---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 01/14/15: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 2. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Jeff Luckey) 3. 01:23 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 01:56 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Peter Pengilly) 5. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Jeff Luckey) 6. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Jeff Luckey) 7. 02:28 PM - Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (user9253) 8. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 03:47 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Ken Ryan) 10. 04:31 PM - Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (user9253) 11. 05:20 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Jeff Luckey) 12. 05:55 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 06:16 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 14. 07:37 PM - Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (user9253) 15. 07:58 PM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Jeff Luckey) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:26 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER > > In any case, protecting light feeders > directly attached to a battery is a good idea. P.S. Keep in mind that there are numerous ways a failure can take down the main bus. Battery contactor failure. Failure in controls for battery contactor . . . as well as any fault that compromises the main bus feeder. This is one reason why the e-bus evolved to the present day. It's a two-feed bus that not only offers easily accessed, planed reduction in load. It also offers redundancy in source paths that negates risks for loss of main bus. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:07:10 AM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER Bob, Were you able to gain access to an ASTM subscription. I would like to get a look at the http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm document. -Jeff On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:32 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > In any case, protecting light feeders > directly attached to a battery is a good idea. P.S. Keep in mind that there are numerous ways a failure can take down the main bus. Battery contactor failure. Failure in controls for battery contactor . . . as well as any fault that compromises the main bus feeder. This is one reason why the e-bus evolved to the present day. It's a two-feed bus that not only offers easily accessed, planed reduction in load. It also offers redundancy in source paths that negates risks for loss of main bus. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 01:23:30 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER At 11:06 2015-01-14, you wrote: >Bob, > >Were you able to gain access to an ASTM >subscription. I would like to get a look at the >http://www.astm.org/Standards/F224 5.htm >document. Yeah, got a peek at the full document . . . what is said is rather well written. 33 pages doesn't cover much from a systems perspective (like part 23) but they do get into details on weights, handling qualities and performance. Here's excerpts that speak to electrical systems . . . ===== Under "Required Equipment" -------------------------------- A2.6.5 An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment specified in A2.9.2; ==================== 8.4 Miscellaneous Equipment=97Other Than EPU: ---------------------------------------------- 8.4.1 If installed, an electrical system shall include a master switch and overload protection devices (fuses or circuit breakers). 8.4.2 The electric wiring shall be sized according to the load of each circuit. 8.4.3 The battery installation shall withstand all applicable inertia loads. 8.4.4 Battery containers shall be vented outside of the airplane (see 6.5). ===================== A2.9 Electrical Requirements ----------------------------------------------- A2.9.1 Switches=97Each switch must be: A2.9.1.1 Rated by the switch manufacturer to carry its circuit=92s current; A2.9.1.2 For circuits containing incandescent lamps, have a minimum in-rush rating of 15 times the lamp=92s continuous current; A2.9.1.3 Constructed with enough distance or insulating material between current carrying parts and the housing so that vibration in flight will not cause shorting; A2.9.1.4 Accessible to the pilot; A2.9.1.5 Labeled as to operation and the circuit controlled; and A2.9.1.6 Illuminated in accordance with A2.7.1. A2.9.2 Circuit Protection Requirements=97Circuit overload protection (fuses or circuit breakers) must: A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring, equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum output of the battery and alternator or generator; A2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component installed on the protected circuit; A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot; A2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; and A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used. A2.9.3 Electrical Energy Requirements=97The total continuous electrical load may not exceed 80 % of the total rated generator or alternator output capacity. A2.9.4 Conductor Requirements=97Any wire or other material intended to conduct electricity must be: A2.9.4.1 Rated to carry its circuits current; A2.9.4.2 For wiring rated to 150=B0C, 600 V minimum; A2.9.4.3 Constructed with enough distance or insulating material between current carrying conductors so that vibration in flight will not cause shorting; and A2.9.4.4 Where used, insulating material must have, at a minimum, the equivalent or better properties of either PTFE -polytetrafluoroethylene (commonly known by the trade name, TEFLON) or ETFE-(Frequently referred to by the trade name, TEFZEL) a copolymer of PTFE and of polyethylene including: (1) Temperature, (2) Abrasion resistance, (3) Cut-through resistance, (4) Chemical resistance, (5) Flammability, (6) Smoke generation, (7) Flexibility, (8) Creep (at temperature), and (9) Arc propagation resistance. =========== All pretty much common sense stuff . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 01:56:29 PM PST US From: Peter Pengilly Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER Does the para below mean that VPX type equipment is not permitted? Peter On 14/01/2015 21:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 02:06:33 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER Bob,=0A=0AThanks for that. A poster on VansAirforce remarked that putting an overload protection device in the feeder to the distribution panel (the wire in question) was specifically prohibited in the ASTM 2245. (which I fi nd hard to believe.)=0A=0ADid you see any language to that effect?=0A=0ATha nk,=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Wednesday, January 14, 2015 1:33 PM, "Robert L . Nuckolls, III" wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0AAt 11:0 6 2015-01-14, you wrote:=0A=0ABob,=0A>=0A>Were you able to gain access to a n ASTM subscription. I would like=0Ato get a look at the http://www.astm.o rg/Standards/F2245.htm document.=0A Yeah, got a peek at the full document . . . what=0A is said is rather well written. 33 pages doesn't=0A cover m uch from a systems perspective (like part 23)=0A but they do get into deta ils on weights, handling=0A qualities and performance. Here's excerpts tha t=0A speak to electrical systems . . . =0A=0A=======0AUnder " Required Equipment"=0A--------------------------------=0AA2.6.5 An adequate source of electrical energy for all=0Ainstalled electrical and radio equip ment specified in A2.9.2;=0A=0A=0A=0A============ ==========0A8.4 Miscellaneous Equipment=94Other Tha n EPU:=0A----------------------------------------------=0A8.4.1 If installe d, an electrical system shall include a master=0Aswitch and overload protec tion devices (fuses or circuit=0Abreakers).=0A=0A8.4.2 The electric wiring shall be sized according to the load=0Aof each circuit.=0A=0A8.4.3 The batt ery installation shall withstand all applicable=0Ainertia loads.=0A=0A8.4.4 Battery containers shall be vented outside of the=0Aairplane (see 6.5).=0A =0A=======================0AA2. 9 Electrical Requirements=0A----------------------------------------------- =0AA2.9.1 Switches=94Each switch must be:=0A=0AA2.9.1.1 Rated by the switch manufacturer to carry its=0Acircuit=99s current;=0A=0AA2.9.1.2 For circuits containing incandescent lamps, have a=0Aminimum in-rush ratin g of 15 times the lamp=99s continuous=0Acurrent;=0A=0AA2.9.1.3 Constr ucted with enough distance or insulating=0Amaterial between current carryin g parts and the housing so that=0Avibration in flight will not cause shorti ng;=0A=0AA2.9.1.4 Accessible to the pilot;=0A=0AA2.9.1.5 Labeled as to oper ation and the circuit controlled;=0Aand=0A=0AA2.9.1.6 Illuminated in accord ance with A2.7.1.=0A=0AA2.9.2 Circuit Protection Requirements=94Circu it overload=0Aprotection (fuses or circuit breakers) must:=0A=0AA2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring,=0Aequipment, or other compone nts rated for less than the maximum=0Aoutput of the battery and alternator or generator;=0A=0AA2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component insta lled=0Aon the protected circuit;=0A=0AA2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clea r view of the pilot;=0A=0AA2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; a nd=0A=0AA2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.=0A=0AA2 .9.3 Electrical Energy Requirements=94The total continuous=0Aelectric al load may not exceed 80 % of the total rated=0Agenerator or alternator ou tput capacity.=0A=0AA2.9.4 Conductor Requirements=94Any wire or other material=0Aintended to conduct electricity must be:=0A=0AA2.9.4.1 Rated to carry its circuits current;=0A=0AA2.9.4.2 For wiring rated to 150=C2=B0C, 600 V minimum;=0A=0AA2.9.4.3 Constructed with enough distance or insulating =0Amaterial between current carrying conductors so that vibration=0Ain flig ht will not cause shorting; and=0A=0AA2.9.4.4 Where used, insulating materi al must have, at a=0Aminimum, the equivalent or better properties of either PTFE=0A-polytetrafluoroethylene (commonly known by the trade name,=0ATEFLO N) or ETFE-(Frequently referred to by the trade name,=0ATEFZEL) a copolymer of PTFE and of polyethylene including:=0A=0A(1) Temperature,=0A=0A(2) Abra sion resistance,=0A=0A(3) Cut-through resistance,=0A=0A(4) Chemical resista nce,=0A=0A(5) Flammability,=0A=0A(6) Smoke generation,=0A=0A(7) Flexibility ,=0A=0A(8) Creep (at temperature), and=0A=0A(9) Arc propagation resistance. =0A=0A=============0A=0AAll pretty much common sens =========================0A ====== ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:17:50 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER Oops! My paraphrasing was inaccurate. Here is what the other poster said: "The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot. That means the wire highlighted in this discussion can not have a fusible link or any other circuit protection that would actually be capable of preventing a failure in the location that this one was." Bob, In reading the text you supplied, I did not see anything that supports the above statement. Is there more to the ASTM doc that supports the above? I'm simply trying to understand what the "Standards" ACTUALLY say. Therefore I'm trying to filter-out hearsay, mis-interpretation, urban legend, & wive's tales. Again, thanks, -Jeff On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:05 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: Does the para below mean that VPX type equipment is not permitted? Peter On 14/01/2015 21:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:28:42 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER From: "user9253" A2.9.2 Does not specifically mention fusible links. Are they considered fuses that must (A2.9.2.3) be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot? What if a #12 AWG main power feeder were replaced with 8 AWG except for a short section of 12 AWG enclosed in a fire sleeve? Would that meet the letter of the law? Sometimes rules and regulations prohibit using common sense. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437014#437014 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:01:21 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER At 16:05 2015-01-14, you wrote: >Bob, > >Thanks for that. A poster on VansAirforce remarked that putting an >overload protection device in the feeder to the distribution panel >(the wire in question) was specifically prohibited in the ASTM 2245. >(which I find hard to believe.) > >Did you see any language to that effect? > >Thank, > >-Jeff Nope . . . in fact, there were words that spoke specifically to: A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring, equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum output of the battery and alternator or generator; While poorly worded, I think the intent is similar to the reasoning for not protecting fat wires in legacy aircraft. Reading between the lines, it says that any wire subject to catastrophic stresses from engine driven power or battery should be protected. But the phrase "maximum output of the battery" is curious . . . most SLVA batteries of any size are good for 500-1200A in a faulted condition. Is that the battery's 'rating'? If so, then one might want to consider fusing a 4AWG cranking feeder . . . I think I like the FAR23 wording better. The wording also speaks to equipment and other components. Do the writers now expect circuit protection at the bus to look out for potential faults within a piece of equipment? And where would the system integrator find data that speaks to a fault current limit for any failure within a device? It would be interesting to know why the wording in Parts 23 and 25 were inadequate to the new order . . . But in any case, I too believe the poster was in error. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 03:47:18 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER From: Ken Ryan I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an inline fuse. So far I am simply not convinced. On Jan 14, 2015 5:33 PM, "user9253" wrote: > > A2.9.2 Does not specifically mention fusible links. Are they considered > fuses that must (A2.9.2.3) be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot? > What if a #12 AWG main power feeder were replaced with 8 AWG except for a > short section of 12 AWG enclosed in a fire sleeve? Would that meet the > letter of the law? Sometimes rules and regulations prohibit using common > sense. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437014#437014 > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 04:31:02 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER From: "user9253" > I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an inline fuse. I think that fusible links are more robust and less likely to fail than a fuse. However, there are some very robust types of fuses like the ANL. The old style automotive glass fuses were prone to fail because the fuse holders did not make a high pressure contact. Yeah, if I wanted to protect my 12 AWG main feeder from vaporizing, I would install an inline 30 amp ATC fuse. My posting about fusible links was in response to a Van's Aircraft employee who stated that fusible links in the engine compartment were prohibited by ASTM rules. But it seems those rules are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437020#437020 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:20:26 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER Ken, Regarding a fusible link - There is one reason I can think of that someone might choose a fusible like: Fusible Links are a "slow-blow" kind of animal where a standard fuse is not. If the mission requires a slow-blow device then the Fusible Link might be the right choice. Fusible Links are also cheap. But I'm with you, my preference is to use Current Limiters like ANL or Littlefuse MIDIs instead of a Fusible Link. But these fuses must be mounted on something... -Jeff On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:57 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an inline fuse. So far I am simply not convinced. On Jan 14, 2015 5:33 PM, "user9253" wrote: > >A2.9.2 Does not specifically mention fusible links. Are they considered fuses that must (A2.9.2.3) be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot? >What if a #12 AWG main power feeder were replaced with 8 AWG except for a short section of 12 AWG enclosed in a fire sleeve? Would that meet the letter of the law? Sometimes rules and regulations prohibit using common sense. >Joe > >-------- >Joe Gores > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437014#437014 > > >========== >br> fts!) >r> > com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com >w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com >" target="_blank">www.mrrace.com >target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >========== >- >Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >========== >FORUMS - >_blank">http://forums.matronics.com >========== > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 05:55:44 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER At 17:46 2015-01-14, you wrote: >I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an >inline fuse. So far I am simply not convinced. >On Jan 14, 2015 5:33 PM, "user9253" ><fransew@gmail.com> wrote: If a FUSE . . . meaning NOT an ANL current limiter, then pick a fuse that is 2 to 3x larger than the operational current rating for the wire. I.e. a 12AWG wire (20A) would want a 60A fuse. This is because fuses are normally applied in situations where relatively fast response is desirable . . . not so for feeder protection. ANL style devices and fusible links have very LONG time constants. No nuisance trips of these puppies. Yet, they will operate to put a box around the protection event whether inside the housing of a limiter or under the jacket of a fusible link. Mechanically, the fusible link is attractive because it generally looks like and can be treated almost like wire. Crimped joints on each end. Any other device is 'lumpy', puts more connections in the pathway and may need to be mounted to some mechanically immobile surface. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:16:32 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER At 16:17 2015-01-14, you wrote: >Oops! My paraphrasing was inaccurate. Here is what the other poster said: > >"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot. Opps . . . yeah, that makes a difference. Can't imagine why that assertion is part of the spec . . . there's no foundation in FMEA for the outcome of any given flight by fiddling with circuit protection in the air. >That means the wire highlighted in this discussion can not have a >fusible link or any other circuit protection that would actually be >capable of preventing a failure in the location that this one was." My argument would be that the fusible link or ANL at the battery contactor is not unlike similar devices scattered about the airplane on King Airs and their hot-air cousins . . . and those cannot be reached by pilots either. Lots of breakers on those airplanes can't be reached either. These are not systems fuses, they're a hedge against catastrophic events that either (1) put every device on that feeder at risk of going dark or (2) the whole damned airplane at risk of going down very brightly. I'd let the enforcer of requirements choose . . . >Bob, In reading the text you supplied, I did not see anything that >supports the above statement. Is there more to the ASTM doc that >supports the above? > >I'm simply trying to understand what the "Standards" ACTUALLY say. >Therefore I'm trying to filter-out hearsay, mis-interpretation, >urban legend, & wive's tales. Understand . . . I think I expressed some misgivings about the relative goodness of this new 'spec'. Gee, only 33 pages long, a few years old . . . bet the guys sitting around the table on this one never did an FMEA or turned wrenches on airplanes. Consider AC43-13 . . . DECADES old and sifted by dozens of high-powered spec writers over the years. However, when offered to EAA for 'friendly critical review' release of a major revision was delayed another 18 months and it was STILL full of holes. Color this ol' dog skeptical as an outcome of having watched decades of this stuff run under the bridge. If it were my airplane, there would be a fusible link at the battery contactor . . . hidden under the sleeving. Nobody but me needs to know its there. What does Van's factory wiring dictate? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:07 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER From: "user9253" > What does Van's factory wiring dictate? All RV-12s, that are intended to be registered as E-LSA, MUST be built exactly according to plans using every part supplied by Van's Aircraft. No modifications or substitutions are allowed. Van's advertises that every part needed to build the plane is included in the kit except fluids. That is pretty much true with few exceptions. The wires are supplied already cut to length and terminated. It is plug and play, kind of like assembling a desk top computer. Some builders have wired their RV-12s in a few days, possibly one weekend. The kit does not come with any protection for the #12 AWG main power feeder. The good news is that after receiving the airworthiness certificate and competing the flight test phase, modifications to E-LSA aircraft ARE allowed. However, factory-built S-LSA aircraft can not be modified without written permission from the factory. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437025#437025 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:24 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER Bob, I think there's been a slight mis-communication: ok, here we go, follow me down into the weeds... "The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot." That quote is someone's interpretation of the ASTM Standard - NOT an actual quote from the Standard. I was looking for wording in the ASTM document that supported that claim and after reading the excerpt you provided, I think we both concluded that the above statement is not supported by the words in the Standard. This is the kind of detail that can be difficult to express in prose without getting wordy (and boring). If we were sitting at the same table, we'd have it cleared up in less than a minute. -Jeff On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:13 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: At 16:17 2015-01-14, you wrote: >Oops! My paraphrasing was inaccurate. Here is what the other poster said: > >"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot. Opps . . . yeah, that makes a difference. Can't imagine why that assertion is part of the spec . . . there's no foundation in FMEA for the outcome of any given flight by fiddling with circuit protection in the air. >That means the wire highlighted in this discussion can not have a >fusible link or any other circuit protection that would actually be >capable of preventing a failure in the location that this one was." My argument would be that the fusible link or ANL at the battery contactor is not unlike similar devices scattered about the airplane on King Airs and their hot-air cousins . . . and those cannot be reached by pilots either. Lots of breakers on those airplanes can't be reached either. These are not systems fuses, they're a hedge against catastrophic events that either (1) put every device on that feeder at risk of going dark or (2) the whole damned airplane at risk of going down very brightly. I'd let the enforcer of requirements choose . . . >Bob, In reading the text you supplied, I did not see anything that >supports the above statement. Is there more to the ASTM doc that >supports the above? > >I'm simply trying to understand what the "Standards" ACTUALLY say. >Therefore I'm trying to filter-out hearsay, mis-interpretation, >urban legend, & wive's tales. Understand . . . I think I expressed some misgivings about the relative goodness of this new 'spec'. Gee, only 33 pages long, a few years old . . . bet the guys sitting around the table on this one never did an FMEA or turned wrenches on airplanes. Consider AC43-13 . . . DECADES old and sifted by dozens of high-powered spec writers over the years. However, when offered to EAA for 'friendly critical review' release of a major revision was delayed another 18 months and it was STILL full of holes. Color this ol' dog skeptical as an outcome of having watched decades of this stuff run under the bridge. If it were my airplane, there would be a fusible link at the battery contactor . . . hidden under the sleeving. Nobody but me needs to know its there. What does Van's factory wiring dictate? Bob . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.