Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:05 AM - Re: alternator / generator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:38 AM - Fw: Noise Cancelling headphones (rv7a.builder)
3. 09:00 AM - Re: alternator / generator (Ken Ryan)
4. 10:40 AM - Copper bus bar (John Tipton)
5. 10:49 AM - Re: alternator / generator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:31 AM - Re: Copper bus bar (Justin Jones)
7. 11:32 AM - Re: alternator / generator (Ken Ryan)
8. 12:11 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Kelly McMullen)
9. 12:49 PM - Re: Copper bus bar (Jeff Luckey)
10. 01:06 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Justin Jones)
11. 01:16 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Kelly McMullen)
12. 01:39 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Justin Jones)
13. 09:50 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Bob Verwey)
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: alternator / generator |
At 03:12 PM 11/26/2014, you wrote:
>Rick,
>
>I will be incorporating Robert Paisley's Bus
>Manager, along with two lithium batteries, and
>am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring
>diagram relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can
>be found here if interested:=C2
><http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf>h
ttp://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf
That's a LOT of hardware for what would otherwise be
a simple system.
What are your anticipated missions that would benefit
from dual batteries and the automation offered by
the Bus Manager? Your continuous loads are minimal.
Even the 3.2A value for the radio is probably more like
0.2A receive, 3.2A transmit . . . which pushes its
energy requirements down to insignificant . . . about
1/4th power it takes to keep one battery contactor
closed.
How, and under what circumstances, would dual batteries
mitigate perceived risks for the operation of your
system?
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: | Fw: Noise Cancelling headphones |
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:19 AM, rv7a.builder <rv7a.builder@ya
hoo.com> wrote:
Hi Bob,
=C2-=C2- I just got myself some Lightspeed Sierra ANR and plugged them
into my RV-7A this morning. Prior to this I just had a couple of sets of re
gular headphones. The headphones worked without the noise canceling turned
on (push button, 2AA batteries). When I push the button the noise level got
reduced and it sounded real good. When I key the transmitter there is a lo
ud squeal. With the nose cancelling off, there is no squeal when I keyed th
e transmitter. I think this only happened when the engine was running. I th
ink I checked the transmitter and headphones=C2-before I started the engi
ne this morning? I have my jacks wired through a Flightcom 403mc and my rad
io is a GNC300XL. I had to fly this morning with the noise cancelling off b
ut I should wanted it on! Any thoughts would be appreciated. John Robinson.
RV-7A Phase 1.
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: alternator / generator |
Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The engine must
start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger search and rescue. Two
batteries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting 150 miles from the
nearest civilization.
How, and under what circumstances, would dual batteries
mitigate perceived risks for the operation of your
system?
Bob . . .
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:12 PM 11/26/2014, you wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> I will be incorporating Robert Paisley's Bus Manager, along with two
> lithium batteries, and am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring diagr
am
> relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can be found here if interested:=C3
=82
> http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf
>
>
> That's a LOT of hardware for what would otherwise be
> a simple system.
>
> What are your anticipated missions that would benefit
> from dual batteries and the automation offered by
> the Bus Manager? Your continuous loads are minimal.
> Even the 3.2A value for the radio is probably more like
> 0.2A receive, 3.2A transmit . . . which pushes its
> energy requirements down to insignificant . . . about
> 1/4th power it takes to keep one battery contactor
> closed.
>
> How, and under what circumstances, would dual batteries
> mitigate perceived risks for the operation of your
> system?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
===========
m>
ldersbooks.com>
.com>
com>
om/contribution>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Hi Guys
I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is this what one can use for
a circuit breaker bus bar
Regards
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
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: alternator / generator |
At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The engine
>must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger search and
>rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting
>150 miles from the nearest civilization.
Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
failure?
A battery can and should be the single most reliable
source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
course, that you give it the same level of attention
to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
of flight systems. The predominant public perception
of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
in response to that same symptom.
Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
finally decided that inside one of the floats was
the best location. The battery could be positioned
right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
no other purpose.
After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
the battery box (accessible while standing on a
float). Should preflight testing before tossing
the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
"iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
and a pair of pliers.
The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
modify a system that is a direct descendant from
systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
-OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
I believe this can be achieved without adding the
weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
garden-tractor-style electrical system with
concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
by Boeing and Airbus.
This requires a simple but thorough thought
process that goes through the steps of considering
EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
terminals to alternators and batteries.
How can this part fail?
Is failure pre-flight detectable?
If it fails in flight, how will I know about
it?
How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
termination of flight?
What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
simplest mitigations for the failure?
Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
(FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
(elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
cognizant pilot.
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: Copper bus bar |
Not sure if it was the best option, but I cut the bus bars from copper pipe purchased
at Home Depot.
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, John Tipton <jmtipton@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is this what one can use
for a circuit breaker bus bar
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>
>
>
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: alternator / generator |
An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have
considered both and determined that in my case the extra battery is
justified. Your points are nevertheless well taken.
On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>
> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The engine must
> start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger search and rescue. Two
> batteries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting 150 miles from the
> nearest civilization.
>
>
> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
> failure?
>
> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
> course, that you give it the same level of attention
> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>
> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
> in response to that same symptom.
>
> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
> the best location. The battery could be positioned
> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
> no other purpose.
>
> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>
> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>
> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
> and a pair of pliers.
>
> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>
> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>
> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
> by Boeing and Airbus.
>
> This requires a simple but thorough thought
> process that goes through the steps of considering
> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>
> How can this part fail?
>
> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>
> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
> it?
>
> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
> termination of flight?
>
> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>
> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
> cognizant pilot.
>
> 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: | Re: alternator / generator |
Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor
failure as a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic
ignition to a plane in that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead
simple pair of magnetos. Most of time there is a means to hand prop if
lack of battery presents itself. Needing electrons to fire the ignition
as well as crank the engine creates more potential risk.
On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I
> have considered both and determined that in my case the extra battery
> is justified. Your points are nevertheless well taken.
>
> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>
> wrote:
>
> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>
>
> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
> failure?
>
> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
> course, that you give it the same level of attention
> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>
> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
> in response to that same symptom.
>
> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
> the best location. The battery could be positioned
> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
> no other purpose.
>
> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>
> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>
> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
> and a pair of pliers.
>
> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>
> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>
> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
> by Boeing and Airbus.
>
> This requires a simple but thorough thought
> process that goes through the steps of considering
> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>
> How can this part fail?
>
> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>
> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
> it?
>
> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
> termination of flight?
>
> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>
> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
> cognizant pilot.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
> ank">www.mrrace.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Copper bus bar |
Have you considered this:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/bussbars.php?clickkey=4696
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 11:45 AM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Not sure if it was the best option, but I cut the bus bars from copper pipe purchased
at Home Depot.
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, John Tipton <jmtipton@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is this what one can use
for a circuit breaker bus bar
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>
>
>
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: alternator / generator |
I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure isnt as likely as a starter
failure, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk
mitigation step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I will
have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt driven. I will also carry
a battery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charging it
when I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand the added weight of
the pack, however after using it just a single time, it will have been worth
it. If my starter does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII
system minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still operate, making
hand propping much easier than a healthy magneto. I will still need enough voltage
to excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the flywheel
magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.
I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds risk. There are many
reasons.
1st reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in operation.
Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s has electronic ignition,
meaning there are MANY MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition
units than magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little
maintenance.
2nd reason is there are solid state units that require no moving parts (crank trigger
systems). It is true that there are different electric systems out there,
however they all run on the same principal. There are also redundant systems
available that can keep the engine running in the extremely unlikely event
that one fails. Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.
3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the complexity and unreliability
of magnetos. They have moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on them
because they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,
and do not provide the same amount of energy that an electronic ignition does.
I have personally had 3 magneto failures. Thankfully both have never quit
on me at once. A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.
4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electronic ignition requires
is very reliable. The Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability
to mitigate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen
to go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small light solar panels
that can recharge a battery in a matter of days.
There is a good compromise out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It adds
an MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
that you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD box fails or if the battery
dies, the magnetos will still act like magnetos.
The thing to keep in mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on the
aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries show any
sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batteries seldom fail overnight.
Some people even replace them every annual.
I feel that a properly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition system
will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.
Respectfully,
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure as
a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignition to a plane in
that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most of
time there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needing
electrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engine creates more potential
risk.
>
> On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>
>> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have considered
both and determined that in my case the extra battery is justified. Your
points are nevertheless well taken.
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:
>>
>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>>
>>
>> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
>> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
>> failure?
>>
>> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
>> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
>> course, that you give it the same level of attention
>> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
>> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>>
>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
>> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
>> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
>> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
>> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
>> in response to that same symptom.
>>
>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
>> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
>> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
>> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
>> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
>> the best location. The battery could be positioned
>> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
>> no other purpose.
>>
>> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
>> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
>> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
>> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
>> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>>
>> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
>> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
>> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
>> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>>
>> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
>> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
>> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
>> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
>> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
>> and a pair of pliers.
>>
>> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
>> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
>> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>>
>> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
>> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
>> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
>> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>>
>> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
>> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
>> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
>> by Boeing and Airbus.
>>
>> This requires a simple but thorough thought
>> process that goes through the steps of considering
>> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
>> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>>
>> How can this part fail?
>>
>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>>
>> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
>> it?
>>
>> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
>> termination of flight?
>>
>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
>> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>>
>> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
>> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
>> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
>> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
>> cognizant pilot.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> *
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>> ank">www.mrrace.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
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: alternator / generator |
Well, I had two electronic ignitions stone cold fail in Alaska. One at
40 below. The other in summer, but just as inconvenient. You don't hear
about the failures much because they just pull over to roadside and call
a tow truck. Typically when they fail it is a hard failure, not just
rough running like a mag on its way out. I may install electronic in
place of one mag, but definitely not two.
On 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
> I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure isnt as likely as a starter
failure, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk
mitigation step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I will
have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt driven. I will also carry
a battery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charging it
when I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand the added weight
of the pack, however after using it just a single time, it will have been worth
it. If my starter does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII
system minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still operate, making
hand propping much easier than a healthy magneto. I will still need enough
voltage to excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the
flywheel magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.
>
> I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds risk. There are
many reasons.
>
> 1st reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in operation.
Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s has electronic ignition,
meaning there are MANY MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition
units than magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little
maintenance.
>
> 2nd reason is there are solid state units that require no moving parts (crank
trigger systems). It is true that there are different electric systems out there,
however they all run on the same principal. There are also redundant systems
available that can keep the engine running in the extremely unlikely event
that one fails. Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.
>
> 3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the complexity and unreliability
of magnetos. They have moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on
them because they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,
and do not provide the same amount of energy that an electronic ignition does.
I have personally had 3 magneto failures. Thankfully both have never quit
on me at once. A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.
>
> 4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electronic ignition requires
is very reliable. The Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability
to mitigate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen
to go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small light solar panels
that can recharge a battery in a matter of days.
>
> There is a good compromise out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It adds
an MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
that you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD box fails or if the battery
dies, the magnetos will still act like magnetos.
>
> The thing to keep in mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on the
aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries show
any sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batteries seldom fail overnight.
Some people even replace them every annual.
>
> I feel that a properly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition
system will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure
as a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignition to a plane
in that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most of
time there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needing
electrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engine creates more potential
risk.
>>
>> On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have considered
both and determined that in my case the extra battery is justified. Your
points are nevertheless well taken.
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>>>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>>>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>>>
>>> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
>>> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
>>> failure?
>>>
>>> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
>>> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
>>> course, that you give it the same level of attention
>>> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
>>> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
>>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>>>
>>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
>>> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
>>> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
>>> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
>>> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
>>> in response to that same symptom.
>>>
>>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
>>> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
>>> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
>>> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
>>> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
>>> the best location. The battery could be positioned
>>> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
>>> no other purpose.
>>>
>>> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
>>> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
>>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
>>> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
>>> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
>>> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>>>
>>> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
>>> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
>>> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
>>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
>>> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
>>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
>>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>>>
>>> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
>>> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
>>> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
>>> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
>>> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
>>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
>>> and a pair of pliers.
>>>
>>> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
>>> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
>>> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>>>
>>> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
>>> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
>>> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
>>> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>>>
>>> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
>>> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
>>> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
>>> by Boeing and Airbus.
>>>
>>> This requires a simple but thorough thought
>>> process that goes through the steps of considering
>>> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
>>> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>>>
>>> How can this part fail?
>>>
>>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>>>
>>> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
>>> it?
>>>
>>> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
>>> termination of flight?
>>>
>>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
>>> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>>>
>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
>>> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
>>> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
>>> cognizant pilot.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>>> ank">www.mrrace.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: alternator / generator |
Nothing that we do in aviation, experimental aviation especially, is without risk.
It is merely a game of acceptable risk. For me, having 2 independent and
completely redundant electronic ignition units provides an acceptable level of
risk. This is because there isnt a single point of failure in the system.
I feel that the benefit of having both electronic units is the added performance
of an adaptable timing curve and a much hotter spark. Others, such as yourself,
feel comfortable with one electronic unit and one magneto. Both are correct
because the system meets the designers acceptable amount of risk and both
for different reasons.
Cheers
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, I had two electronic ignitions stone cold fail in Alaska. One at 40 below.
The other in summer, but just as inconvenient. You don't hear about the failures
much because they just pull over to roadside and call a tow truck. Typically
when they fail it is a hard failure, not just rough running like a mag on
its way out. I may install electronic in place of one mag, but definitely not
two.
>
> On 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>>
>> I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure isnt as likely as a starter
failure, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk
mitigation step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I
will have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt driven. I will also carry
a battery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charging
it when I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand the added weight
of the pack, however after using it just a single time, it will have been worth
it. If my starter does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII
system minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still operate, making
hand propping much easier than a healthy magneto. I will still need enough
voltage to excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the
flywheel magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.
>>
>> I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds risk. There are
many reasons.
>>
>> 1st reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in operation.
Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s has electronic ignition,
meaning there are MANY MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition
units than magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little
maintenance.
>>
>> 2nd reason is there are solid state units that require no moving parts (crank
trigger systems). It is true that there are different electric systems out
there, however they all run on the same principal. There are also redundant systems
available that can keep the engine running in the extremely unlikely event
that one fails. Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.
>>
>> 3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the complexity and unreliability
of magnetos. They have moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on
them because they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,
and do not provide the same amount of energy that an electronic ignition does.
I have personally had 3 magneto failures. Thankfully both have never quit
on me at once. A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.
>>
>> 4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electronic ignition requires
is very reliable. The Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability
to mitigate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen
to go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small light solar panels
that can recharge a battery in a matter of days.
>>
>> There is a good compromise out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It
adds an MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
that you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD box fails or if the battery
dies, the magnetos will still act like magnetos.
>>
>> The thing to keep in mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on
the aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries show
any sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batteries seldom fail
overnight. Some people even replace them every annual.
>>
>> I feel that a properly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition
system will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>> Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure
as a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignition to a plane
in that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most
of time there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needing
electrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engine creates more potential
risk.
>>>
>>> On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>>> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have considered
both and determined that in my case the extra battery is justified. Your
points are nevertheless well taken.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>>>>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>>>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>>>>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
>>>> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
>>>> failure?
>>>>
>>>> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
>>>> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
>>>> course, that you give it the same level of attention
>>>> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
>>>> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
>>>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
>>>> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
>>>> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
>>>> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
>>>> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
>>>> in response to that same symptom.
>>>>
>>>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
>>>> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
>>>> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
>>>> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
>>>> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
>>>> the best location. The battery could be positioned
>>>> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
>>>> no other purpose.
>>>>
>>>> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
>>>> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
>>>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
>>>> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
>>>> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
>>>> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>>>>
>>>> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
>>>> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
>>>> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
>>>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
>>>> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
>>>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
>>>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>>>>
>>>> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
>>>> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
>>>> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
>>>> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
>>>> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
>>>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
>>>> and a pair of pliers.
>>>>
>>>> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
>>>> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
>>>> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
>>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
>>>> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
>>>> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
>>>> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
>>>> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
>>>> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
>>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
>>>> by Boeing and Airbus.
>>>>
>>>> This requires a simple but thorough thought
>>>> process that goes through the steps of considering
>>>> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
>>>> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>>>>
>>>> How can this part fail?
>>>>
>>>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>>>>
>>>> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
>>>> termination of flight?
>>>>
>>>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
>>>> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>>>>
>>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
>>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
>>>> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
>>>> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
>>>> cognizant pilot.
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>>>> ank">www.mrrace.com
>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: alternator / generator |
Thanks for a very interesting thread, guys!
Justin, I tend to agree with you on the reliability of the electronic systems.
Where I think the problem comes in, is the inconsistency of the
install, and the integration into the existing system.
Best...
Bob Verwey
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! --
|