Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 08:45 AM - Just Two Days Left! - Still Behind... (Matt Dralle)
1. 01:08 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 04:22 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:13 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 11/27/14 (speedy11@aol.com)
4. 06:25 PM - Re: Touchy! (Kelly McMullen)
Message 0
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Just Two Days Left! - Still Behind... |
Dear Listers,
There are just two more days left in this years List Fund Raiser. We are still
way behind last year in terms of the number of contributions and total contribution
amount. I really want to keep providing these services to the homebuilt
community, but it take resources. Since there's no advertising budget or deep
pockets to keep the operation a float, its solely your generosity during the
Fund Raiser that keeps things going. Please make a Contribution today.
If you've been putting off showing your support for the Lists, now is the time
to do it!
Make a contribution with a Credit Card or though PayPal at that Matronics Contribution
web site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a check in the mail:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you in advance for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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 13:32 2014-11-27, you 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.
Can you share your battery selection and maintenance
program? If you have only one engine driven power source,
then do we presume correctly that you've gathered and
massaged some numbers from which you've developed a
Plan-B . . . a battery only endurance requirement
that will be guarded with periodic measurement?
If you plan to maintain and verify battery(ies)
at some minimum energy content (the general rule
of thumb is 80% of new capacity), is it not
likely that you'll replace batteries before they
become incapable of cranking the engine?
This is the major difference between aviation
and automotive where the battery is often
tasked with two purposes . . . the very
utilitarian purpose of getting the fan
running and the Plan-B purpose of keeping
the panel lit up sans alternator . . . sometimes
for duration of fuel aboard.
This is the core concept for my assertion that
under artfully crafted circumstances, the battery
will become the most robust device in your
suite of engine cranking hardware . . . contrary
to legacy consumer perceptions of battery
dependability.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
At 13:32 2014-11-27, you 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.
Can you share your battery selection and maintenance
program? If you have only one engine driven power source,
then do we presume correctly that you've gathered and
massaged some numbers from which you've developed a
Plan-B . . . a battery only endurance requirement
that will be guarded with periodic measurement?
If you plan to maintain and verify battery(ies)
at some minimum energy content (the general rule
of thumb is 80% of new capacity), is it not
likely that you'll replace batteries before they
become incapable of cranking the engine?
This is the major difference between aviation
and automotive where the battery is often
tasked with two purposes . . . the very
utilitarian purpose of getting the fan
running and the Plan-B purpose of keeping
the panel lit up sans alternator . . . sometimes
for duration of fuel aboard.
This is the core concept for my assertion that
under artfully crafted circumstances, the battery
will become the most robust device in your
suite of engine cranking hardware . . . contrary
to legacy consumer perceptions of battery
dependability.
Bob . . .
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 11/27/14 |
For Christ's sake, Does anyone have an answer to his questio
n?=0AFor his own reasons, Justin wants two lightweight, lithium
batteries on his aircraft.=0AHis question was not give me your
advice on that decision - his question was can you help
me with how to incorporate Paisley's Bus Manager and two lit
hium batteries into the Rotax wiring system?=0AHe also didn't
ask for advice on whether a lithium battery is the best ch
oice given the price vs risk mitigation so I doubt he is
interested in a sermon on that subject.=0AIs there anyone on
the list who can provide Justin with information on how to
accomplish what HE wants to do?=0AStan Sutterfield=0APort Orange,
FL=0ADo Not Archive=0A=0A =0A=0A=0ANothing that we do in aviatio
n, experimental aviation especially, is without =0Arisk.=0AIt is
merely a game of acceptable risk. For me, having 2 indepe
ndent and=0Acompletely redundant electronic ignition units provides
an acceptable level of=0Arisk. This is because there isnt a
single point of failure in the system. =0AI feel that the
benefit of having both electronic units is the added perfor
mance=0Aof an adaptable timing curve and a much hotter spark.
Others, such as yourself,=0Afeel comfortable with one electroni
c unit and one magneto. Both are correct=0Abecause the syst
em meets the designers acceptable amount of risk and both=0Afo
r different reasons. =0A=0ACheers=0A=0AJustin=0A=0A=0A> On Nov 27
, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
=0A> =0A> =0A> Well, I had two electronic ignitions stone co
ld fail in Alaska. One at 40 =0Abelow.=0AThe other in summer
, but just as inconvenient. You don't hear about the failure
s=0Amuch because they just pull over to roadside and call a
tow truck. Typically=0Awhen they fail it is a hard failure,
not just rough running like a mag on=0Aits way out. I may
install electronic in place of one mag, but definitely not=0At
wo.=0A> =0A> On 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin Jones wrote:=0A>> =0A
>> I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure
isnt as likely as a =0Astarter=0Afailure, but if having two
batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk=0Amitigation
step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery.
I=0Awill have two alternators. One gear driven and one b
elt driven. I will also =0Acarry=0Aa battery jump starter p
ack and a solar cell that is capable of charging=0Ait when
I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand t
he added weight=0Aof the pack, however after using it just a
single time, it will have been worth=0Ait. If my starter
does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EF
II=0Asystem minimum), the ignition and injection systems will st
ill operate, making=0Ahand propping much easier than a healthy
magneto. I will still need enough=0Avoltage to excite the alte
rnator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the=0Aflywhee
l magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.=0A>>
=0A>> I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition
adds risk. There are=0Amany reasons.=0A>> =0A>> 1st reason is
the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in
=0Aoperation.=0A Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid
70s has electronic ignition,=0Ameaning there are MANY MANY more
hours of operation on electronic ignition=0Aunits than magnetos.
They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little=0A
maintenance.=0A>> =0A>> 2nd reason is there are solid state un
its that require no moving parts (crank=0Atrigger systems). I
t is true that there are different electric systems out=0Ather
e, however they all run on the same principal. There are
also redundant =0Asystems=0Aavailable that can keep the engine r
unning in the extremely unlikely event=0Athat one fails. Choo
se the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.=0A>
> =0A>> 3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk
is the complexity and =0Aunreliability=0Aof magnetos. They have
moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on=0Athem because
they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, e
xpensive,=0Aand do not provide the same amount of energy that
an electronic ignition does.=0AI have personally had 3 magneto
failures. Thankfully both have never quit=0Aon me at once.
A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last we
ek.=0A>> =0A>> 4th reason is the correct 12v system architectu
re that electronic ignition =0Arequires=0Ais very reliable. The
Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability=0Ato mit
igate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have pers
onally chosen=0Ato go with a dual alternator system. I will
carry small light solar panels=0Athat can recharge a battery
in a matter of days.=0A>> =0A>> There is a good compromise
out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It=0Aadds an
MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto
(if you feel=0Athat you MUST have the unreliable mags).
If the MSD box fails or if the battery=0Adies, the magnetos
will still act like magnetos.=0A>> =0A>> The thing to keep i
n mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on=0At
he aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery
or batteries show=0Aany sign of ill health, replace them. D
ont push it. Batteries seldom fail=0Aovernight. Some people
even replace them every annual.=0A>> =0A>> I feel that a pro
perly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition=0Asyste
m will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto syst
ems offer.=0A>> =0A>> Respectfully,=0A>> =0A>> Justin=0A>> =0A>> =0A
>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@avi
ating.com> wrote:=0A>>> =0A>>> =0A> =0A>>> Well, having flown fo
r 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure=0Aas
a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignitio
n to a plane=0Ain that environment IMHO adds risk over a d
ead simple pair of magnetos. Most=0Aof time there is a means
to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. =0ANeeding
=0Aelectrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engin
e creates more =0Apotential=0Arisk.=0A>>> =0A>>> On 11/27/2014 12:
32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:=0A>>>> An argument can be made both
for and against the second battery. I have =0Aconsidered=0Aboth
and determined that in my case the extra battery is justifie
d. Your=0Apoints are nevertheless well taken.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> On
Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob
@aeroelectric.com =0A<mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:=0A>>>>>
Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
=0A>>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only op
tion is to trigger=0A>>>>> search and rescue. Two batte
ries mitigates the risk of the engine=0A>>>>> not start
ing 150 miles from the nearest civilization.=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome=0A
>>>> presented itself . . . and what was root
cause for the=0A>>>> failure?=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
A battery can and should be the single most reliable=0A>>>>
source of energy on your airplane. This presumes
, of=0A>>>> course, that you give it the same l
evel of attention=0A>>>> to airworthiness that is b
estowed upon fuel, oil, tires,=0A>>>> continuity of
flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,=0A>>>> prop
blade nicks, etc. etc.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> Batteries tend
to be the oft neglected step-child=0A>>>> of flight
systems. The predominant public perception=0A>>>> of
battery consumerism is to run it until it wont=0A>>>>
crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells=0A>>
>> a gizillion batteries every year that are repl
aced=0A>>>> in response to that same symptom.=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cess
na 206=0A>>>> floatplane owner in S. America who
was wanting to add a=0A>>>> second battery to his
ship. We pondered useful volume=0A>>>> to exploit
for several exchanges of e-mails. We=0A>>>> finally
decided that inside one of the floats was=0A>>>>
the best location. The battery could be positioned=0A>>>>
right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had=0A>>>>
no other purpose.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> After w
e had corresponded a few times, he agreed=0A>>>>
that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.=0A>
>>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of thi
ngs,=0A>>>> battery maintenance was not a big adder
to cost-of-=0A>>>> ownership, his big worry was
for loss of battery=0A>>>> contactor that would mak
e the battery unavailable.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> I suggested
then than he add a piece of welding cable=0A>>>>
to run from downstream side of battery contactor to=0A>>>>
the battery box (accessible while standing on a=0A>
>>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing=0A
>>>> the mooring lines showed that the battery co
ntactor was=0A>>>> "iffy", he could make a manual
connection to the=0A>>>> battery (+) terminal with
the short jumper.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> He decided that wa
s a much less expensive, lighter=0A>>>> and lower
cost plan-C for dealing with a failed=0A>>>> batter
y contactor. We also discussed simply carrying=0A>>>>
a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't=0A>>>>
cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery=0A
>>>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-ca
ble=0A>>>> and a pair of pliers.=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or=0A
>>>> modify a system that is a direct descendant
from=0A>>>> systems common to garden tractors: PM a
lternator,=0A>>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead
acid battery.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> It seems that the e
legant design goal is to craft=0A>>>> a combination
of architecture, preventive maintenance\=0A>>>> and
operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures=0A>>>>
-OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignifica
nce.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> I believe this can be achieved
without adding the=0A>>>> weight, cost or complexity
of burdening a=0A>>>> garden-tractor-style electrical s
ystem with=0A>>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA
and embraced=0A>>>> by Boeing and Airbus.=0A>>>> =0A>
>>> This requires a simple but thorough thought=0A>
>>> process that goes through the steps of consid
ering=0A>>>> EVERY part of your electrical system f
rom crimped=0A>>>> terminals to alternators and batte
ries.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> How can this part fail?=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?=0A>>>> =0A>>>
> If it fails in flight, how will I know abou
t=0A>>>> it?=0A>>>> =0A>>>> How would in
-flight failure affect comfortable=0A>>>> termination o
f flight?=0A>>>> =0A>>>> What are the lowest cost,
lightest weight,=0A>>>> simplest mitigations for the
failure?=0A>>>> =0A>>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode
Effects Analysis=0A>>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path
to the simpler,=0A>>>> lightest weight, lowest cos
t, lowest risk=0A>>>> (elegant) design easily underst
ood and managed by the=0A>>>> cognizant pilot.=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> Bob . . .=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A----
-Original Message-----=0AFrom: AeroElectric-List Digest Server <aeroel
ectric-list@matronics.com>=0ATo: AeroElectric-List Digest List <aeroelec
tric-list-digest@matronics.com>=0ASent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 3:06 am=0A
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 11/27/14=0A=0A=0A*=0A=0A
==========================
=========================0A
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive=0A =====
===========================
===================0A=0AToday's complete
AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
=0Atwo Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the
Digest formatted =0Ain HTML for viewing with a web browser a
nd features Hyperlinked Indexes =0Aand Message Navigation. The
.txt file includes the plain ASCII version =0Aof the AeroElect
ric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
=0Asuch as Notepad or with a web browser. =0A=0AHTML Versio
n:=0A=0A http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701
&View=html&Chapter 14-11-27&Archive=AeroElectric=0A=0AText Version:=0A
=0A http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View
=txt&Chapter 14-11-27&Archive=AeroElectric=0A=0A=0A ======
===========================
================0A EMail Version of
Today's List Digest Archive=0A ==============
===========================
========0A=0A =0A --------------
--------------------------------------------=0A
AeroElectric-List Digest Arc
hive=0A
---=0A
Total Messages Posted Thu 11/27/14: 13=0A
--------------------------------------------------
--------=0A =0A =0AToday's Message Index:=0A----------------------=0A
=0A 1. 08:05 AM - Re: alternator / generator (R
obert L. Nuckolls, III)=0A 2. 08:38 AM - Fw: Noise
Cancelling headphones (rv7a.builder)=0A 3. 09:00 AM
- Re: alternator / generator (Ken Ryan)=0A 4. 10:
40 AM - Copper bus bar (John Tipton)=0A 5. 10:4
9 AM - Re: alternator / generator (Robert L. Nuckolls, II
I)=0A 6. 11:31 AM - Re: Copper bus bar (Justin
Jones)=0A 7. 11:32 AM - Re: alternator / generator
(Ken Ryan)=0A 8. 12:11 PM - Re: alternator / ge
nerator (Kelly McMullen)=0A 9. 12:49 PM - Re: Cop
per bus bar (Jeff Luckey)=0A 10. 01:06 PM - Re:
alternator / generator (Justin Jones)=0A 11. 01:16 PM
- Re: alternator / generator (Kelly McMullen)=0A 12.
01:39 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Justin Jones)=0A
13. 09:50 PM - Re: alternator / generator (Bob Verwey
)=0A =0A =0A =0A________________________________ Message 1 ___
__________________________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 08:05:47 AM PST US=0AFr
om: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0ASubjec
t: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator=0A=0AAt 03:12 PM
11/26/2014, you wrote:=0A>Rick,=0A>=0A>I will be incorporating Rober
t Paisley's Bus =0A>Manager, along with two lithium batteries,
and =0A>am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring =0A>dia
gram relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can =0A>be found
here if interested:=C2 =0A><http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_I
nstallation_Instructions.pdf>h=0Attp://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Insta
llation_Instructions.pdf=0A=0A That's a LOT of hardware for
what would otherwise be=0A a simple system.=0A=0A
What are your anticipated missions that would benefit=0A
from dual batteries and the automation offered by=0A
the Bus Manager? Your continuous loads are minimal.=0A
Even the 3.2A value for the radio is probably more like=0A
0.2A receive, 3.2A transmit . . . which pushes its=0A
energy requirements down to insignificant . . . abou
t=0A 1/4th power it takes to keep one battery contact
or=0A closed.=0A=0A How, and under what circumstan
ces, would dual batteries=0A mitigate perceived risks for
the operation of your=0A system?=0A=0A=0A Bob . .
. =0A=0A________________________________ Message 2 _______________
______________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 08:38:41 AM PST US=0AFrom: "rv7a.
builder" <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Nois
e Cancelling headphones=0A=0A=0A On Thursday, November
27, 2014 8:19 AM, rv7a.builder <rv7a.builder@ya=0Ahoo.com> wrote:=0A
=0A=0A Hi Bob,=0A=C2-=C2- I just got myself some Li
ghtspeed Sierra ANR and plugged them =0Ainto my RV-7A this m
orning. Prior to this I just had a couple of sets of re=0A
gular headphones. The headphones worked without the noise cancel
ing turned =0Aon (push button, 2AA batteries). When I push t
he button the noise level got=0A reduced and it sounded real
good. When I key the transmitter there is a lo=0Aud squea
l. With the nose cancelling off, there is no squeal when I
keyed th=0Ae transmitter. I think this only happened when t
he engine was running. I th=0Aink I checked the transmitter
and headphones=C2-before I started the engi=0Ane this morning?
I have my jacks wired through a Flightcom 403mc and my rad
=0Aio is a GNC300XL. I had to fly this morning with the
noise cancelling off b=0Aut I should wanted it on! Any thoug
hts would be appreciated. John Robinson.=0A RV-7A Phase 1.=0A=0A
=0A =0A=0A________________________________ Message 3 _______
______________________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 09:00:27 AM PST US=0AFrom:
Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com>=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alt
ernator / generator=0A=0ABeing in Alaska, many landings are remo
te, off airport. The engine must=0Astart. If it doesn't the
only option is to trigger search and rescue. Two=0Abatteries m
itigates the risk of the engine not starting 150 miles from
the=0Anearest civilization.=0A=0A How, and under what circumstances,
would dual batteries=0A mitigate perceived risks for the
operation of your=0A system?=0A=0A Bob . . .=0A=0AOn Thu,
Nov 27, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <=0Anuckoll
s.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:=0A=0A> At 03:12 PM 11/26/2014, you
wrote:=0A>=0A> Rick,=0A>=0A> I will be incorporating Robert Pai
sley's Bus Manager, along with two=0A> lithium batteries, and
am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring diagr=0Aam=0A>
relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can be found here if
interested:=C3=0A=82=0A> http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Instal
lation_Instructions.pdf=0A>=0A>=0A> That's a LOT of hardware
for what would otherwise be=0A> a simple system.=0A>=0A>
What are your anticipated missions that would benefit=0A>
from dual batteries and the automation offered by=0A>
the Bus Manager? Your continuous loads are minimal.=0A>
Even the 3.2A value for the radio is probably more
like=0A> 0.2A receive, 3.2A transmit . . . which push
es its=0A> energy requirements down to insignificant .
. . about=0A> 1/4th power it takes to keep one batt
ery contactor=0A> closed.=0A>=0A> How, and under w
hat circumstances, would dual batteries=0A> mitigate percei
ved risks for the operation of your=0A> system?=0A>=0A>
Bob . . .=0A>=0A> *=0A>=0A============0Am>=0A
ldersbooks.com>=0A.com>=0Acom>=0Aom/contribution>=0A==========
==0Awww.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>=0A=========
===0A============0A>=0A> *=0A>=0A>=0A=0A____________
____________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
=0A=0A=0ATime: 10:40:32 AM PST US=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Copp
er bus bar=0AFrom: John Tipton <jmtipton@btopenworld.com>=0A=0A=0AHi
Guys=0A=0AI have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar,
is this what one can use =0Afor=0Aa circuit breaker bus b
ar=0A=0ARegards=0A=0AJohn=0A=0ASent from my iPad=0A=0A ----x
--O--x----=0A=0A=0A________________________________ Message 5 ______
_______________________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 10:49:58 AM PST US=0AFrom:
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0ASubject:
Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator=0A=0AAt 10:58 AM 11/
27/2014, you wrote:=0A>Being in Alaska, many landings are remote
, off airport. The engine =0A>must start. If it doesn't the
only option is to trigger search and =0A>rescue. Two batteries
mitigates the risk of the engine not starting =0A>150 miles
from the nearest civilization.=0A=0A=0A Okay, how often h
as the 'unavailable battery' syndrome=0A presented itself .
. . and what was root cause for the=0A failure?=0A=0A
A battery can and should be the single most reliable=0A
source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of=0A
course, that you give it the same level of attention=0A
to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,=0A
continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,=0A
prop blade nicks, etc. etc.=0A=0A Batteries tend to
be the oft neglected step-child=0A of flight systems. T
he predominant public perception=0A of battery consumerism i
s to run it until it wont=0A crank the engine any mo
re . . . Walmart sells=0A a gizillion batteries every
year that are replaced=0A in response to that same sy
mptom.=0A=0A Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna
206=0A floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to
add a=0A second battery to his ship. We pondered usef
ul volume=0A to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails.
We=0A finally decided that inside one of the floats was=0A
the best location. The battery could be positioned=0A
right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had=0A no
other purpose.=0A=0A After we had corresponded a few times
, he agreed=0A that his REAL worry was for loss of a
battery contactor.=0A He conceded that in the grand sch
eme of things,=0A battery maintenance was not a big adde
r to cost-of-=0A ownership, his big worry was for loss
of battery=0A contactor that would make the battery unavai
lable.=0A=0A I suggested then than he add a piece of w
elding cable=0A to run from downstream side of battery c
ontactor to=0A the battery box (accessible while standing
on a=0A float). Should preflight testing before tossing=0A
the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was=0A
"iffy", he could make a manual connection to the=0A
battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.=0A=0A He de
cided that was a much less expensive, lighter=0A and low
er cost plan-C for dealing with a failed=0A battery cont
actor. We also discussed simply carrying=0A a spare contac
tor and tools . . . but that didn't=0A cover the pot
ential loss of wiring and/or battery=0A master switch. So
he opted for the jumper-cable=0A and a pair of pliers.=0A
=0A The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or=0A
modify a system that is a direct descendant from=0A
systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,=0A simp
le rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.=0A=0A It s
eems that the elegant design goal is to craft=0A a com
bination of architecture, preventive maintenance\=0A and opera
ting procedures that accommodates low risk failures=0A -OR-
drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.=0A=0A
I believe this can be achieved without adding the=0A wei
ght, cost or complexity of burdening a=0A garden-tractor-sty
le electrical system with=0A concepts holy-watered by the
FAA and embraced=0A by Boeing and Airbus.=0A=0A This
requires a simple but thorough thought=0A process that goe
s through the steps of considering=0A EVERY part of your
electrical system from crimped=0A terminals to alternators
and batteries.=0A=0A How can this part fail?=0A=0A Is
failure pre-flight detectable?=0A=0A If it fails in flight,
how will I know about=0A it?=0A=0A How would in-flig
ht failure affect comfortable=0A termination of flight?=0A=0A
What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,=0A simplest
mitigations for the failure?=0A=0A Due diligence to Failu
re Mode Effects Analysis=0A (FMEA) offers the short-path t
o the simpler,=0A lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest ris
k=0A (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
=0A cognizant pilot.=0A=0A=0A Bob . . . =0A=0A________
________________________ Message 6 _________________________________
____=0A=0A=0ATime: 11:31:50 AM PST US=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-Li
st: Copper bus bar=0AFrom: Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
=0A=0A=0ANot sure if it was the best option, but I cut the
bus bars from copper pipe =0Apurchased=0Aat Home Depot. =0A
=0AJustin=0A=0A=0A> On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, John Tipton
<jmtipton@btopenworld.com> wrote:=0A> =0A> =0A> Hi Guys=0A> =0A> I
have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is thi
s what one can use=0Afor a circuit breaker bus bar=0A> =0A>
Regards=0A> =0A> John=0A> =0A> Sent from my iPad=0A> =0A>
----x--O--x----=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A______________________
__________ Message 7 _____________________________________=0A=0A=0AT
ime: 11:32:53 AM PST US=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternat
or / generator=0AFrom: Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com>=0A=0AAn argu
ment can be made both for and against the second battery.
I have=0Aconsidered both and determined that in my case the
extra battery is=0Ajustified. Your points are nevertheless well
taken.=0AOn Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<=0Anuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:=0A=0A> At 10:58 AM 11/27/
2014, you wrote:=0A>=0A> Being in Alaska, many landings are re
mote, off airport. The engine must=0A> start. If it doesn't
the only option is to trigger search and rescue. Two=0A> bat
teries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting 150 mil
es from the=0A> nearest civilization.=0A>=0A>=0A> Okay, how
often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome=0A> presented i
tself . . . and what was root cause for the=0A> fail
ure?=0A>=0A> A battery can and should be the single most
reliable=0A> source of energy on your airplane. This pr
esumes, of=0A> course, that you give it the same level
of attention=0A> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fu
el, oil, tires,=0A> continuity of flight controls, fuel fi
lters and sumps,=0A> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.=0A>=0A>
Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child=0A> o
f flight systems. The predominant public perception=0A> of
battery consumerism is to run it until it wont=0A> crank
the engine any more . . . Walmart sells=0A> a gi
zillion batteries every year that are replaced=0A> in resp
onse to that same symptom.=0A>=0A> Some years ago I corr
esponded with a Cessna 206=0A> floatplane owner in S. Am
erica who was wanting to add a=0A> second battery to h
is ship. We pondered useful volume=0A> to exploit for se
veral exchanges of e-mails. We=0A> finally decided that in
side one of the floats was=0A> the best location. The
battery could be positioned=0A> right on C.G. and it occ
upied volume that had=0A> no other purpose.=0A>=0A> Af
ter we had corresponded a few times, he agreed=0A> that
his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.=0A>
He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,=0A> batt
ery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-=0A> owne
rship, his big worry was for loss of battery=0A> contact
or that would make the battery unavailable.=0A>=0A> I sugg
ested then than he add a piece of welding cable=0A> to
run from downstream side of battery contactor to=0A> th
e battery box (accessible while standing on a=0A> float).
Should preflight testing before tossing=0A> the mooring line
s showed that the battery contactor was=0A> "iffy", he c
ould make a manual connection to the=0A> battery (+) ter
minal with the short jumper.=0A>=0A> He decided that was
a much less expensive, lighter=0A> and lower cost plan-C
for dealing with a failed=0A> battery contactor. We also
discussed simply carrying=0A> a spare contactor and tools
. . . but that didn't=0A> cover the potential loss of
wiring and/or battery=0A> master switch. So he opted for
the jumper-cable=0A> and a pair of pliers.=0A>=0A> The
point to ponder is how best to accommodate or=0A> mod
ify a system that is a direct descendant from=0A> system
s common to garden tractors: PM alternator,=0A> simple rec
tifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.=0A>=0A> It seems
that the elegant design goal is to craft=0A> a combinati
on of architecture, preventive maintenance\=0A> and operating
procedures that accommodates low risk failures=0A> -OR- driv
es specific failure rates down to insignificance.=0A>=0A> I
believe this can be achieved without adding the=0A> weight
, cost or complexity of burdening a=0A> garden-tractor-style
electrical system with=0A> concepts holy-watered by the F
AA and embraced=0A> by Boeing and Airbus.=0A>=0A> This
requires a simple but thorough thought=0A> process that
goes through the steps of considering=0A> EVERY part of
your electrical system from crimped=0A> terminals to alterna
tors and batteries.=0A>=0A> How can this part fail?=0A>=0A>
Is failure pre-flight detectable?=0A>=0A> If it fails
in flight, how will I know about=0A> it?=0A>=0A> How
would in-flight failure affect comfortable=0A> termination
of flight?=0A>=0A> What are the lowest cost, lightest weig
ht,=0A> simplest mitigations for the failure?=0A>=0A> Du
e diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis=0A> (FMEA) of
fers the short-path to the simpler,=0A> lightest weight, l
owest cost, lowest risk=0A> (elegant) design easily understo
od and managed by the=0A> cognizant pilot.=0A>=0A>
Bob . . .=0A>=0A> *=0A>=0A>=0A> *=0A>=0A>=0A=0A_______________________
_________ Message 8 _____________________________________=0A=0A=0ATi
me: 12:11:47 PM PST US=0AFrom: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com
>=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator=0A=0A=0AWel
l, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter
motor =0Afailure as a higher risk than battery failure.
Adding electronic =0Aignition to a plane in that environment I
MHO adds risk over a dead =0Asimple pair of magnetos. Most
of time there is a means to hand prop if =0Alack of batt
ery presents itself. Needing electrons to fire the ignition =0A
as well as crank the engine creates more potential risk.=0A=0A
On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:=0A>=0A> An argument ca
n be made both for and against the second battery. I =0A>
have considered both and determined that in my case the extr
a battery =0A> is justified. Your points are nevertheless well
taken.=0A>=0A> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckoll
s, III" =0A> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com>> =0A> wrote:=0A>=0A> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014,
you wrote:=0A>> Being in Alaska, many landings are r
emote, off airport. The=0A>> engine must start. If i
t doesn't the only option is to trigger=0A>> search
and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine=0A>
> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilizati
on.=0A>=0A>=0A> Okay, how often has the 'unavailab
le battery' syndrome=0A> presented itself . . .
and what was root cause for the=0A> failure?=0A>
=0A> A battery can and should be the single
most reliable=0A> source of energy on your airpl
ane. This presumes, of=0A> course, that you give
it the same level of attention=0A> to airwort
hiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,=0A>
continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,=0A>
prop blade nicks, etc. etc.=0A>=0A> B
atteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child=0A>
of flight systems. The predominant public perception=0A>
of battery consumerism is to run it until it wo
nt=0A> crank the engine any more . . . Wa
lmart sells=0A> a gizillion batteries every year
that are replaced=0A> in response to that same
symptom.=0A>=0A> Some years ago I corresponded wit
h a Cessna 206=0A> floatplane owner in S. Amer
ica who was wanting to add a=0A> second batter
y to his ship. We pondered useful volume=0A> t
o exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We=0A>
finally decided that inside one of the floats was=0A>
the best location. The battery could be positioned=0A>
right on C.G. and it occupied volume that h
ad=0A> no other purpose.=0A>=0A> Aft
er we had corresponded a few times, he agreed=0A>
that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contacto
r.=0A> He conceded that in the grand scheme of
things,=0A> battery maintenance was not a big
adder to cost-of-=0A> ownership, his big worry w
as for loss of battery=0A> contactor that would
make the battery unavailable.=0A>=0A> I suggested
then than he add a piece of welding cable=0A>
to run from downstream side of battery contactor to=0A>
the battery box (accessible while standing on a=0A>
float). Should preflight testing before tossing=0A>
the mooring lines showed that the battery contac
tor was=0A> "iffy", he could make a manual con
nection to the=0A> battery (+) terminal with the
short jumper.=0A>=0A> He decided that was a m
uch less expensive, lighter=0A> and lower cost p
lan-C for dealing with a failed=0A> battery cont
actor. We also discussed simply carrying=0A> a s
pare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't=0A>
cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery=0A>
master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable=0A>
and a pair of pliers.=0A>=0A> T
he point to ponder is how best to accommodate or=0A>
modify a system that is a direct descendant from=0A>
systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,=0A
> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid bat
tery.=0A>=0A> It seems that the elegant design g
oal is to craft=0A> a combination of architectur
e, preventive maintenance\=0A> and operating procedu
res that accommodates low risk failures=0A> -OR-
drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.=0A>=0A>
I believe this can be achieved without adding the=0A
> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a=0A>
garden-tractor-style electrical system with=0A>
concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced=0A>
by Boeing and Airbus.=0A>=0A> This requi
res a simple but thorough thought=0A> process th
at goes through the steps of considering=0A> EVE
RY part of your electrical system from crimped=0A>
terminals to alternators and batteries.=0A>=0A> H
ow can this part fail?=0A>=0A> Is failure pre-fl
ight detectable?=0A>=0A> If it fails in flight,
how will I know about=0A> it?=0A>=0A>
How would in-flight failure affect comfortable=0A>
termination of flight?=0A>=0A> What are the
lowest cost, lightest weight,=0A> simplest mitigatio
ns for the failure?=0A>=0A> Due diligence to Fai
lure Mode Effects Analysis=0A> (FMEA) offers the
short-path to the simpler,=0A> lightest weight, lo
west cost, lowest risk=0A> (elegant) design easily
understood and managed by the=0A> cognizant pil
ot.=0A>=0A> Bob . . .=0A>=0A> *=0A>=0A>
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A> .com" target="_bl
ank">www.buildersbooks.com=0A> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A
> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com=0A> ank">www.mrra
ce.com=0A> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectri
c-List=0A> tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>=0A> *=0A>=0A
> *=0A>=0A>=0A> *=0A=0A=0A________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 12:49:37 PM PST U
S=0AFrom: Jeff Luckey <jluckey@pacbell.net>=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectri
c-List: Copper bus bar=0A=0AHave you considered this: =0Ahttp://ww
w.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/bussbars.php?clickkey=4696=0A=0A=0AOn T
hursday, November 27, 2014 11:45 AM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000@m
indspring.com>=0Awrote:=0A=0A=0A=0ANot sure if it was the best opt
ion, but I cut the bus bars from copper pipe =0Apurchased=0A
at Home Depot. =0A=0AJustin=0A=0A=0A> On Nov 27, 2014, at 9
:39 AM, John Tipton <jmtipton@btopenworld.com> wrote:=0A> =0A> =0A
> Hi Guys=0A> =0A> I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade
) copper bar, is this what one can use=0Afor a circuit bre
aker bus bar=0A> =0A> Regards=0A> =0A> John=0A> =0A> Sent from
my iPad=0A> =0A> ----x--O--x----=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A>
=0A=0A=0A________________________________ Message 10 _______________
_____________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 01:06:19 PM PST US=0ASubject: Re:
AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator=0AFrom: Justin Jones <jmjo
nes2000@mindspring.com>=0A=0A=0AI also fly in Alaska. I agree t
hat a battery failure isnt as likely as a =0Astarter=0Afailure
, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an accept
able risk=0Amitigation step for him, then he is justified havi
ng the extra battery. I will=0Ahave two alternators. One ge
ar driven and one belt driven. I will also carry=0Aa batt
ery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of
charging it=0Awhen I plan on spending any time in the bush.
I understand the added weight of=0Athe pack, however after
using it just a single time, it will have been worth=0Ait.
If my starter does die and the battery still has at lea
st 6 volts (EFII=0Asystem minimum), the ignition and injection
systems will still operate, making=0Ahand propping much easier t
han a healthy magneto. I will still need enough =0Avoltage=0At
o excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pa
ss of the flywheel=0Amagnets past the crank trigger should sta
rt the engine.=0A=0AI disagree with the statement that electroni
c ignition adds risk. There are =0Amany=0Areasons. =0A=0A1st
reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has
been in =0Aoperation.=0A Nearly every vehicle manufactured since
the mid 70s has electronic ignition,=0Ameaning there are MANY
MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition=0Aunits than
magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need v
ery little=0Amaintenance. =0A=0A2nd reason is there are solid
state units that require no moving parts (crank =0Atrigger=0Asys
tems). It is true that there are different electric systems
out there,=0Ahowever they all run on the same principal.
There are also redundant systems=0Aavailable that can keep the
engine running in the extremely unlikely event=0Athat one fails.
Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with
it.=0A=0A3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk
is the complexity and =0Aunreliability=0Aof magnetos. They have
moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on them=0Abecause
they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, e
xpensive,=0Aand do not provide the same amount of energy that
an electronic ignition does.=0AI have personally had 3 magneto
failures. Thankfully both have never quit=0Aon me at once.
A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last we
ek.=0A=0A4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that
electronic ignition =0Arequires=0Ais very reliable. The Z-diagram
s that Bob has authored have the capability=0Ato mitigate most
risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally cho
sen=0Ato go with a dual alternator system. I will carry s
mall light solar panels=0Athat can recharge a battery in a m
atter of days.=0A=0AThere is a good compromise out there. L
ook at the G3i ignition system. It adds=0Aan MSD electronic
ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
=0Athat you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD bo
x fails or if the battery=0Adies, the magnetos will still ac
t like magnetos.=0A=0AThe thing to keep in mind regardless of
how many batteries that you have on the=0Aaircraft is watching
your battery health. If your battery or batteries show any=0A
sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batterie
s seldom fail =0Aovernight.=0ASome people even replace them ever
y annual. =0A=0AI feel that a properly installed and maintaine
d redundant electronic ignition =0Asystem=0Awill actually REDUCE t
he risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.=0A=0ARespectfully,=0A
=0AJustin=0A=0A=0A> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMull
en <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:=0A> =0A> =0A> Well, having flown
for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure a
s=0Aa higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ign
ition to a plane in=0Athat environment IMHO adds risk over a
dead simple pair of magnetos. Most of=0Atime there is a m
eans to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needin
g=0Aelectrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engi
ne creates more =0Apotential=0Arisk.=0A> =0A> On 11/27/2014 12:32
PM, Ken Ryan wrote:=0A>> =0A>> An argument can be made both
for and against the second battery. I have =0Aconsidered=0Aboth
and determined that in my case the extra battery is justifie
d. Your=0Apoints are nevertheless well taken.=0A>> =0A>> On Nov
27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com =0A<mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:=0A>> =0A>>
At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:=0A>>> Being i
n Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The=0A>>>
engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to
trigger=0A>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates
the risk of the engine=0A>>> not starting 150 miles
from the nearest civilization.=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> Okay,
how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome=0A>>
presented itself . . . and what was root cause for t
he=0A>> failure?=0A>> =0A>> A battery ca
n and should be the single most reliable=0A>> sou
rce of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of=0A>>
course, that you give it the same level of attention=0A>
> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oi
l, tires,=0A>> continuity of flight controls, fuel
filters and sumps,=0A>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
=0A>> =0A>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglecte
d step-child=0A>> of flight systems. The predominant
public perception=0A>> of battery consumerism is to
run it until it wont=0A>> crank the engine any
more . . . Walmart sells=0A>> a gizillion batt
eries every year that are replaced=0A>> in response
to that same symptom.=0A>> =0A>> Some years ago
I corresponded with a Cessna 206=0A>> floatplane ow
ner in S. America who was wanting to add a=0A>>
second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume=0A>>
to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We=0A>
> finally decided that inside one of the floats
was=0A>> the best location. The battery could be
positioned=0A>> right on C.G. and it occupied volum
e that had=0A>> no other purpose.=0A>> =0A>>
After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed=0A>>
that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery
contactor.=0A>> He conceded that in the grand schem
e of things,=0A>> battery maintenance was not a b
ig adder to cost-of-=0A>> ownership, his big worry
was for loss of battery=0A>> contactor that would
make the battery unavailable.=0A>> =0A>> I suggested
then than he add a piece of welding cable=0A>>
to run from downstream side of battery contactor to=0A>>
the battery box (accessible while standing on a=0A>>
float). Should preflight testing before tossing=0A>>
the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor
was=0A>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection
to the=0A>> battery (+) terminal with the short j
umper.=0A>> =0A>> He decided that was a much less
expensive, lighter=0A>> and lower cost plan-C for
dealing with a failed=0A>> battery contactor. We al
so discussed simply carrying=0A>> a spare contactor
and tools . . . but that didn't=0A>> cover the
potential loss of wiring and/or battery=0A>> master
switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable=0A>> and
a pair of pliers.=0A>> =0A>> The point to ponder
is how best to accommodate or=0A>> modify a syste
m that is a direct descendant from=0A>> systems c
ommon to garden tractors: PM alternator,=0A>> simple
rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.=0A>> =0A>>
It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft=0A>>
a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\=0A>
> and operating procedures that accommodates low ri
sk failures=0A>> -OR- drives specific failure rates
down to insignificance.=0A>> =0A>> I believe this c
an be achieved without adding the=0A>> weight, cost
or complexity of burdening a=0A>> garden-tractor-sty
le electrical system with=0A>> concepts holy-watered
by the FAA and embraced=0A>> by Boeing and Airbus
.=0A>> =0A>> This requires a simple but thorough
thought=0A>> process that goes through the steps of
considering=0A>> EVERY part of your electrical sys
tem from crimped=0A>> terminals to alternators and
batteries.=0A>> =0A>> How can this part fail?=0A>>
=0A>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?=0A>> =0A>>
If it fails in flight, how will I know about=0A>>
it?=0A>> =0A>> How would in-flight failu
re affect comfortable=0A>> termination of flight?=0A>>
=0A>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,=0A
>> simplest mitigations for the failure?=0A>> =0A>>
Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis=0A>>
(FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,=0A>>
lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk=0A>>
(elegant) design easily understood and managed by the=0A>>
cognizant pilot.=0A>> =0A>> Bob . . .=0A
>> =0A>> *=0A>> =0A>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>> =
"_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com=0A
>> ank">www.mrrace.com=0A>> _blank">http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution=0A>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0A>> tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>> =0A
>> *=0A>> =0A>> *=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> *=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A
> =0A> =0A=0A=0A________________________________ Message 11 ____
________________________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 01:16:24 PM PST US=0AFrom
: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-Lis
t: alternator / generator=0A=0A=0AWell, I had two electronic ign
itions stone cold fail in Alaska. One at =0A40 below. The
other in summer, but just as inconvenient. You don't hear =0A
about the failures much because they just pull over to roads
ide and call =0Aa tow truck. Typically when they fail it i
s a hard failure, not just =0Arough running like a mag on
its way out. I may install electronic in =0Aplace of one m
ag, but definitely not two.=0A=0AOn 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin
Jones wrote:=0A>=0A> I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a
battery failure isnt as likely as a =0Astarter=0Afailure, but
if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable
risk=0Amitigation step for him, then he is justified having th
e extra battery. I will=0Ahave two alternators. One gear dr
iven and one belt driven. I will also carry=0Aa battery j
ump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charg
ing it=0Awhen I plan on spending any time in the bush.
I understand the added weight=0Aof the pack, however after usi
ng it just a single time, it will have been worth=0Ait.
If my starter does die and the battery still has at least
6 volts (EFII=0Asystem minimum), the ignition and injection syst
ems will still operate, making=0Ahand propping much easier than
a healthy magneto. I will still need enough=0Avoltage to excit
e the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of
the=0Aflywheel magnets past the crank trigger should start the
engine.=0A>=0A> I disagree with the statement that electronic ig
nition adds risk. There are=0Amany reasons.=0A>=0A> 1st reason
is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in
=0Aoperation.=0A Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid
70s has electronic ignition,=0Ameaning there are MANY MANY more
hours of operation on electronic ignition=0Aunits than magnetos.
They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little=0A
maintenance.=0A>=0A> 2nd reason is there are solid state units
that require no moving parts (crank=0Atrigger systems). It is
true that there are different electric systems out =0Athere,=0A
however they all run on the same principal. There are als
o redundant systems=0Aavailable that can keep the engine running
in the extremely unlikely event=0Athat one fails. Choose t
he one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.=0A>=0A>
3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the c
omplexity and =0Aunreliability=0Aof magnetos. They have moving
parts that wear. They have TBOs on=0Athem because they are
known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,=0Aa
nd do not provide the same amount of energy that an electr
onic ignition does.=0AI have personally had 3 magneto failures.
Thankfully both have never quit=0Aon me at once. A good
friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.=0A>=0A>
4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electro
nic ignition =0Arequires=0Ais very reliable. The Z-diagrams tha
t Bob has authored have the capability=0Ato mitigate most risk
involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen=0At
o go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small
light solar panels=0Athat can recharge a battery in a matter
of days.=0A>=0A> There is a good compromise out there. Look
at the G3i ignition system. It =0Aadds=0Aan MSD electronic
ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
=0Athat you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD bo
x fails or if the battery=0Adies, the magnetos will still ac
t like magnetos.=0A>=0A> The thing to keep in mind regardless
of how many batteries that you have on =0Athe=0Aaircraft is
watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries sho
w=0Aany sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it.
Batteries seldom fail =0Aovernight.=0ASome people even replace the
m every annual.=0A>=0A> I feel that a properly installed and
maintained redundant electronic ignition=0Asystem will actually REDU
CE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.=0A>=0A> Res
pectfully,=0A>=0A> Justin=0A>=0A>=0A>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10
AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:=0A>>=0A>>=0A=0A>> Well
, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter
motor failure=0Aas a higher risk than battery failure. Adding
electronic ignition to a plane=0Ain that environment IMHO add
s risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most of=0Atime
there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents
itself. Needing=0Aelectrons to fire the ignition as well as cr
ank the engine creates more =0Apotential=0Arisk.=0A>>=0A>> On 11/2
7/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:=0A>>> An argument can be ma
de both for and against the second battery. I have =0Aconsid
ered=0Aboth and determined that in my case the extra battery
is justified. Your=0Apoints are nevertheless well taken.=0A>>>=0A>>>
On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuck
olls.bob@aeroelectric.com =0A<mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:=0A
>>>=0A>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:=0A>>>>
Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport.
The=0A>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the o
nly option is to trigger=0A>>>> search and rescue. T
wo batteries mitigates the risk of the engine=0A>>>>
not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.=0A>>>=0A>>>
Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' sy
ndrome=0A>>> presented itself . . . and what w
as root cause for the=0A>>> failure?=0A>>>=0A>>>
A battery can and should be the single most rel
iable=0A>>> source of energy on your airplane. T
his presumes, of=0A>>> course, that you give it
the same level of attention=0A>>> to airworthiness
that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,=0A>>>
continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,=0A>>>
prop blade nicks, etc. etc.=0A>>>=0A>>>
Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child=0A>>>
of flight systems. The predominant public perception=0A>
>> of battery consumerism is to run it until
it wont=0A>>> crank the engine any more . .
. Walmart sells=0A>>> a gizillion batteries eve
ry year that are replaced=0A>>> in response to
that same symptom.=0A>>>=0A>>> Some years ago I
corresponded with a Cessna 206=0A>>> floatplane ow
ner in S. America who was wanting to add a=0A>>>
second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume=0A>>
> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails.
We=0A>>> finally decided that inside one of the
floats was=0A>>> the best location. The battery
could be positioned=0A>>> right on C.G. and it
occupied volume that had=0A>>> no other purpose.=0A
>>>=0A>>> After we had corresponded a few times,
he agreed=0A>>> that his REAL worry was for
loss of a battery contactor.=0A>>> He conceded t
hat in the grand scheme of things,=0A>>> battery
maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-=0A>>>
ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery=0A>>>
contactor that would make the battery unavailable.=0A
>>>=0A>>> I suggested then than he add a piece
of welding cable=0A>>> to run from downstream
side of battery contactor to=0A>>> the battery b
ox (accessible while standing on a=0A>>> float).
Should preflight testing before tossing=0A>>> the
mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was=0A>>>
"iffy", he could make a manual connection to the=0A>
>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.=0A
>>>=0A>>> He decided that was a much less expe
nsive, lighter=0A>>> and lower cost plan-C for d
ealing with a failed=0A>>> battery contactor. We
also discussed simply carrying=0A>>> a spare conta
ctor and tools . . . but that didn't=0A>>> c
over the potential loss of wiring and/or battery=0A>>>
master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable=0A>>>
and a pair of pliers.=0A>>>=0A>>> The
point to ponder is how best to accommodate or=0A>>>
modify a system that is a direct descendant from=0A>>>
systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,=0A
>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid b
attery.=0A>>>=0A>>> It seems that the elegant desi
gn goal is to craft=0A>>> a combination of arc
hitecture, preventive maintenance\=0A>>> and operating
procedures that accommodates low risk failures=0A>>>
-OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.=0A
>>>=0A>>> I believe this can be achieved without
adding the=0A>>> weight, cost or complexity of
burdening a=0A>>> garden-tractor-style electrical syst
em with=0A>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA a
nd embraced=0A>>> by Boeing and Airbus.=0A>>>=0A>>>
This requires a simple but thorough thought=0A>>>
process that goes through the steps of consideri
ng=0A>>> EVERY part of your electrical system fr
om crimped=0A>>> terminals to alternators and batt
eries.=0A>>>=0A>>> How can this part fail?=0A>>>=0A>
>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?=0A>>>=0A>>>
If it fails in flight, how will I know about=0A
>>> it?=0A>>>=0A>>> How would in-fli
ght failure affect comfortable=0A>>> termination of
flight?=0A>>>=0A>>> What are the lowest cost, ligh
test weight,=0A>>> simplest mitigations for the fa
ilure?=0A>>>=0A>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode E
ffects Analysis=0A>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path
to the simpler,=0A>>> lightest weight, lowest cost
, lowest risk=0A>>> (elegant) design easily unders
tood and managed by the=0A>>> cognizant pilot.=0A>
>>=0A>>> Bob . . .=0A>>>=0A>>> *=0A>>>=0A
>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>>> .com" targe
t="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilt
help.com=0A>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com=0A>>>
ank">www.mrrace.com=0A>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contrib
ution=0A>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?AeroElectric-List=0A>>> tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>>>=0A>>
> *=0A>>>=0A>>> *=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>> *=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>=0A
>=0A=0A=0A________________________________ Message 12 ______________
______________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 01:39:13 PM PST US=0ASubject: Re:
AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator=0AFrom: Justin Jones <j
mjones2000@mindspring.com>=0A=0A=0ANothing that we do in aviation, e
xperimental aviation especially, is without =0Arisk.=0AIt is merel
y a game of acceptable risk. For me, having 2 independent
and=0Acompletely redundant electronic ignition units provides an
acceptable level of=0Arisk. This is because there isnt a si
ngle point of failure in the system. =0AI feel that the be
nefit of having both electronic units is the added performance
=0Aof an adaptable timing curve and a much hotter spark.
Others, such as yourself,=0Afeel comfortable with one electronic
unit and one magneto. Both are correct=0Abecause the system
meets the designers acceptable amount of risk and both=0Afor d
ifferent reasons. =0A=0ACheers=0A=0AJustin=0A=0A=0A> On Nov 27, 2
014, at 12:15 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:=0A>
=0A> =0A> Well, I had two electronic ignitions stone cold fa
il in Alaska. One at 40 =0Abelow.=0AThe other in summer, but
just as inconvenient. You don't hear about the failures=0Amuc
h because they just pull over to roadside and call a tow
truck. Typically=0Awhen they fail it is a hard failure, not
just rough running like a mag on=0Aits way out. I may inst
all electronic in place of one mag, but definitely not=0Atwo.=0A
> =0A> On 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin Jones wrote:=0A>> =0A>>
I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure is
nt as likely as a =0Astarter=0Afailure, but if having two ba
tteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk=0Amitigation step
for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I
=0Awill have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt d
riven. I will also =0Acarry=0Aa battery jump starter pack a
nd a solar cell that is capable of charging=0Ait when I pl
an on spending any time in the bush. I understand the a
dded weight=0Aof the pack, however after using it just a sin
gle time, it will have been worth=0Ait. If my starter doe
s die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII=0As
ystem minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still
operate, making=0Ahand propping much easier than a healthy magne
to. I will still need enough=0Avoltage to excite the alternato
r for continued 12v operation. One pass of the=0Aflywheel m
agnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.=0A>> =0A
>> I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds
risk. There are=0Amany reasons.=0A>> =0A>> 1st reason is t
he massive amount of time electric ignition has been in =0Ao
peration.=0A Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s
has electronic ignition,=0Ameaning there are MANY MANY more h
ours of operation on electronic ignition=0Aunits than magnetos.
They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little=0A
maintenance.=0A>> =0A>> 2nd reason is there are solid state un
its that require no moving parts (crank=0Atrigger systems). I
t is true that there are different electric systems out=0Ather
e, however they all run on the same principal. There are
also redundant =0Asystems=0Aavailable that can keep the engine r
unning in the extremely unlikely event=0Athat one fails. Choo
se the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.=0A>
> =0A>> 3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk
is the complexity and =0Aunreliability=0Aof magnetos. They have
moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on=0Athem because
they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, e
xpensive,=0Aand do not provide the same amount of energy that
an electronic ignition does.=0AI have personally had 3 magneto
failures. Thankfully both have never quit=0Aon me at once.
A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last we
ek.=0A>> =0A>> 4th reason is the correct 12v system architectu
re that electronic ignition =0Arequires=0Ais very reliable. The
Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability=0Ato mit
igate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have pers
onally chosen=0Ato go with a dual alternator system. I will
carry small light solar panels=0Athat can recharge a battery
in a matter of days.=0A>> =0A>> There is a good compromise
out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It=0Aadds an
MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto
(if you feel=0Athat you MUST have the unreliable mags).
If the MSD box fails or if the battery=0Adies, the magnetos
will still act like magnetos.=0A>> =0A>> The thing to keep i
n mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on=0At
he aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery
or batteries show=0Aany sign of ill health, replace them. D
ont push it. Batteries seldom fail=0Aovernight. Some people
even replace them every annual.=0A>> =0A>> I feel that a pro
perly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition=0Asyste
m will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto syst
ems offer.=0A>> =0A>> Respectfully,=0A>> =0A>> Justin=0A>> =0A>> =0A
>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@avi
ating.com> wrote:=0A>>> =0A>>> =0A> =0A>>> Well, having flown fo
r 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure=0Aas
a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignitio
n to a plane=0Ain that environment IMHO adds risk over a d
ead simple pair of magnetos. Most=0Aof time there is a means
to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. =0ANeeding
=0Aelectrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engin
e creates more =0Apotential=0Arisk.=0A>>> =0A>>> On 11/27/2014 12:
32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:=0A>>>> An argument can be made both
for and against the second battery. I have =0Aconsidered=0Aboth
and determined that in my case the extra battery is justifie
d. Your=0Apoints are nevertheless well taken.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> On
Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob
@aeroelectric.com =0A<mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:=0A>>>>>
Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
=0A>>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only op
tion is to trigger=0A>>>>> search and rescue. Two batte
ries mitigates the risk of the engine=0A>>>>> not start
ing 150 miles from the nearest civilization.=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome=0A
>>>> presented itself . . . and what was root
cause for the=0A>>>> failure?=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
A battery can and should be the single most reliable=0A>>>>
source of energy on your airplane. This presumes
, of=0A>>>> course, that you give it the same l
evel of attention=0A>>>> to airworthiness that is b
estowed upon fuel, oil, tires,=0A>>>> continuity of
flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,=0A>>>> prop
blade nicks, etc. etc.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> Batteries tend
to be the oft neglected step-child=0A>>>> of flight
systems. The predominant public perception=0A>>>> of
battery consumerism is to run it until it wont=0A>>>>
crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells=0A>>
>> a gizillion batteries every year that are repl
aced=0A>>>> in response to that same symptom.=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cess
na 206=0A>>>> floatplane owner in S. America who
was wanting to add a=0A>>>> second battery to his
ship. We pondered useful volume=0A>>>> to exploit
for several exchanges of e-mails. We=0A>>>> finally
decided that inside one of the floats was=0A>>>>
the best location. The battery could be positioned=0A>>>>
right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had=0A>>>>
no other purpose.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> After w
e had corresponded a few times, he agreed=0A>>>>
that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.=0A>
>>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of thi
ngs,=0A>>>> battery maintenance was not a big adder
to cost-of-=0A>>>> ownership, his big worry was
for loss of battery=0A>>>> contactor that would mak
e the battery unavailable.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> I suggested
then than he add a piece of welding cable=0A>>>>
to run from downstream side of battery contactor to=0A>>>>
the battery box (accessible while standing on a=0A>
>>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing=0A
>>>> the mooring lines showed that the battery co
ntactor was=0A>>>> "iffy", he could make a manual
connection to the=0A>>>> battery (+) terminal with
the short jumper.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> He decided that wa
s a much less expensive, lighter=0A>>>> and lower
cost plan-C for dealing with a failed=0A>>>> batter
y contactor. We also discussed simply carrying=0A>>>>
a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't=0A>>>>
cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery=0A
>>>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-ca
ble=0A>>>> and a pair of pliers.=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or=0A
>>>> modify a system that is a direct descendant
from=0A>>>> systems common to garden tractors: PM a
lternator,=0A>>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead
acid battery.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> It seems that the e
legant design goal is to craft=0A>>>> a combination
of architecture, preventive maintenance\=0A>>>> and
operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures=0A>>>>
-OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignifica
nce.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> I believe this can be achieved
without adding the=0A>>>> weight, cost or complexity
of burdening a=0A>>>> garden-tractor-style electrical s
ystem with=0A>>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA
and embraced=0A>>>> by Boeing and Airbus.=0A>>>> =0A>
>>> This requires a simple but thorough thought=0A>
>>> process that goes through the steps of consid
ering=0A>>>> EVERY part of your electrical system f
rom crimped=0A>>>> terminals to alternators and batte
ries.=0A>>>> =0A>>>> How can this part fail?=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?=0A>>>> =0A>>>
> If it fails in flight, how will I know abou
t=0A>>>> it?=0A>>>> =0A>>>> How would in
-flight failure affect comfortable=0A>>>> termination o
f flight?=0A>>>> =0A>>>> What are the lowest cost,
lightest weight,=0A>>>> simplest mitigations for the
failure?=0A>>>> =0A>>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode
Effects Analysis=0A>>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path
to the simpler,=0A>>>> lightest weight, lowest cos
t, lowest risk=0A>>>> (elegant) design easily underst
ood and managed by the=0A>>>> cognizant pilot.=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> Bob . . .=0A>>>> =0A>>>> *=0A>>>>
=0A>>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>>>> .com" tar
get="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilt
help.com=0A>>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com=0A>>>> an
k">www.mrrace.com=0A>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n=0A>>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?
AeroElectric-List=0A>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
*=0A>>>> =0A>>>> *=0A>>>> =0A>>>> =0A>>>> *=0A>>> =0A>>>
=0A>>> =0A>>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A
> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A________________________________ Message
13 ____________________________________=0A=0A=0ATime: 09:50:55 PM PST
US=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator=0AFrom:
Bob Verwey <bob.verwey@gmail.com>=0A=0A=0AThanks for a very inter
esting thread, guys!=0A=0AJustin, I tend to agree with you on
the reliability of the electronic systems.=0AWhere I think the
problem comes in, is the inconsistency of the=0Ainstall, and t
he integration into the existing system.=0A=0ABest...=0A=0ABob Verwe
===========================
===========================
===========================
===========================
===========================
===========================
===========================
=====0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A
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 |
|
For any question or problem there are a number of ways to skin the cat,
including it may not be a problem at all.
To object to folks questioning whether he needs to do what he wants is
just as valid a discussion and learning point as assuming he has
correctly parsed his situation, already knows the best solution and just
needs to know how to implement it.
If the best solution was so obvious, he would also know how to
implement. When you start incorporating the latest of everything, like
lithium batteries, electronic ignition, etc. you are on what is called
the bleeding edge for a reason.
Others like Bob and some of the rest of us have been around GA planes
for 30-40 years or more, worked our way through risk mitigation in a lot
of different environments and know what last century products work, and
what doesn't.
Some of us just don't agree on the reliability of various items. I for
one have personal experience with dual electronic mag failure which
pushes me towards having one conventional mag, but others see that
differently, even though there are some of the same differences between
auto alternators and auto ignition that change their reliability when
used in aircraft.
On 11/28/2014 6:11 PM, speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> For Christ's sake, Does anyone have an answer to his question?
> For his own reasons, Justin wants two lightweight, lithium batteries
> on his aircraft.
> His question was not give me your advice on that decision - his
> question was can you help me with how to incorporate Paisley's Bus
> Manager and two lithium batteries into the Rotax wiring system?
> He also didn't ask for advice on whether a lithium battery is the best
> choice given the price vs risk mitigation so I doubt he is interested
> in a sermon on that subject.
> Is there anyone on the list who can provide Justin with information on
> how to accomplish what HE wants to do?
> Stan Sutterfield
> Port Orange, FL
> Do Not Archive
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 . . .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> To: AeroElectric-List Digest List <aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
> Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 3:06 am
> Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 11/27/14
>
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 14-11-27&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 14-11-27&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>
> 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
> ><http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf>h <http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf%3Eh>
> 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" <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com <mailto:rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:00:27 AM PST US
> From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com <mailto:keninalaska@gmail.com>>
> 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>>
> ==========
> ==========
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:40:32 AM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Copper bus bar
> From: John Tipton <jmtipton@btopenworld.com <mailto:jmtipton@btopenworld.com>>
>
>
> 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" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>
> 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 <jmjones2000@mindspring.com <mailto:jmjones2000@mindspring.com>>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:32:53 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator
> From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com <mailto:keninalaska@gmail.com>>
>
> 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 . . .
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:11:47 PM PST US
> From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
> 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"
> > <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> <mailto: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 <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
> > .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
> > ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
> > ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com>
> > ank">www.mrrace.com <http://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 <jluckey@pacbell.net <mailto:jluckey@pacbell.net>>
> 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 <jmjones2000@mindspring.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:06:19 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator / generator
> From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com <mailto:jmjones2000@mindspring.com>>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
> >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
> >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
> >> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com>
> >> ank">www.mrrace.com <http://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 <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
> 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 <kellym@aviating.com <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
> >>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
> >>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
> >>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com>
> >>> ank">www.mrrace.com <http://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 <jmjones2000@mindspring.com <mailto:jmjones2000@mindspring.com>>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
> >>>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
> >>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
> >>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com>
> >>>> ank">www.mrrace.com <http://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 <bob.verwey@gmail.com <mailto:bob.verwey@gmail.com>>
>
>
> 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.
>
> =========================== -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
> eroElectricwww.href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.comhttp://w -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> ===========================roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec===========================; <http://www.aeroelectric.com>http://forums.==========================================
>
>
>
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com>
> <http://forums.matronics.com>
> <http://forums.matronics.com>
> <http://forums.matronics.com><http://forums.matronics.com>
> *
>
>
> *
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! --
|