B sides of the ECU.
I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus
and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the
engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup".
Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a similar
thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the engine battery
bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup. The two Facet
pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the header supply tank.
All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a better
way.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Bob, et al.
>>
>> This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of
>> unintended consequences.
>>
>> The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster and more
>> efficient.
>> The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel
>> Injection.
>> The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many items
>> not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain in weight - in
>> direct opposition to The Goal.
>>
>> I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control power
>> and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed endurance
>> loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty much run out of real
>> estate for the switch grouping.
>>
>> That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power source
>> with one switch.
>>
>> There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has been
>> fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for another #@$*%
>> switch.
>>
>> FWIW, here is my current power distribution:
>> <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf
>> >http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf
>>
>> And the wire page for the coils and injectors:
>> <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf>
>> http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf
>>
>> And the load analysis:
>> <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf>
>> http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf
>>
>
> It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's
> axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches
> in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the
> optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the
> more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus
> creating a situation that causes you to take some action.
>
> Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure
> from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting
> the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to
> single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the
> process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running
> quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity,
> ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design.
>
>The <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller
>(ECU) has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted
>on a single board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost
>identical and separate.
>
>They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition
>and fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and
>engine, can each supply the A or B sides of the ECU.
>I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine
>battery bus and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On
>my drawing, the engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup".
Okay, why not a double-pole switch that controls each ECU
from it's own battery bus as depicted in Z-19. This eliminates
two switches. In other words, what do you perceive a need to
"back up"? It is exceedingly remote that you will experience
two failures on any one tank full of fuel. I presume you're going
to carry well maintained batteries (known capacity) and that your
alternator-out endurance numbers for loss of an alternator are
know.
>Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a
>similar thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or
>the engine battery bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's
>backup. The two Facet pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux
>tanks to the header supply tank.
Why not one switch per pump fed from different batteries?
You have dual ignition already. Why not one switch to control
magneto. One to control electronic ignition from a battery bus.
Do the fuel injectors draw current if their associated ECU is
powered down? If not, hook main injectors to engine battery,
TB injector to main battery. No switches.
>All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a
>better way.
I think this reduces your switch count by 3.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
Thanks Bob. Let me cogitate over that a few hours.
Sam
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design.
>>
>> The <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller (ECU)
>> has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single
>> board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate.
>>
>> They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and
>> fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can
>> each supply the A or B sides of the ECU.
>>
>
> I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus
>> and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the
>> engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup".
>>
>
>
> Okay, why not a double-pole switch that controls each ECU
> from it's own battery bus as depicted in Z-19. This eliminates
> two switches. In other words, what do you perceive a need to
> "back up"? It is exceedingly remote that you will experience
> two failures on any one tank full of fuel. I presume you're going
> to carry well maintained batteries (known capacity) and that your
> alternator-out endurance numbers for loss of an alternator are
> know.
>
> Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a similar
>> thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the engine battery
>> bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup. The two Facet
>> pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the header supply tank.
>>
>
> Why not one switch per pump fed from different batteries?
>
> You have dual ignition already. Why not one switch to control
> magneto. One to control electronic ignition from a battery bus.
> Do the fuel injectors draw current if their associated ECU is
> powered down? If not, hook main injectors to engine battery,
> TB injector to main battery. No switches.
>
> All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a
>> better way.
>>
>
> I think this reduces your switch count by 3.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
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: | 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? |
Sam,
I think you are over complicating the matter - I am assuming that the
engine will run on either the A or the B system. Why not wire the whole
of the A system from the main bus and the whole of the B system from the
engine bus? Both systems become completely independent and you have 2
completely redundant systems. There is no confusion as to which side of
the ECU/pump/etc is running on what.
If you suspect any kind of failure switch off the system currently in
use and switch on the other one. Fly to the nearest airport and
investigate the failure on the ground. Use both systems regularly so you
trust them both. Any further redundancy perhaps is overkill and may just
introduce further (unintended?) failure modes.
Regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: 24 November 2008 16:53
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Bob,
Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design.
The RWS EFI controller <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>
(ECU) has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a
single board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and
separate.
They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and
fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine,
can each supply the A or B sides of the ECU.
I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery
bus and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing,
the engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup".
Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a
similar thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the
engine battery bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup.
The two Facet pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the
header supply tank.
All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a
better way.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote:
Thanks, Bob, et al.
This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of
unintended consequences.
The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster and
more efficient.
The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel
Injection.
The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many
items not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain in
weight - in direct opposition to The Goal.
I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control power
and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed endurance
loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty much run out of
real estate for the switch grouping.
That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power source
with one switch.
There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has been
fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for another
#@$*% switch.
FWIW, here is my current power distribution:
<http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pd
f>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.p
df
And the wire page for the coils and injectors:
<http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf>http://
www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf
And the load analysis:
<http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf>http://www.mi
stakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf
It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's
axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches
in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the
optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the
more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus
creating a situation that causes you to take some action.
Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure
from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting
the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to
single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the
process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running
quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity,
ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing.
Bob . . .
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: | Alternator noise |
I am getting a lot of what is clearly alternator or voltage regulator
noise on my radio. (No noise on battery, increasing noise in volume and
frequency as RPM increases. Radio is a Terra 760D fed from the main
bus.
I have a small permanent magnet alternator (18 amp John Deere) feeding a
motorcycle voltage regulator (Crane Fireball), connected to the main bus
using the B&C relay/overvoltage protection kit which already includes a
big filter capacitor.
One strange thing I have noticed is that when I turn on the battery, the
alternator fail light comes on, but when I switch on the alternator
relay (even with the engine not running), the light goes out. Perhaps I
wired it incorrectly? Charging seems to work fine.
Anyone had a similar problem and found a fix?
Thanks,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair
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: | Z13/8 Battery Contactor Failure |
A friend of mine noticed something when looking at my wiring diagram tonight.
If the battery contactor opens in flight, say due to the internal coil
failing, or the control wiring open circuiting, then the alternator
will be alive, but without the battery to stabilize the voltage.
That sounds to me like a bad thing. I expect I would know about it
immediately, due to a buzz in the intercom, but would I (or my wife)
recognize the fault in time to shut of the main switch before damage
is done ?
Will the overvoltage circuitry react well to this scenareo and open
the field drive soon enough ?
Obviously many aircraft are wired this way, and presumably, this is an
unlikely fault, but ...
Is there a way to improve on the design ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
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! --
|