Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:29 AM - Thermocouple Questions... (Phillip Perry)
2. 07:02 AM - Re: electrical system planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:06 AM - Re: Thermocouple Questions... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:16 AM - Re: Thermocouple Questions... (Ralph E. Capen)
5. 07:30 AM - Antenna Question (Kent Ogden)
6. 07:33 AM - Re: Antenna Question (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
7. 07:40 AM - Re: Thermocouple Questions... (user9253)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: Antenna Question (Tcwtech)
9. 08:03 AM - Re: Thermocouple Questions... (Jared Yates)
10. 08:29 AM - Re: electrical system master contactor (Bill Allen)
11. 09:04 AM - Re: Antenna Question (Kelly McMullen)
12. 09:08 AM - Re: Thermocouple Questions... (Ralph E. Capen)
13. 09:27 AM - Re: electrical system master contactor (Justin Jones)
14. 10:07 AM - Re: Antenna Question (Peter Pengilly)
15. 10:15 AM - Re: Anything 'unique' about incorporating EarthX? (blues750)
16. 11:00 AM - Re: electrical system planning (Ryan Brown)
17. 11:20 AM - Re: electrical system master contactor (Bill Allen)
18. 02:40 PM - Re: electrical system planning (Jump4way)
19. 04:07 PM - Re: electrical system master contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:46 PM - Re: Re: electrical system planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:54 PM - Re: Re: Anything 'unique' about incorporating EarthX? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 08:02 PM - Re: electrical system master contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 08:56 PM - Re: Re: electrical system planning (Justin Jones)
24. 10:37 PM - Re: electrical system master contactor (Bob Verwey)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thermocouple Questions... |
Hello,
Last night I started connecting my Type-K sensors up to the airplane
instrumentation. Trimming the single conductor leads from the
instrumentation to match the length of the leads on the thermocouple.
Then in the process of crimping a wire I managed to cut one of the leads
when it got pinched unknowingly in the backside of the crimpers. Ooops....
So my problem now is that my wires between my instrumentation and the the
connections on my thermocouple are too short. Thus I need to extend them.
The thermocouples I'm installing now are EGT and CHT sensors from Alcor.
(With a ring connectors).
Questions:
1) The sensors have ring connectors already installed. I don't have the
other ring connectors (matching metal) for them to join to. Where can I
buy these to crimp on or can I simply use my PIDG connectors?
2) I'm assuming that if I use the correct metal the impact to reading would
be very minor?
3) I'm also assuming that these connectors are very expensive. Yes? No?
Is there are cheaper way to join them?
4) Finally, I've managed to lose a couple of the fiberglass sleeves. Where
can I buy those and is there a reason I can't just cover the connections in
heat shrink?
Thanks for your comments,
Phil
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: electrical system planning |
At 11:21 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
>The battery contactor pulls nearly a full amp.
>Also it is very easy to shed unneeded load by
>shutting=C2 the main down and going with the "E" bus.
Z-12 doesn't give you the option of running
with the battery contactor open . . . Z13-8
DID offer that mode . . . due to the limited
output from the SD-8. Of course, it also offers
a calculated plan-c for operating battery
only.
I once offered a Z-13/20 utilizing the
SD-20 . . . kinda messy and I pulled it.
I might do some asphalt-cogitation on another
pass at it. In the mean time, Z-12 is
exemplary of architectures flying on hundreds
of TC aircraft of the production lines of
Beech, Mooney, Piper et. als. . . . except
their 'e-bus' is an (ugh!!) 'avionics-bus'.
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: Thermocouple Questions... |
At 08:27 AM 8/19/2015, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Last night I started connecting my Type-K
>sensors up to the airplane instrumentation.
>=C2 Trimming the single conductor leads from the
>instrumentation to match the length of the leads
>on the thermocouple. =C2 Then in the process of
>crimping a wire I managed to cut one of the
>leads when it got pinched unknowingly in the
>backside of the crimpers.=C2 Ooops....
>
>So my problem now is that my wires between my
>instrumentation and the the connections on my
>thermocouple are too short.=C2 Thus I need to extend them.
>
>The thermocouples I'm installing now are EGT and
>CHT sensors from Alcor. =C2 (With a ring connectors).
>
>Questions:
>
>1) The sensors have ring connectors already
>installed. =C2 I don't have the other ring
>connectors (matching metal) for them to join to.
>=C2 Where can I buy these to crimp on or can I simply use my PIDG
connectors?
For a short extension, where BOTH ends of the
extension wire are in the same environmental
temperature, you can use ordinary copper wire.
The parasitic junctions added by the foreign
alloy will cancel out each others effects.
Use pidg splices to extend the damaged wire with
copper . . .
Use pidg terminals to mate with wires extending
into the cockpit . . .
Plain vanilla heat-shrink is fine.
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Questions... |
Phil,
My experiences.....
I have used male/female spade connectors with heat-shrink sleeves. I soldered
my connections as well since the wire used does nor have sufficient elasticity
to create a physical/sealed connection. I used the same connections - and ordered
spares from my equipment supplier - they should be able to tell you what
they use and source.
Metal to metal differences cancel out generally as long as both sides of the connection
are in the same side of the firewall.
The type (cost) of connector is not really important - consistency and vibration-free
physical connection is important.
I cover mine with heat-shrink to reduce the vibration potential.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Perry
Sent: Aug 19, 2015 9:27 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Questions...
Hello,
Last night I started connecting my Type-K sensors up to the airplane instrumentation.
Trimming the single conductor leads from the instrumentation to match
the length of the leads on the thermocouple. Then in the process of crimping
a wire I managed to cut one of the leads when it got pinched unknowingly in
the backside of the crimpers. Ooops....
So my problem now is that my wires between my instrumentation and the the connections
on my thermocouple are too short. Thus I need to extend them.
The thermocouples I'm installing now are EGT and CHT sensors from Alcor. (With
a ring connectors).
Questions:
1) The sensors have ring connectors already installed. I don't have the other
ring connectors (matching metal) for them to join to. Where can I buy these
to crimp on or can I simply use my PIDG connectors?
2) I'm assuming that if I use the correct metal the impact to reading would be
very minor?
3) I'm also assuming that these connectors are very expensive. Yes? No? Is there
are cheaper way to join them?
4) Finally, I've managed to lose a couple of the fiberglass sleeves. Where can
I buy those and is there a reason I can't just cover the connections in heat
shrink?
Thanks for your comments,Phil
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Antenna Question |
I'm finishing up my RV-10 wings and would like to have (most) everything
done before I move on. I am contemplating wingtip VOR antenna(s) and
wonder if these can also be used for glideslope? I expect most navigation
will be from gps but I would like to have an operating VOR as well.
Thanks for any thoughts/comments.
Kent
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Question |
The GS antenna is smaller than the VOR antenna so you can physically do it,
however you can just use the VOR antenna with a splitter made for the
purpose. You get a little loss, but I think it is trivial.
Rich
In a message dated 8/19/2015 9:30:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
ogdenk@upstate.edu writes:
I'm finishing up my RV-10 wings and would like to have (most) everything
done before I move on. I am contemplating wingtip VOR antenna(s) and wonder
if these can also be used for glideslope? I expect most navigation will
be from gps but I would like to have an operating VOR as well.
Thanks for any thoughts/comments.
Kent
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Questions... |
For further reading:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
http://www.mglavionics.com/CHT_Parallel_Splice.pdf
Whatever gets done to one thermocouple wire should also be done to the other wire,
and in the same physical location. In other words, if one of a pair of thermocouple
wires is spliced inside of the engine compartment, then its mate should
also be spliced in that same location. The two splices should be at equal
ambient temperatures.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=446147#446147
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Question |
Yes. A vor / glide slope splitter works. I have that exact setup in my r
v-10.
Bob Newman.
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Kent Ogden <ogdenk@upstate.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm finishing up my RV-10 wings and would like to have (most) everything d
one before I move on. I am contemplating wingtip VOR antenna(s) and wonder i
f these can also be used for glideslope? I expect most navigation will be f
rom gps but I would like to have an operating VOR as well.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts/comments.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Questions... |
I had trouble getting a good connection with crimp-on terminals, so I tried Omega
connectors. Here are the details:
http://bearhawkblue.com/replacing-the-oem-dynon-thermocouple-connectors-with-omega-connectors/
All of my intermittent readings went away when I switched to these.
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:15, Ralph E. Capen <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Phil,
>
> My experiences.....
>
> I have used male/female spade connectors with heat-shrink sleeves. I soldered
my connections as well since the wire used does nor have sufficient elasticity
to create a physical/sealed connection. I used the same connections - and
ordered spares from my equipment supplier - they should be able to tell you what
they use and source.
>
> Metal to metal differences cancel out generally as long as both sides of the
connection are in the same side of the firewall.
>
> The type (cost) of connector is not really important - consistency and vibration-free
physical connection is important.
>
> I cover mine with heat-shrink to reduce the vibration potential.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Phillip Perry
>
> Sent: Aug 19, 2015 9:27 AM
>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Questions...
>
>
>
> Hello,
> Last night I started connecting my Type-K sensors up to the airplane instrumentation.
Trimming the single conductor leads from the instrumentation to match
the length of the leads on the thermocouple. Then in the process of crimping
a wire I managed to cut one of the leads when it got pinched unknowingly in
the backside of the crimpers. Ooops....
> So my problem now is that my wires between my instrumentation and the the connections
on my thermocouple are too short. Thus I need to extend them.
> The thermocouples I'm installing now are EGT and CHT sensors from Alcor. (With
a ring connectors).
> Questions:
> 1) The sensors have ring connectors already installed. I don't have the other
ring connectors (matching metal) for them to join to. Where can I buy these
to crimp on or can I simply use my PIDG connectors?
> 2) I'm assuming that if I use the correct metal the impact to reading would be
very minor?
> 3) I'm also assuming that these connectors are very expensive. Yes? No? Is
there are cheaper way to join them?
> 4) Finally, I've managed to lose a couple of the fiberglass sleeves. Where can
I buy those and is there a reason I can't just cover the connections in heat
shrink?
>
> Thanks for your comments,Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: electrical system master contactor |
Hi,
The master contactor pulls about 1.5 amps which is more than many
components that "work for their living"
Is there any reason why a heavy duty manual contactor could not be used
instead of the traditional solenoid contactor, like this;
http://tinyurl.com/nupw5xu
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
On 19 August 2015 at 15:00, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:21 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
>
> The battery contactor pulls nearly a full amp. Also it is very easy to
> shed unneeded load by shutting=C3=82 the main down and going with the "E
" bus.
>
>
> Z-12 doesn't give you the option of running
> with the battery contactor open . . . Z13-8
> DID offer that mode . . . due to the limited
> output from the SD-8. Of course, it also offers
> a calculated plan-c for operating battery
> only.
>
> I once offered a Z-13/20 utilizing the
> SD-20 . . . kinda messy and I pulled it.
> I might do some asphalt-cogitation on another
> pass at it. In the mean time, Z-12 is
> exemplary of architectures flying on hundreds
> of TC aircraft of the production lines of
> Beech, Mooney, Piper et. als. . . . except
> their 'e-bus' is an (ugh!!) 'avionics-bus'.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
--
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Question |
Depending on the navcom you have, some have internal splitters and just
need VOR antenna connection
On 8/19/2015 7:52 AM, Tcwtech wrote:
> Yes. A vor / glide slope splitter works. I have that exact setup
> in my rv-10.
>
> Bob Newman.
>
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Kent Ogden <ogdenk@upstate.edu
> <mailto:ogdenk@upstate.edu>> wrote:
>
>> I'm finishing up my RV-10 wings and would like to have (most)
>> everything done before I move on. I am contemplating wingtip VOR
>> antenna(s) and wonder if these can also be used for glideslope? I
>> expect most navigation will be from gps but I would like to have an
>> operating VOR as well.
>> Thanks for any thoughts/comments.
>> Kent
>>
>> **
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> <3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22>
> *
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Questions... |
Good info - thanks!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jared Yates <email@jaredyates.com>
>Sent: Aug 19, 2015 11:05 AM
>To: "aeroelectric-list@matronics.com" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Questions...
>
>
>I had trouble getting a good connection with crimp-on terminals, so I tried Omega
connectors. Here are the details:
>http://bearhawkblue.com/replacing-the-oem-dynon-thermocouple-connectors-with-omega-connectors/
>All of my intermittent readings went away when I switched to these.
>
>
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:15, Ralph E. Capen <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> My experiences.....
>>
>> I have used male/female spade connectors with heat-shrink sleeves. I soldered
my connections as well since the wire used does nor have sufficient elasticity
to create a physical/sealed connection. I used the same connections - and
ordered spares from my equipment supplier - they should be able to tell you what
they use and source.
>>
>> Metal to metal differences cancel out generally as long as both sides of the
connection are in the same side of the firewall.
>>
>> The type (cost) of connector is not really important - consistency and vibration-free
physical connection is important.
>>
>> I cover mine with heat-shrink to reduce the vibration potential.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Phillip Perry
>>
>> Sent: Aug 19, 2015 9:27 AM
>>
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Questions...
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>> Last night I started connecting my Type-K sensors up to the airplane instrumentation.
Trimming the single conductor leads from the instrumentation to match
the length of the leads on the thermocouple. Then in the process of crimping
a wire I managed to cut one of the leads when it got pinched unknowingly
in the backside of the crimpers. Ooops....
>> So my problem now is that my wires between my instrumentation and the the connections
on my thermocouple are too short. Thus I need to extend them.
>> The thermocouples I'm installing now are EGT and CHT sensors from Alcor. (With
a ring connectors).
>> Questions:
>> 1) The sensors have ring connectors already installed. I don't have the other
ring connectors (matching metal) for them to join to. Where can I buy these
to crimp on or can I simply use my PIDG connectors?
>> 2) I'm assuming that if I use the correct metal the impact to reading would
be very minor?
>> 3) I'm also assuming that these connectors are very expensive. Yes? No? Is
there are cheaper way to join them?
>> 4) Finally, I've managed to lose a couple of the fiberglass sleeves. Where
can I buy those and is there a reason I can't just cover the connections in heat
shrink?
>>
>> Thanks for your comments,Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: electrical system master contactor |
Electrically there is no reason a manual contactor would not work. The mast
er contractor will go dead and shut the battery off from the rest of the sys
tem if the control voltage is cut off (such as a crash). The mechanical swit
ch may not.
Access is the other consideration. If the battery is on the forward side of t
he firewall you have 2 options. Put it close to the pilot or close to the ba
ttery. Neither choice is good. If you put it near the pilot, you have a good
amount of rather large gauge wire left unprotected. If you put it near the b
attery, you may not have immediate access to it if you need it. You may be a
ble to connect a lever or cable to the switch that can bring control into th
e cockpit but that adds weight, complexity, and another component susceptibl
e to failure.
The solution I came up with is the solid state master relay from Waytek Wire
.
http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300A-Solid-State-Battery/
It draws .125ma of current and is good for 300A continuous. Also rated at 50
0A for 1 second.
It is comparable in weight to a legacy master contactor, and it's heat sink i
s made from aluminum.
The battery charges perfectly through the relay and I have encountered zero i
ssues with it. It's about twice the cost of a quality legacy contactor, with
a rating of millions of cycles. Cutting edge technology.
Justin
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:28, Bill Allen <billallensworld@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The master contactor pulls about 1.5 amps which is more than many componen
ts that "work for their living"
>
> Is there any reason why a heavy duty manual contactor could not be used in
stead of the traditional solenoid contactor, like this;
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nupw5xu
>
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
>> On 19 August 2015 at 15:00, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>> At 11:21 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
>>
>>> The battery contactor pulls nearly a full amp. Also it is very easy to s
hed unneeded load by shutting=C3=82 the main down and going with the "E" bu
s.
>>
>> Z-12 doesn't give you the option of running
>> with the battery contactor open . . . Z13-8
>> DID offer that mode . . . due to the limited
>> output from the SD-8. Of course, it also offers
>> a calculated plan-c for operating battery
>> only.
>>
>> I once offered a Z-13/20 utilizing the
>> SD-20 . . . kinda messy and I pulled it.
>> I might do some asphalt-cogitation on another
>> pass at it. In the mean time, Z-12 is
>> exemplary of architectures flying on hundreds
>> of TC aircraft of the production lines of
>> Beech, Mooney, Piper et. als. . . . except
>> their 'e-bus' is an (ugh!!) 'avionics-bus'.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li
st
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Question |
Yep, the SL-30 in my RV-6 works very well for localiser and glideslope
from a wing tip antenna with a single feed.
Peter
On 19/08/2015 17:02, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Depending on the navcom you have, some have internal splitters and
> just need VOR antenna connection
>
> On 8/19/2015 7:52 AM, Tcwtech wrote:
>> Yes. A vor / glide slope splitter works. I have that exact setup
>> in my rv-10.
>>
>> Bob Newman.
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Kent Ogden <ogdenk@upstate.edu
>> <mailto:ogdenk@upstate.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm finishing up my RV-10 wings and would like to have (most)
>>> everything done before I move on. I am contemplating wingtip VOR
>>> antenna(s) and wonder if these can also be used for glideslope? I
>>> expect most navigation will be from gps but I would like to have an
>>> operating VOR as well.
>>> Thanks for any thoughts/comments.
>>> Kent
>>>
>>> **
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> <3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22> *
>
>
Message 15
| 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: Anything 'unique' about incorporating EarthX? |
Earthx related, I'm not sure how "unique" this may be but...I'm hoping others will
help clarify things for me.
I also decided to go with Earthx batteries on my project, but am wrestling with
a dilemma (or not) with regard to an overvoltage scenario from the PM 3 phase
alternator and R/R electrical system. The Earthx battery has an onboard battery
management system (BMS) to protect and balance the battery cells. When the
BMS senses an overvoltage charging condition across multiple cells it will shut
down the charge input AND cease output to any load on the battery until the
situation is resolved. In talking with the tech engineer at Earthx, how fast
this will happen depends on a few variables such at charge state of the individual
cells, source voltage input, ambient temp, etc. but anything greater than
about 15.3 volts has potential to trigger action by the BMS. So, here is my
perceived dilemma with things. With a B&C overvoltage protection module (nominal
trip voltage of 16.2 volts), I could have voltage to the battery greater
than the BMS triiger voltage and have loss of battery power supply at the same
time I have no alternator electrical source!
[Shocked] [did I mention I'm running an ECU, fuel injected engine?] If this is
truly the case, what are my options? I suspect one could just keep tabs on the
alternator voltage output via a warning light and preempt the B&C or the BMS
in the event of an overvoltage situation. But that doesn't sound ideal. Customize
the B&C by adjusting the setpoint lower - e.g. 15 volts (concern about
nuisance trips?) Or. one could go with different batteries and give up the lightweight
advantage. I don't know if I truly do have a potential bad design or
not? Anyone care to offer some insight?
Thanks so very much
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=446161#446161
Message 16
| 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: electrical system planning |
I'm looking at Z-12 Rev M and it does show an E-Bus Alternate Feed switch.
I'm trying to understand why it's there. I imagine two possible reasons:
1) You could shut off the master switch to avoid the 1 amp contactor draw
in main alternator out situtations
2) You could still run the e-bus if your master switch or contactor fails
in flight. I don't know if that's the sort of failure that would happen in
flight.
But I'm not sure if either, both, or neither of those are why it's included
in the diagram.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:07 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:21 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
>
> The battery contactor pulls nearly a full amp. Also it is very easy to
> shed unneeded load by shutting=C3=82 the main down and going with the "E
" bus.
>
>
> Z-12 doesn't give you the option of running
> with the battery contactor open . . . Z13-8
> DID offer that mode . . . due to the limited
> output from the SD-8. Of course, it also offers
> a calculated plan-c for operating battery
> only.
>
> I once offered a Z-13/20 utilizing the
> SD-20 . . . kinda messy and I pulled it.
> I might do some asphalt-cogitation on another
> pass at it. In the mean time, Z-12 is
> exemplary of architectures flying on hundreds
> of TC aircraft of the production lines of
> Beech, Mooney, Piper et. als. . . . except
> their 'e-bus' is an (ugh!!) 'avionics-bus'.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
Message 17
| 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: electrical system master contactor |
Good points well made.
On 19 August 2015 at 17:26, Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com> wrote
:
> Electrically there is no reason a manual contactor would not work. The
> master contractor will go dead and shut the battery off from the rest of
> the system if the control voltage is cut off (such as a crash). The
> mechanical switch may not.
>
> Access is the other consideration. If the battery is on the forward side
> of the firewall you have 2 options. Put it close to the pilot or close to
> the battery. Neither choice is good. If you put it near the pilot, you ha
ve
> a good amount of rather large gauge wire left unprotected. If you put it
> near the battery, you may not have immediate access to it if you need it.
> You may be able to connect a lever or cable to the switch that can bring
> control into the cockpit but that adds weight, complexity, and another
> component susceptible to failure.
>
> The solution I came up with is the solid state master relay from Waytek
> Wire.
>
> http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300A-Solid-State-Battery/
>
> It draws .125ma of current and is good for 300A continuous. Also rated at
> 500A for 1 second.
>
> It is comparable in weight to a legacy master contactor, and it's heat
> sink is made from aluminum.
>
> The battery charges perfectly through the relay and I have encountered
> zero issues with it. It's about twice the cost of a quality legacy
> contactor, with a rating of millions of cycles. Cutting edge technology.
>
> Justin
>
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:28, Bill Allen <billallensworld@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The master contactor pulls about 1.5 amps which is more than many
> components that "work for their living"
>
> Is there any reason why a heavy duty manual contactor could not be used
> instead of the traditional solenoid contactor, like this;
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nupw5xu
>
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
> On 19 August 2015 at 15:00, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 11:21 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
>>
>> The battery contactor pulls nearly a full amp. Also it is very easy to
>> shed unneeded load by shutting=C3=82 the main down and going with the "
E" bus.
>>
>>
>> Z-12 doesn't give you the option of running
>> with the battery contactor open . . . Z13-8
>> DID offer that mode . . . due to the limited
>> output from the SD-8. Of course, it also offers
>> a calculated plan-c for operating battery
>> only.
>>
>> I once offered a Z-13/20 utilizing the
>> SD-20 . . . kinda messy and I pulled it.
>> I might do some asphalt-cogitation on another
>> pass at it. In the mean time, Z-12 is
>> exemplary of architectures flying on hundreds
>> of TC aircraft of the production lines of
>> Beech, Mooney, Piper et. als. . . . except
>> their 'e-bus' is an (ugh!!) 'avionics-bus'.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-L
ist <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/
contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
> *
>
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List <http
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/cont
ribution>
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
>
> *
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
--
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
Message 18
| 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: electrical system planning |
I'm planning a similar setup to what the original poster has mentioned. I too am
trying to decide which Z diagram is better to follow. I have decided on a dual
alternator and single battery setup.
I have calculated my EBUS at 13.5 amps and my Battery Bus at 3.5 amps. I don't
feel the 8amp dynamo would put out quite the current to meet my need although
I understand not everything on the list would be used continuously so actual usuage
would be closer to the 8 amps, I just seem to feel more comfortable with
a little more margin.
My question is if I were to use the 20amp alternator, or 30amp from planepower,
which Z diagram would fit this better? The Z12M or Z13/8? Looking at the Z12,
the alternator seems to tie in to the cold side of the battery master so if you
want to load shed by shutting off the battery master, you will also shut off
alternator power to the EBUS. Is the intent to never have to load shed with
Z12 unless you were to suffer a rare dual alternator failure? I like the idea
of the secondary alterator running in tandem with the primary alternator and picking
up the load once bus voltage drops below 13.5 volts so the power transfer
requires no user input.
I'm undecided on all of the avionics that I'm going to install at this point but
I'm fairly confident that the total continuous load will not exceed 20amps so
the need to load shed is not likely. Is it worth designing the system for possible
future growth and the need to load shed? If that is the case, would there
be any reason I could not tie the 20amp standby alternator controlled with
the SB!B-14 on the hot side of the battery contactor to give me the option of
powering the EBUS with the master switch off?
Are there any reliability considerations to take in to account that I'm not thinking
of? Is the 8amp dynamo more reliable than the 20amp alternators or is it
more of a weight and money thing?
Sorry if I derailed the original posters thread. I appreciate any feedback you
all might have to offer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=446165#446165
Message 19
| 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: electrical system master contactor |
>The solution I came up with is the solid state master relay from Waytek Wire.
>
><http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300A-Solid-State-Battery/>http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300A-Solid-State-Battery/
>
>
>It draws .125ma of current and is good for 300A continuous. Also
>rated at 500A for 1 second.
>
>It is comparable in weight to a legacy master contactor, and it's
>heat sink is made from aluminum.
>
>The battery charges perfectly through the relay and I have
>encountered zero issues with it. It's about twice the cost of a
>quality legacy contactor, with a rating of millions of cycles.
>Cutting edge technology.
Very few OBAM aircraft are fitted with
a 'quality legacy contactor' purchased
at a cost of $90. Similarly, while the
C-140 was first fitted with the 6041H
series 'quality contactor' it was eventually
'down-sized' to the beer-barrel contactors
that were standard in tens of thousands
of airplanes after that . . . and that was
just at Cessna. Production Cessnas use
the beer-barrel contactors to this very day.
In my former life, there were opportunities
to put in an official change proposal. Were I
proposing to replace a beer-barrel contactor
on a current production TC or STC aircraft with
any form of 'upgrade' . . . I would be expected
to present compelling case. An argument to convince
the holders of purse-strings that the change would
(1) reduce demonstrable risk or (2) reduce cost-
of-ownership with the subject airframe.
Most OBAM aircraft builders do not have access
to "the numbers" that put orders of magnitude
on either risk or cost-of-ownership for
comparative analysis. At the same
time, they are personally bombarded with
ads, legends, anecdotes and interesting comparisons
of why you want to fly product A as opposed to product
B. Indeed, many suppliers leaning over the counters
at OSH and buying big ads in S.A. or Kitplanes are
engaged in an activity to 'trade' their particular
offering for an acceptable quantity of your cash.
In every free-market exchange, BOTH parties walk
away thinking they got the 'better deal'. BOTH
gave something they valued less for something they
valued more. In the case before us, we want to
consider the operational or risk value for replacing
a $20 contactor with a $180 contactor. Should you
walk away from a booth at OSH with a $180 contactor,
what arguments might convince you that there was
a positive return on investment for having made
the purchase?
Exactly what are the cost-of-ownership expectations
for the swap? Is there a demonstrated lowering of
risk? Is there not a lot of history for this style
of part used as battery contactors on TC aircraft for
60+ years. Are there documented cases for failures of
such devices placing an airplane/pilot in totally
unmanageable. high risk situations?
We are programmed as mere mortals to worry . . . sometimes
about the wrong things and with risk of making decisions
that don't do much for REAL risk. That's why we preach
the doctrine of FMEA here on the List . . . it's
exceedingly difficult and/or expensive to PURCHASE system
reliability as opposed to BUILDING system reliability
based on demonstrable risk and cost-of-ownership.
I just received an email from EarthX citing their
compliance with the wishes/requirements in battery
performance from an ENGINE manufacturer. No doubt,
recommendations from Rotax will offer powerful
inducements for Rotax owners to be compliant with
the manufacturer's wishes.
They're also looking at upgrades for 'dual battery management
systems' and 'serial data communications with an
EFIS system'. This ol' TC born and bred graybeard would
REALLY like to see the economics/risks arguments
for those change proposals!
The questions to be asked and answered go to
real cost of ownership combined with effects on
risk for incorporating hardware for which you
have little understanding. no chance of repairing
yourself and a expanded sense of helplessness
when the little red light comes on.
I have a car that throws fault codes which,
more often than not, stay cleared after a reset.
On two occasions, the codes were good and I
fixed some things. But now I carry an OBDII code
reader around in the car just to make sure that
any given light is worthy of attention . . .
I think maybe it's better than my 6-cyl, stick
shift Chevys . . . the jury is still out.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| 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: electrical system planning |
At 04:37 PM 8/19/2015, you wrote:
I'm planning a similar setup to what the original poster has
mentioned. I too am trying to decide which Z diagram is better to
follow. I have decided on a dual alternator and single battery setup.
I have calculated my EBUS at 13.5 amps and my Battery Bus at 3.5
amps. I don't feel the 8amp dynamo would put out quite the current to
meet my need although I understand not everything on the list would
be used continuously so actual usuage would be closer to the 8 amps,
I just seem to feel more comfortable with a little more margin.
"margin"????? With a 17A minimum running load
and an 8A standby alternator, you have NO margin.
My question is if I were to use the 20amp alternator, or 30amp from
planepower, which Z diagram would fit this better? The Z12M or Z13/8?
Check with B&C . . . I think their larger spline
drive alternators are good for more than 20A.
Z-13/8 was NEVER intended to power an airplane with
a total running load greater than 8-10A and the
configuration was crafted to reduce running loads by
the 0.7A contactor coil . . . Z-13/8 is not an
option for you.
Looking at the Z12, the alternator seems to tie in to the cold side
of the battery master so if you want to load shed by shutting off the
battery master, you will also shut off alternator power to the EBUS.
Is the intent to never have to load shed with Z12 unless you were to
suffer a rare dual alternator failure?
Yes . . . That's what is done in hundreds . . .
perhaps over a thousand TC aircraft that run
a variant of Z-12.
I like the idea of the secondary alterator running in tandem with the
primary alternator and picking up the load once bus voltage drops
below 13.5 volts so the power transfer requires no user input.
I'm undecided on all of the avionics that I'm going to install at
this point but I'm fairly confident that the total continuous load
will not exceed 20amps so the need to load shed is not likely. Is it
worth designing the system for possible future growth and the need to
load shed?
Reducing loads is usually pretty easy . . . it's
call and OFF switch. The SB-1 regulator flashes
a light at you until you exploit a sufficient number
off OFF switches to reduce total load below 20A.
If that is the case, would there be any reason I could not tie the
20amp standby alternator controlled with the SB!B-14 on the hot side
of the battery contactor to give me the option of powering the EBUS
with the master switch off?
Are there any reliability considerations to take in to account that
I'm not thinking of? Is the 8amp dynamo more reliable than the 20amp
alternators or is it more of a weight and money thing?
Sorry if I derailed the original posters thread. I appreciate any
feedback you all might have to offer.
Read the notes that go with the Z-figures. The whole
purpose of a standby alternator and e-bus is to maximize
conservation of energy in the EN ROUTE mode of flight.
How may electro-whizzies to you NEED to comfortably
achieve the descent/approach waypoint?
If you've turned a lot of stuff OFF . . . total loads
en route loads below 8A, then you have all
the battery's capacity in reserve for approach to
landing when you turn everything on that's useful for
comfortable termination of the flight.
This is what the load analysis sheets are all about
on the website. In the RARE instance that you DO
need to conserve power, have a check-list driven
plan-B to keep it from becoming an emergency. Odds
are, you don't need much hardware to get you to the
destination airport traffic area.
Z-13/8 is probably suited to 99% of all OBAM aircraft
flying if the owner/operator takes the time to
craft and implement a minimal power en-route mode
of energy consumption.
The airplanes I've rented didn't have standby alternators
or e-busses. Yet, loss of the alternator was not going to
have me looking for the asphalt 5 miles away. Here's
my "ebus" for TC aircraft.
http://tinyurl.com/ok7sjzt
I shut the whole electrical system down and leave it
off until time to enter the traffic area.
An e-bus running 13.5A is not an ENDURANCE BUS.
My suggestion to you is assume Z-13/8 and then see
if you can get total running loads below 8A . . .
actually 10A can probably be supported without seriously
discharging the battery.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| 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: Anything 'unique' about incorporating EarthX? |
>With a B&C overvoltage protection module (nominal trip voltage of
>16.2 volts), I could have voltage to the battery greater than the
>BMS triiger voltage and have loss of battery power supply at the
>same time I have no alternator electrical source!
How so? At what voltage and how fast does the BMS
bring the battery back on line? What leads you
to believe that during the interval from onset of
an ov condition, alternator shut down and BMS
recovery . . . that the bus voltage will drop too
low for too long to keep the fan running?
Bob . . .
Message 22
| 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: electrical system master contactor |
At 10:28 AM 8/19/2015, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The master contactor pulls about 1.5 amps which
>is more than many components =C2 that "work for their living"=C2
Actually, the legacy beer-barrel contactors are
not that power hungry.
http://tinyurl.com/mpcgp3t
http://tinyurl.com/k6bwdqo
>Is there any reason why a heavy duty manual
>contactor could not be used instead of the
>traditional solenoid contactor, like this;
. . . but if you can place such a switch where it
is easily reached with SHORT connections
to the battery, that's good too. Took dual
instruction in a Tri-Pacer about 1961 that
with manual switches for both the starter
and battery. But battery was under the seat
and wire runs short.
Bob . . .
Message 23
| 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: electrical system planning |
The Z13/8 with a B&C 410H vacuum-pad drive alternator (substituted for
the SD8) is more than capable of running a Dual ECU EFII system
indefinitely. The B&C 410H will power 13.5 amps without an issue, but I
am guessing the actual draw would be less than 13.5 Amps. =46rom what I
have read here, it seems that most people overestimate the amperage that
their =9Celectric whizzies=9D actually draw. Some folks tend
to use the peak draw as the number for each of the items. Often peak
draw is not sustained for the entire operation and should therefore not
be used as the continuous operation number. Best to measure each
device=99s amp draw prior to system planning and implementation.
With a primary alternator and a backup alternator that is capable of
running the required loads, you have effectively reduced the chances of
a negative outcome due to electrical system exhaustion by a very large
margin (greatly reduced risk). The chances of a dual alternator failure
is very slim. If you know the actual draw of your system (running on the
Ebus), you can experience a dual alternator failure, have the right
procedures in place, and still know the amount of time you have until
your propeller will stop pulling you. (Dependent on your battery=99s
size and health)
Id rather have 2 alternators and a single battery than a single
alternator and 2 batteries. An appropriately sized backup alternator
will easily outlast 2 batteries, and is much lighter to boot.
Justin
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 04:37 PM 8/19/2015, you wrote:
<andydelk@gmail.com>
>
> I'm planning a similar setup to what the original poster has
mentioned. I too am trying to decide which Z diagram is better to
follow. I have decided on a dual alternator and single battery setup.
>
> I have calculated my EBUS at 13.5 amps and my Battery Bus at 3.5 amps.
I don't feel the 8amp dynamo would put out quite the current to meet my
need although I understand not everything on the list would be used
continuously so actual usuage would be closer to the 8 amps, I just seem
to feel more comfortable with a little more margin.
>
> "margin"????? With a 17A minimum running load
> and an 8A standby alternator, you have NO margin.
>
> My question is if I were to use the 20amp alternator, or 30amp from
planepower, which Z diagram would fit this better? The Z12M or Z13/8?
>
> Check with B&C . . . I think their larger spline
> drive alternators are good for more than 20A.
>
> Z-13/8 was NEVER intended to power an airplane with
> a total running load greater than 8-10A and the
> configuration was crafted to reduce running loads by
> the 0.7A contactor coil . . . Z-13/8 is not an
> option for you.
>
> Looking at the Z12, the alternator seems to tie in to the cold side of
the battery master so if you want to load shed by shutting off the
battery master, you will also shut off alternator power to the EBUS. Is
the intent to never have to load shed with Z12 unless you were to suffer
a rare dual alternator failure?
>
> Yes . . . That's what is done in hundreds . . .
> perhaps over a thousand TC aircraft that run
> a variant of Z-12.
>
>
> I like the idea of the secondary alterator running in tandem with the
primary alternator and picking up the load once bus voltage drops below
13.5 volts so the power transfer requires no user input.
>
> I'm undecided on all of the avionics that I'm going to install at this
point but I'm fairly confident that the total continuous load will not
exceed 20amps so the need to load shed is not likely. Is it worth
designing the system for possible future growth and the need to load
shed?
>
> Reducing loads is usually pretty easy . . . it's
> call and OFF switch. The SB-1 regulator flashes
> a light at you until you exploit a sufficient number
> off OFF switches to reduce total load below 20A.
>
> If that is the case, would there be any reason I could not tie the
20amp standby alternator controlled with the SB!B-14 on the hot side of
the battery contactor to give me the option of powering the EBUS with
the master switch off?
>
> Are there any reliability considerations to take in to account that
I'm not thinking of? Is the 8amp dynamo more reliable than the 20amp
alternators or is it more of a weight and money thing?
>
> Sorry if I derailed the original posters thread. I appreciate any
feedback you all might have to offer.
>
> Read the notes that go with the Z-figures. The whole
> purpose of a standby alternator and e-bus is to maximize
> conservation of energy in the EN ROUTE mode of flight.
> How may electro-whizzies to you NEED to comfortably
> achieve the descent/approach waypoint?
>
> If you've turned a lot of stuff OFF . . . total loads
> en route loads below 8A, then you have all
> the battery's capacity in reserve for approach to
> landing when you turn everything on that's useful for
> comfortable termination of the flight.
>
> This is what the load analysis sheets are all about
> on the website. In the RARE instance that you DO
> need to conserve power, have a check-list driven
> plan-B to keep it from becoming an emergency. Odds
> are, you don't need much hardware to get you to the
> destination airport traffic area.
>
> Z-13/8 is probably suited to 99% of all OBAM aircraft
> flying if the owner/operator takes the time to
> craft and implement a minimal power en-route mode
> of energy consumption.
>
> The airplanes I've rented didn't have standby alternators
> or e-busses. Yet, loss of the alternator was not going to
> have me looking for the asphalt 5 miles away. Here's
> my "ebus" for TC aircraft.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ok7sjzt
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/ok7sjzt> I shut the whole electrical system down
and leave it
> off until time to enter the traffic area.
>
> An e-bus running 13.5A is not an ENDURANCE BUS.
> My suggestion to you is assume Z-13/8 and then see
> if you can get total running loads below 8A . . .
> actually 10A can probably be supported without seriously
> discharging the battery.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
Message 24
| 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: electrical system master contactor |
Thats the route i have gone
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015, Bill Allen <billallensworld@gmail.com> wrote
:
> Hi,
>
> The master contactor pulls about 1.5 amps which is more than many
> components that "work for their living"
>
> Is there any reason why a heavy duty manual contactor could not be used
> instead of the traditional solenoid contactor, like this;
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nupw5xu
>
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
> On 19 August 2015 at 15:00, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com');>> wrote:
>
>> At 11:21 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
>>
>> The battery contactor pulls nearly a full amp. Also it is very easy to
>> shed unneeded load by shutting=C3=82 the main down and going with the "
E" bus.
>>
>>
>> Z-12 doesn't give you the option of running
>> with the battery contactor open . . . Z13-8
>> DID offer that mode . . . due to the limited
>> output from the SD-8. Of course, it also offers
>> a calculated plan-c for operating battery
>> only.
>>
>> I once offered a Z-13/20 utilizing the
>> SD-20 . . . kinda messy and I pulled it.
>> I might do some asphalt-cogitation on another
>> pass at it. In the mean time, Z-12 is
>> exemplary of architectures flying on hundreds
>> of TC aircraft of the production lines of
>> Beech, Mooney, Piper et. als. . . . except
>> their 'e-bus' is an (ugh!!) 'avionics-bus'.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-L
ist <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/
contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|