---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 11/27/14: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:05:47 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:38:41 AM PST US From: "rv7a.builder" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Noise Cancelling headphones On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:19 AM, rv7a.builder 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:00:27 AM PST US From: Ken Ryan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:40:32 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Copper bus bar From: John Tipton 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:49:58 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:31:50 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Copper bus bar From: Justin Jones 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:32:53 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator From: Ken Ryan 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:11:47 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:49:37 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:06:19 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator From: Justin Jones 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 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:24 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:39:13 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator From: Justin Jones 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 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 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:50:55 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator From: Bob Verwey 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.