Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:33 AM - Re: Official color of levers (JOHN TIPTON)
2. 03:04 AM - Re: Official color of levers (mmayfield)
3. 05:58 AM - Re: Official color of levers (glen matejcek)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: Re: GPU for Piper (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: GNS430 Wire Book (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:58 AM - Re: Re: Official color of levers (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
7. 07:26 AM - Re: Figure Z? (user9253)
8. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Official color of levers (Matt Prather)
9. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: Official color of levers (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
10. 10:46 AM - Clearing some away some fog and fuzzy logic . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 12:24 PM - Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: Re: GPU for Piper (John McMahon)
12. 02:19 PM - Re: Re: RFC: My external power schematic (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 03:54 PM - Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: Re: GPU for Piper (Peter Pengilly)
14. 07:54 PM - Z-11 Question (David Nelson)
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: Official color of levers |
Hi Guys
And what colours (colors) are recommended for the various warning lights
Regards
John (England)
----- Original Message -----
From: rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us
To: AeroelectricList
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:10 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Official color of levers
Is there an official listing of color to be used on balls or knobs for
control levers?
I think Black for throttle, Blue for prop, Red for mixture. How about
cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake and doors?
If not official, what would standard practice for color be for cowl
flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake and door? I want to have my
aluminum balls and knobs anozied and there are plenty of colors to
choose from sooooo....
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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: Official color of levers |
I'm not aware of any mandatory standard colour code convention for cockpit controls.
Take a browse through some cockpit photos and you will see. Some are decidedly
uncolourful! There are however conventions which are generally adhered
to when colour is used.
They generally fall in an order of importance. Red is vital (examples may be fuel/oil
shutoff valves, anything which will stop your engine running if it's not
in the right spot, fire extinguisher handles). Yellow is important (examples
may be canopy latches, park brake lever, something which could cause embarrassment
or damage if it's not in the right spot). Anything else doesn't matter too
much. As for lights - the design follows a pattern of urgency and the convention
is widely adhered to in my experience:
Red: You need to take positive action now (eg - fire detected, you've just stalled).
Amber: You need to take action pretty soon (eg - low/overvoltage, door unlocked,
something has low pressure when it shouldn't).
Green/Blue/White: I'm telling you something you might like to know (eg - gear down).
Even the modern EICAS/glass planes are designed like this with their messaging
systems. Red is bad & you better do something pronto. Amber is important, but
probably won't kill you just yet. White is just telling you something. Green is
the gear down & locked.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288109#288109
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: Official color of levers |
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Official color of levers
HI Ron-
In a glider, flaps are grey, speed / air / dive brakes are blue, and canopy
release / jettison are red. Wheel brakes are typically either a metallic
bicycle brake-type affair mounted just below the stick grip or are
incorporated into the dive brake at the extreme end of the deploy travel.
>Is there an officiallisting ofcolor to be used on balls or
>knobs for control levers?
>I think Black for throttle, Blue for prop,
>Red for mixture. How about cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake
>and doors?
>If not official, what would standard practice for color be
>for cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake and door? I want to
>have my aluminum balls and knobs anozied and there are plenty of colors to
>choose from sooooo....
>Thx.
>Ron Parigoris
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: GPU for Piper |
At 11:30 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote:
>Bob, Could you expand on the two philosophies or point me to a
>further discussion. I've been wrestling with both ways and each
>time I decide one way, I think about it some more and change my
>mind...again? Is either choice superior or is it six of one and
>half a dozen of the other?
If you hook ground power to the battery side of the
GP_Contactor, you can charge the battery without
powering up the aircraft. Further, you would not
be able to hook ground power to the aircraft WITHOUT
having the battery on line as well. This would be
my preferred configuration.
Production TC do it both ways but predominantly
the OTHER way. I'm mystified as to the rationale
for doing it the other way . . . somebody made
that decision long before my time and isn't around
to explain it any more. I'm unable to deduce
any advantage that would give it precedence over
the first way. I am presuming that they had a
"good" reason but I don't know what it is.
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: GNS430 Wire Book |
At 11:41 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote:
>I'm still trying to sort out my GNS430W's lack of comm. I had the
>unit bench tested here locally, and it works just fine at the
>avionics shop, so the issue must be my wiring somewhere. The wire
>book for AGATE that I've downloaded shows the 430 being hooked up
>through the GMA340. All I want to use is a simple Sigtronics
>intercom; no audio panel.
>
>The Sigtronics does not have "audio low" or "mic low" inputs. I
>believe I read somewhere that these are to be grounded, so that's
>what I did, but I can't find that reference right now.
Yes . . . when those pins are not available as
dedicated inputs, use signal or power grounds
as close to the intercom's cable connector
as practical . . .
> The Garmin manual (4.7.2.3) states that they're balanced inputs,
> and that both must be connected. I'm a bit wary of experimenting
> willy-nilly with this radio, so I haven't gone and tried tying them
> together yet.
>
>Also, the AGATE wire book shows a "Comm Mic Return" pin 8 on P4002,
>to be joined with the Comm Audio Lo. The Garmin manual simply shows
>that as a reserved or unused pin.
Hmmmm . . . I did those drawings some years ago and
a tech over in experimental flight installed the
radio. A week later I noticed that the radio was
in and working . . . but if he found any errors
in my drawing he didn't mention them. So I'm assuming
that the drawings are correct as depicted.
Is it just an audio issue? Which way . . . can't talk
or can't hear or both? Does the transmitter key when
you press the mic button.
Bob . . .
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: Official color of levers |
HI Ron-
In a glider, flaps are grey, speed / air / dive brakes are blue, and canopy
release / jettison are red. Wheel brakes are typically either a metallic
bicycle brake-type affair mounted just below the stick grip or are
incorporated into the dive brake at the extreme end of the deploy travel.
And again..... What color was the throttle ball??
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 |
|
Ken,
You could pick one of the Z-Drawings, add to it and modify for the rotary engine,
then post your schematic for others to comment on. If you do not know which
drawing to start with, try Z-11. I agree with Glenn that the ground wire should
be attached to a solid part of the engine, not to sheet metal. The PC680
should be adequate and meets your goal of light weight. You could ask Dave Atkins
opinion. Do you have any information on the wiring requirements for the
alternator or ignition? What about a fuel pump?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288144#288144
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: Official color of levers |
Gliders don't have throttles..
All the airplanes I have flown with throttles have black marking on that
control.
So far it sounds like the conflicts would be with the canopy release and
mixture both being red, and the air brakes and propeller both being blue.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> HI Ron-
>
> In a glider, flaps are grey, speed / air / dive brakes are blue, and
> canopy
> release / jettison are red. Wheel brakes are typically either a metallic
> bicycle brake-type affair mounted just below the stick grip or are
> incorporated into the dive brake at the extreme end of the deploy travel.
>
>
> And again..... What color was the throttle ball??
>
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: Official color of levers |
Hi Roger
"And again..... What color was the throttle
ball??"
To my understanding the throttle balls of the vast
majority of gliders are connected to the pilot. Thus usually hidden out of
sight and color depends on race ;-)
Ron Parigoris
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: | Clearing some away some fog and fuzzy logic . . . |
I've been invited in a private discussion where a builder is wrestling
with his panel fabricator. Seems his hired wire-slinger has been
discovered some stuff fuses vs. breakers and breakers only for
crow-bar protected
alternators. For many of you, this is pretty old stuff but this
is a large group. For folks who have not followed this discussion
for the last 15 years or so, I'll offer the following. The
AeroElectric-List graybeards can delete and move on . . .
Q: The Aeroelectric is such a proponent of Autocar Fuses . . .
Bob: The PRIMARY attraction for fuses is equivalent protection
for MUCH less cost and conservation of panel space.
Q(continued) . . . instead of breakers because if it trips he says
you should not attempt to put it back on while in the air, hence
fuses makes sense...but in his diagrams he still adds a 5 amp
breaker to alternator field instead of fuses.? But would one reset
this breaker 'in flight' after it trips, cause re-setting breakers in
flight could cause more harm, maybe you can explain a bit more.
A(reader): Engaging the field circuit while the alternator is
spinning at rated speed (i.e. - in flight) is hard on the alternator
and even harder on the regulator and (my opinion only) should not be
done on a regular or casual basis.
Bob: Absolutely not true. This myth has been bubbling
in old mechanic's tales cauldron for decades and has
NO foundation in physics. There IS a phenomenon exhibited
by some alternator regulators where energizing the alternator
at light load and hi rpm produces an voltage overshoot
that may even trip WHAT EVER ov protection is in place.
This is a design feature of regulator dynamics that
can be disconcerting but in no way does it represent
a hazard to the alternator, regulator or the rest of
the system.
A(continued): IF you have a problem, however - having the option to
do so is nice. Suppose you had a OV condition that trips the
alternator offline and you are IMC or VFR-on-top and your battery is
draining pretty bad before you can get down - I'll take a possible OV
condition in that scenario over dead screens, and reengage the
alternator field. If the battery is low already it will absorb a good
deal of the excess current, dropping the voltage and protecting the
avionics to a degree. As the charge state of the battery comes up the
OV will trip out the alt field again when the voltage rises beyond
the set point of the crow bar, but you've gained some battery charge
in the process. Lather, rinse, repeat, and fly the airplane. You may
fry the regulator (which was suspect already by default of your
situation) and you won't do the battery any favors with the high
current charge/discharge cycles - but you'll keep your avionics up
and give yourself a chance to get down safely.
Bob: This reader demonstrates no appreciation for
failure tolerant design or understanding of what
constitutes a hazardous voltage condition for
the rest of the system.
The root rationale for resetting CB on the
alternator field includes . . .
(1) there are occasionally situations where an ov
protection system of ANY style by ANY manufacturer
can be induced to nuisance trip. The ability
to do a cautious/attentive reset is useful.
(2) legacy operating philosophy CB trips that
shut down especially useful equipment, resetting a
breaker is is allowed one time. In a failed-regulator
scenario, resetting the breaker once simply produces
a second trip. In no case does it put extraordinary
stresses on other components that are still working.
A (reader): Bob talks in absolutes. When there is over lap or
preference, it gets a little confusing. Remember some of Bob's ideas
are more in the preference area than technically necessary.
The main reason for the ALT CB is when using a "crow-bar" or B & C
regulator, which has a crow bar in it. The CB is an integral part of
the "crow-bar system", an over voltage protection device as you know.
The crow bar works by dead shorting the CB and tripping it. The Plane
power alternator that I recommend, also uses or needs a CB. You could
still use a fuse from any CB, however, a CB makes more sense, if you
plan on occasionally tripping circuit "normally". (read on)
Here is my interpretation of Bob's CB/Fuse philosophy.
Since the OV "crow bar" might trip "accidentally", the ability to
reset it, is desirable; the CB is obviously more desirable than a
fuse for something you expect to normally trip on occasion. Bob
denies the crow-bar is finicky or subject to nuisance trips. OK? If
its true, it never tripped unless, than you could use a fuse, right?
Well the crow-bar is not that stable. There are other ways to protect
from OV, and this is one that Bob likes, and it needs a CB to work.
Bob: NEVER have I suggested that the OV crowbar devices
manufactured by me, B&C, Plane-Power or OV disconnect
devices by Perhelion, Electro-Delta, or BF Goodrich
ARE or ARE NOT "finicky".
Anyone who understands legacy OV protection philosophies
will offer due diligence in designing and qualifying
their device for intended purpose in accordance with
DO-160/Mil-STD-704 design goals.
ALL diligent designs are subject to nuisance tripping
from transients for reasons that have nothing to do
with design of the OV protection device.
Even the most diligent designs are subject to errors
in understanding ALL the potential nuisance trip
sources in the targeted airframes. Since the LR-1
first flew on Voyager's closed circuit tests of the
coast of CA up to the present LR-3 configuration
there have been THREE changes to design to address
new discoveries AFTER the product was fielded.
The first such condition was noted before Voyager did
the around the world flight where LR-2 regulators
were installed. The last two changes were prompted
by discoveries that were not brought to light until
thousands of regulators had been giving satisfactory
service for years. My current production OV modules
have benefited from lessons-learned in the last
two modifications. Further, those lessons learned
would have been the same whether the ov module opened
a circuit breaker or operated a relay.
A(contintued):In general his "logic" or philosophy on "fused" items,
is you can live with out them or should if it blows, with proper
design of your system. In most production planes (read all) only CB's
are used or resettable thermal current limiting devices. Bob is
right, fuse are cheap, simple, light and work to protect the wires as
good as any CB. The down side is you have to carry extra fuses and
it's difficult to fix or re-set in flight.
However the latter issue, resetting in flight, is moot in Bob's
opinion. He proposes you don't want to replace a fuse, ever, until
you land. Obviously if a CB pops, you might consider not resetting
it, like if you smell something. At least you let a CB cool and only
allow one reset. So bottom line, if a fuse blows it's OK to leave it
blown till you land since you don't need the device and it might harm
something to reset that circuit, in the scenario in his mind.
Bob: this writer chooses to ignore my suggestion
that fuses are PREFERABLE for equivalent protection
ONLY when the builder understands and strives for failure
tolerant design. This design philosophy produces a
system were fuse replacement is NOT NECESSARY because
the airplane has no device 'critical for continued flight'.
i.e. every devise with a potential for critical
operation has a PLAN-B. Hence, whether the fuse is
nuisance tripped or the device simply dies, no immediate
hazard to flight is created.
If one chooses to design and operation his/her OBAM
aircraft in the spirit and intent of a C-172, then
by all means, use breakers throughout. You may indeed
wish to do a one-time reset on several of the airplane's
electro-whizzies. When I fly, it's ALWAYS a rented
TC aircraft, it's ALWAYS fitted with breakers and
I ALWAYS have this failure-tolerance-package in the
flight bag . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
A(continued) IMHO, for heavy current items like gear retraction
motors, CB's are generally preferred. A electric motor can have a
transient overload and be fine. So CB reset is hand.
Bob: Fuses are NOT suitable for hi-inrush loads or
the protection of fat-wire feeders and they've never
been recommended for that application. In these instances
fuse-like CURRENT LIMITERS and or fusible links are
suggested in my writing (TC aircraft use current
limiters too). The reader demonstrates no appreciation for
legacy design goals and recipes for success that go
back nearly 100 years.
A(continued): The Alternator is a little different? You could use a
fuse. Bob makes grand statements of philosophy or "Bob rules", but
than it "appears" he contradicts himself or changes the philosophy to
fit his current opinion. That is not a criticism, we all move the
goal post sometimes. However if you think you can live with out your
alternator, say fly on battery power, than the fuse on the ALT is not
critical. You could sub in a fuse for simplicity and less
cost/weight. If you have a stock internal voltage regulated
alterantor the CB on the "IGN" lead is even less useful. The current
is like 0.10 amps or less.
If you are using an internally regulated alterantor than the fuse can
be say 0.5 or 1 amp since the "IGN" lead is only a 'signal' to wake
up or sleep the alternator, not a "field wire" or power to the
voltage regulator. All the power goes through the b-lead. If you are
using a Plane Power, than use a 5 amp (or what ever size) CB they
suggest, since that is also a "crow bar" type CB popper as well. As
you might know a crow-bar dead shorts the CB to trip it, removing
power to the regulator, which removers power to the the alternator
"Field", which de-energizes the alternator, if its miss behaving.
Bottom line. Bob's way is not the only way or best way, just his way
which is totally fine. Some times its over kill. Some times the
reasons he gives are opposed to other opinions (but there is always a
justification). It's just not that important, and if you follow his
philosophy you will be ok, albeit may be on the overkill side. The
only thing I really think is wrong is putting a crow bar & over
voltage relay on the b-lead of a internally regulated alternator.
That is heavy and a Jury Rig. It also will damage the alternator in
the event of a nuisance trip.
Bob: discussed, researched, and demonstrated not to be true.
See recent updates to chapter on alternators.
A(continued): If you are worried about your internally regulated
alterantor (and you will be if you believe everything Bob says, which
he does not have proof of) than get a Plane Power unit. Also good is
B&C alterantor with an external regulator, but I would get a Transpo
V1200 regulator not a B&C voltage regulator. The Transpo V1200 uses
solid state OV protection and not a CB tripper crow bar. It also cost
1/3rd or 1/4th the cost of B&C voltage regulator price.
Bob: The really cool thing about the Internet is that
it's ALL out there for reading. The really bad thing
about the Internet is that it's ALL out there for the
reading.
Individuals who make due-diligence searches of the
archives for guidance must be wary of advice that carries
just enough truth to give the appearance of knowledgeable,
well considered, recipes for success.
But like the exchange detailed above, Some writers
place their otherwise good advice in question
when they carry tar bushes in one hand and buckets
of tomatoes in the other. The writing is also
suspect when the reasoning demonstrates no understanding
of the physics or simple ideas that go into recipes for
success that have rich histories of performing to design
goals.
Bob . . .
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: GPU for Piper |
Thanks Bob. That was also my decision when powering the systems., primarily
for having the battery on line but seeing all those other 'smart' TC folks
do it the other way was confusing me. I'm doing it your way!
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 11:30 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>> Bob, Could you expand on the two philosophies or point me to a further
>> discussion. I've been wrestling with both ways and each time I decide one
>> way, I think about it some more and change my mind...again? Is either
>> choice superior or is it six of one and half a dozen of the other?
>>
>
> If you hook ground power to the battery side of the
> GP_Contactor, you can charge the battery without
> powering up the aircraft. Further, you would not
> be able to hook ground power to the aircraft WITHOUT
> having the battery on line as well. This would be
> my preferred configuration.
>
> Production TC do it both ways but predominantly
> the OTHER way. I'm mystified as to the rationale
> for doing it the other way . . . somebody made
> that decision long before my time and isn't around
> to explain it any more. I'm unable to deduce
> any advantage that would give it precedence over
> the first way. I am presuming that they had a
> "good" reason but I don't know what it is.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
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: RFC: My external power schematic |
At 10:21 AM 2/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> >
> > Let's discuss the ways in which the schematic in
> > Z-31A falls short of your design goals.
> >
>
>
>First, the minor differences:
>
>I put an LED across the solenoid so that I have some immediate
>feedback that it is engaged when I think it should be (and not
>engaged when I think it shouldn't be).
This is what's suggested in Figure 3 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
The press to test fixture shows when the contactor
is energized and also proves availability of ground
power if the press-to-test works.
>I also added a second diode reversed across the solenoid, similar to
>the one you have across the main battery contactor in Z-31A. Is
>there something different about the external power contactor that
>makes this safety not recommended?
Why would you want to close the ground power contactor
from a battery that's okay? As another reader pointed
out, this negates the protection for reversed polarity
in the ground power source.
>The major departure in my schematic is the addition of the
>switch. The center position gives the same behavior as
>Z-31A. The "force" position I put in there as a means of
>overcoming the problem I saw with the Otter.
I can't figure out how the schematic cited above
doesn't address this.
>With any luck, I'd just leave the switch on Auto for the lifetime of
>the airplane. But weird stuff happens... :)
Why not replace the switch breaker with a pullable
breaker in Figure 3 and probably leave that
breaker OUT for the lifetime of the airplane?
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: | Re: GPU for Piper |
Bob,
When I was in the military we sometimes had aircraft in the hangar on
ground power for many hours at a time as electrics or avionics snags
were investigated. Ground Power plugs were wired up to by-pass the
battery, and most times (always?) the battery connector was pulled.
Also, if the battery (24v Ni-Cad) was flat we took it down to the
battery bay and got another. We also used to start the aircraft every
time on external power (unless a power rig wasn't available).
Perhaps this thinking has found its way by osmosis into the small
aircraft TC community without any good reason? Perhaps its also an
attempt to stop owners charging old wet electrolyte batteries in situ,
with the risk of acid spillage, or worse?
Regards, Peter
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 11:30 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote:
>> Bob, Could you expand on the two philosophies or point me to a
>> further discussion. I've been wrestling with both ways and each time
>> I decide one way, I think about it some more and change my
>> mind...again? Is either choice superior or is it six of one and half
>> a dozen of the other?
>
> If you hook ground power to the battery side of the
> GP_Contactor, you can charge the battery without
> powering up the aircraft. Further, you would not
> be able to hook ground power to the aircraft WITHOUT
> having the battery on line as well. This would be
> my preferred configuration.
>
> Production TC do it both ways but predominantly
> the OTHER way. I'm mystified as to the rationale
> for doing it the other way . . . somebody made
> that decision long before my time and isn't around
> to explain it any more. I'm unable to deduce
> any advantage that would give it precedence over
> the first way. I am presuming that they had a
> "good" reason but I don't know what it is.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 14
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 |
|
Hi Bob,
Looking at Z-11/M, why is the endurance bus protected by a fuse from the
battery bus but not the main bus? Is it just for the sake of the switch or
something else?
Thank you,
/\/elson
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! --
|