Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:14 AM - Re: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 (Charlie England)
2. 06:34 AM - Re: Lay Flat Battery Contactor and Starter Relay (Charlie England)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 (William Hunter)
4. 07:29 AM - Re: Lay Flat Battery Contactor and Starter Relay (William Hunter)
5. 11:12 AM - Contactor orientation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:26 AM - Re: Question OV Crowbar connection in Z16 figure (zwakie)
7. 11:43 AM - Re: Contactor orientation (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
8. 12:03 PM - Speaking of 'drain holes' . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 12:22 PM - Re: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 02:39 PM - Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! (William Hunter)
11. 03:03 PM - Re: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 (William Hunter)
12. 03:29 PM - Re: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! (user9253)
13. 04:10 PM - Re: Contactor orientation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! (William Hunter)
15. 06:59 PM - Re: Contactor orientation (Jim Baker)
16. 07:09 PM - Re: Re: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! (William Hunter)
17. 08:52 PM - Re: Contactor orientation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:37 PM - Re: Re: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:54 PM, William Hunter <billhuntersemail@gmail.com
>
wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>
> I am building a Dual Battery/Dual Alternator electrical system for a
> single Engine Velocity. The engine is a TIO-540 (turbo) and I notate thi
s
> because the engine only has 7.3 to one compression pistons so therefore t
he
> starter motor will not have to fight against the usual 8.3 to 1
> compression. One battery will be mounted in the nose and one battery wil
l
> be mounted under the back seat.
>
>
> Optima sells a 12V Prius battery that they advertise as =9C38 AH /
CCA of
> 450 amps / MCA of 575 amps=9D and this battery is only 26 LBS.
>
>
> http://www.optimabatteries.com/en-us/shop/yellowtop/optima-batteries-ds46
b24r-yellowtop-prius-auxiliary-battery/
>
>
> Concord has a =9CPlatinum Series=9D replacement battery for a
Aztec and this
> airplane has an IO-540 (with normal compression pistons) and the top of t
he
> line Concord battery advertises Rated Capacity C1 = 1 hr. rate in amper
e
> hours 33.00 Cold Cranking Amps 440.0 and it is 33 pounds.
>
>
> Even though my airplane will have two batteries I still want to be able t
o
> start my 6 banger engine with a single battery.
>
>
> Does the collective wisdom on this forum believe that a singular Prius
> battery will be sufficient for the starting of my engine?
>
> ..
>
>
> THANKS!!!
>
>
> Bill Hunter
>
> Bill,
For perspective, I looked up a Gill flooded cell battery (old style with
liquid acid & fill caps) designed many decades ago to crank 'big sixes'.
It's also 35AH, but only 250 CCA.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/gillg35.php
Pretty sure the Optima will crank your 6cyl engine. :-) Most of the AGM
(starved electrolyte) batteries have significantly higher CCA than flooded
cell batteries with the same 20 hour rating (the '35AH' number, in your
case). For example, a lot of us with 4 cyl engines use 'no name' 18AH to
22AH AGM batteries to replace the certified 25AH flooded cell batteries
originally used with these engines. Even with significantly lower total
energy (~20AH vs 25AH), the AGM battery will spin the engine almost fast
enough to taxi the plane. :-) Reason is, the AGM can deliver more *power*,
short term, than a flooded cell battery. Only downside is that if forced to
fly on battery power alone, it will run down faster than the 25AH battery.
In your case, both batteries have the same AH rating, so should have the
same alternator-out endurance.
Charlie
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: Lay Flat Battery Contactor and Starter Relay |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:02 PM, William Hunter <billhuntersemail@gmail.com
>
wrote:
> I vaguely remember one of Bob=99s majestic musings that articulatel
y
> dispelled the long time myth mandating that battery contactors and starte
r
> relays must be installed vertically against a wall and not installed flat
> on a floorboard. My proposed installation of mounting them on a wall is
> not going to work and I want to mount them under the back seat against th
e
> floorboards.
>
>
> Can someone please confirm that my recollection described above is indeed
> accurate and I was not just dreaming Bob=99s majestic words?!?!?
>
>
> ..
>
>
> Cheers!!!
>
>
> Bill Hunter
>
IIRC, one dispelled myth was the idea that if you mounted them upside down,
pulling Gs in the plane could open them.
The only issue I could see with 'side mounting' would be asymmetrical wear
of the guide that the metal 'slug' moves in. Of course, you can always just
make a right angle bracket & mount it on the floor, if you want to keep
conventional orientation.
Charlie
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: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 |
Thanks Charlie for validating my thought process!!!
Greatly appreciated!!!
Bill Hunter
On Jul 14, 2016 06:25, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:54 PM, William Hunter <
> billhuntersemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am building a Dual Battery/Dual Alternator electrical system for a
>> single Engine Velocity. The engine is a TIO-540 (turbo) and I notate th
is
>> because the engine only has 7.3 to one compression pistons so therefore
the
>> starter motor will not have to fight against the usual 8.3 to 1
>> compression. One battery will be mounted in the nose and one battery wi
ll
>> be mounted under the back seat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Optima sells a 12V Prius battery that they advertise as =9C38 AH /
CCA of
>> 450 amps / MCA of 575 amps=9D and this battery is only 26 LBS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.optimabatteries.com/en-us/shop/yellowtop/optima-batteries-ds4
6b24r-yellowtop-prius-auxiliary-battery/
>>
>>
>>
>> Concord has a =9CPlatinum Series=9D replacement battery for
a Aztec and this
>> airplane has an IO-540 (with normal compression pistons) and the top of
the
>> line Concord battery advertises Rated Capacity C1 = 1 hr. rate in ampe
re
>> hours 33.00 Cold Cranking Amps 440.0 and it is 33 pounds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even though my airplane will have two batteries I still want to be able
>> to start my 6 banger engine with a single battery.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does the collective wisdom on this forum believe that a singular Prius
>> battery will be sufficient for the starting of my engine?
>>
>> ..
>>
>>
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>> Bill,
>
> For perspective, I looked up a Gill flooded cell battery (old style with
> liquid acid & fill caps) designed many decades ago to crank 'big sixes'.
> It's also 35AH, but only 250 CCA.
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/gillg35.php
>
> Pretty sure the Optima will crank your 6cyl engine. :-) Most of the AGM
> (starved electrolyte) batteries have significantly higher CCA than floode
d
> cell batteries with the same 20 hour rating (the '35AH' number, in your
> case). For example, a lot of us with 4 cyl engines use 'no name' 18AH to
> 22AH AGM batteries to replace the certified 25AH flooded cell batteries
> originally used with these engines. Even with significantly lower total
> energy (~20AH vs 25AH), the AGM battery will spin the engine almost fast
> enough to taxi the plane. :-) Reason is, the AGM can deliver more *power*
,
> short term, than a flooded cell battery. Only downside is that if forced
to
> fly on battery power alone, it will run down faster than the 25AH battery
.
> In your case, both batteries have the same AH rating, so should have the
> same alternator-out endurance.
>
> Charlie
>
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: Lay Flat Battery Contactor and Starter Relay |
Hmmmmmm thanks for the info and I will look today to see if I can mount
these little buggers on brackets
Bill Hunter
+1 408-464-1902
On Jul 14, 2016 6:45 AM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:02 PM, William Hunter <
> billhuntersemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I vaguely remember one of Bob=99s majestic musings that articulate
ly
>> dispelled the long time myth mandating that battery contactors and start
er
>> relays must be installed vertically against a wall and not installed fla
t
>> on a floorboard. My proposed installation of mounting them on a wall is
>> not going to work and I want to mount them under the back seat against t
he
>> floorboards.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can someone please confirm that my recollection described above is indee
d
>> accurate and I was not just dreaming Bob=99s majestic words?!?!?
>>
>>
>>
>> ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
> IIRC, one dispelled myth was the idea that if you mounted them upside
> down, pulling Gs in the plane could open them.
>
> The only issue I could see with 'side mounting' would be asymmetrical wea
r
> of the guide that the metal 'slug' moves in. Of course, you can always ju
st
> make a right angle bracket & mount it on the floor, if you want to keep
> conventional orientation.
>
> Charlie
>
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: | Contactor orientation |
I've heard a boat load of narratives and anecdotes
concerning contactor orientation in aircraft. Most
of the 'advice' goes to the 'whisky barrel' style
contactors from White-Rogers and Cole-Hersey. The
first time I recall such a story was a OSH back about
1990 . . . an airshow performer showed up at the
B&C booth to buy a new starter and contactor. Seems
his contactor was stuck and the starter gears chewed
up. He hypothesized that g-loads during his show
teased the contactor closed followed by a welding
of contacts and an engaged starter.
In years since, many more tidbits of sage advice on
contactor orientation have appeared throughout the OBAM
aviation industry. I have yet to put my hands on any
failure of hardware that supports any notion of risk
due to airframe induced g-loads.
The tear-downs I've conducted fall into three primary
categories:
(1) Wear out. Contactor has been in service
a long time. Contacts are worn. No other evidence of
stress such as moisture, broken parts, mis-installation.
I.e. the thing went to end of service life.
(2) Moisture ingress: contacts, springs, plunger,
case badly rusted. See:
http://tinyurl.com/p2x7fbl
(3) Installation/Manufacturing error: Failure to solder
coil wires to terminals, main terminals twisted out
of alignment during torque-down of terminal nuts,
bit of debris between contacts, exposed to gross
external moisture, etc.
If you think about it, the plunger in a starter
contactor mounted on fire wall moves PARALLED to
fuselage axis. Mounted terminals up, it takes
NEGATIVE g's to close contact. A whisky-barrel
battery contactor is already CLOSED any time aircraft
is in motion. A transient cross-feed contactor closure
presents no potential hazard.
In 40+ years of working with these devices, I have
yet to see any evidence that supports the widely
circulated fears for 'correct' contactor orientation
in airplanes. By the way, I've see hundreds of
installations of contactors in TC aircraft for
ALL orientations . . . I've never heard of it being
any kind of 'problem'.
If I were going to posit a bit of advice for orientation
it would be to mount the whisky barrel contactor CAP
DOWN after first PUNCHING a very small hole in the
center of the cap. This is for draining moisture that
MIGHT get inside if the contactor experiences long
periods of condensing moisture and/or splash. Don't
drill the hole . . . you may drop a chip into the
interior.
Having a drain hole can be the bane of your
contactor's existence. See photo series at
http://tinyurl.com/p2x7fbl
Note in particular what appears to be a factory
provided drain hole in pictures 10 and 11. At the
same time, severity and range of rust on the
interior parts along with rust patters on both
sides of the cap suggest that this contactor was
installed DRAIN up.
Short answer: I have yet to identify a justification
for recommending a contactor installation orientation with
a goal of reducing risk to system due to operational
g-loads.
Bob . . .
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Question OV Crowbar connection in Z16 figure |
Thanks Bob for confirming!
--------
Marcel Zwakenberg
XS TG || 912ULS || PH-SBR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458185#458185
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: Contactor orientation |
I am a little confused about your statement,
" If you think about it, the plunger in a starter
contactor mounted on fire wall moves PARALLED to
fuselage axis..".
Although the device moves parallel to the fuselage, that is really a
non-issue. even with severe aerobatics. It is when a hard landing occurs that
the spring which keeps the contacting mechanism open can be compressed and
contact made. The contact mechanism I think a thick washer) and its
associated armature have mass. When the aircraft hits the ground it stops its
downward movement but momentum makes the contact mechanism and armature
continue on its downward movement compressing the spring. Added to that, the
aircraft rebounds and not only does the contact mechanism continue to move
downward, the shell of the solenoid, being connected to the firewall is now
moving upward increasing the possibility that the contactor will contact,
until the energy contained in the spring overcomes the closing movement of the
contactor---or the contactor actually makes contact, at which the spring
disengages it.
Actually, if you look at ACS starter solenoid (contactor) you will see that
the terminals are on the top of the "can", the lower part is the
electromagnet which pulls the armature (connected to the actual contact device)
downward to complete the circuit. It has to be held up (open) by a compression
spring.
The pilot will never notice that this happens save for the possibility of
damaged gears which will probably be blamed on something else.
Rich
In a message dated 7/14/2016 11:13:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:
I've heard a boat load of narratives and anecdotes
concerning contactor orientation in aircraft. Most
of the 'advice' goes to the 'whisky barrel' style
contactors from White-Rogers and Cole-Hersey. The
first time I recall such a story was a OSH back about
1990 . . . an airshow performer showed up at the
B&C booth to buy a new starter and contactor. Seems
his contactor was stuck and the starter gears chewed
up. He hypothesized that g-loads during his show
teased the contactor closed followed by a welding
of contacts and an engaged starter.
In years since, many more tidbits of sage advice on
contactor orientation have appeared throughout the OBAM
aviation industry. I have yet to put my hands on any
failure of hardware that supports any notion of risk
due to airframe induced g-loads.
The tear-downs I've conducted fall into three primary
categories:
(1) Wear out. Contactor has been in service
a long time. Contacts are worn. No other evidence of
stress such as moisture, broken parts, mis-installation.
I.e. the thing went to end of service life.
(2) Moisture ingress: contacts, springs, plunger,
case badly rusted. See:
http://tinyurl.com/p2x7fbl
(3) Installation/Manufacturing error: Failure to solder
coil wires to terminals, main terminals twisted out
of alignment during torque-down of terminal nuts,
bit of debris between contacts, exposed to gross
external moisture, etc.
If you think about it, the plunger in a starter
contactor mounted on fire wall moves PARALLED to
fuselage axis. Mounted terminals up, it takes
NEGATIVE g's to close contact. A whisky-barrel
battery contactor is already CLOSED any time aircraft
is in motion. A transient cross-feed contactor closure
presents no potential hazard.
In 40+ years of working with these devices, I have
yet to see any evidence that supports the widely
circulated fears for 'correct' contactor orientation
in airplanes. By the way, I've see hundreds of
installations of contactors in TC aircraft for
ALL orientations . . . I've never heard of it being
any kind of 'problem'.
If I were going to posit a bit of advice for orientation
it would be to mount the whisky barrel contactor CAP
DOWN after first PUNCHING a very small hole in the
center of the cap. This is for draining moisture that
MIGHT get inside if the contactor experiences long
periods of condensing moisture and/or splash. Don't
drill the hole . . . you may drop a chip into the
interior.
Having a drain hole can be the bane of your
contactor's existence. See photo series at
http://tinyurl.com/p2x7fbl
Note in particular what appears to be a factory
provided drain hole in pictures 10 and 11. At the
same time, severity and range of rust on the
interior parts along with rust patters on both
sides of the cap suggest that this contactor was
installed DRAIN up.
Short answer: I have yet to identify a justification
for recommending a contactor installation orientation with
a goal of reducing risk to system due to operational
g-loads.
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Speaking of 'drain holes' . . . |
While I was working at Cessna, back in the dark ages,
the single engine cowls were modified to mount onto
brackets riveted to the firewall. These brackets were
fitted with rubber shock mounts with Dzuse sockets.
The idea was to 'float' the cowl off the fuselage structure
for reduction of engine noise in the cabin.
Emacs!
Prior to the floating cowl, a contiguous cowl mounting
flange extended forward off the firewall.
After the floating cowl upgrade, fielded aircraft began
experiencing contactor failures due to moisture ingress.
It seems that an airplane getting a cooling rain
on a warm day experienced water splash on cowl mounted
equipment.
A whisky barrel contactor's temperature was dropped
by the cool water, internal pressure went down
and liquid water was literally sucked inside. The
same water had to get back out through successive
atmospheric 'breathing' which could take days of
cycles. In the mean time, the 100% humidity
inside the contactor wreaked havoc with the
devices innards.
The first attempt to 'fix' the problem involved
manual application of epoxy around all the obvious
ingress gaps in the enclosure. Not sure what the
effectiveness of this fix was but it was not total . . .
Any of the tiniest holes still provided a moisture
entry point while further restricting egress through
atmospheric breathing.
Had a similar problem I wrestled with on an amateur
radio repeater on the 1200' platform at KTVH, Hutchinson,
KS. A brand new Motorola Micor repeater would go off
the air every time it rained and stayed off for hours
until it dried out. We set out to 'seal' the cabinet
but attempts to close it only made things worse . . .
the more we 'sealed' the longer it took to dry out.
Recalling my observations years earlier at Cessna,
we opened the cabinet up. Installed baffled ducts for
air inlet and mounted fans to maintain a good
positive airflow.
The repeater might still go off the air during
a really big frog strangler . . . but would be
back on minutes after the rain ceased.
Moral of the story: Unless your enclosure is
HERMETICALLY sealed, then any attempts improve
moisture control with goo, glue, gaskets, etc may
prove ineffectual if not antagonistic.
In the case of the whisky barrel contactor 'drain'
hole, I suggest it is more of a VENT hole.
It prevents atmospheric cooling inside from reducing
pressure and drawing the moisture inside in the
first place. That contactor mounted vent hole up
was a contactor waiting to be trashed. Mounted
vent hole down, it would probably have died
of old age having ingested NO liquid water over
its lifetime . . . and if it did . . . it would
not have risen high enough to wet the innards.
It would have been readily ejected during subsequent
atmospheric breathings.
Bob . . .
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: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 |
>
>
>Even though my airplane will have two batteries I still want to be
>able to start my 6 banger engine with a single battery.
>
>Does the collective wisdom on this forum believe that a singular
>Prius battery will be sufficient for the starting of my engine?
Many moons ago, B&C did some testing on one of their
SMALLER SVLA batteries for cranking a high performance
engine on an aerobatic aircraft. As I recall, they
performed 5 or 6, 10-blade cranking events before
the starter performance began to noticeably flag.
Cranking performance has more do to with LOOP
RESISTANCE in the wiring path and CONDITION of
the battery than with gross battery size.
Fitting your airplane with such beastly batteries
in a quest for starting performance seems a bit
counter-intuitive . . . it is, after all, an
airplane. Any increase in empty weight should
equate to some highly desired performance gain.
Keep in mind that getting your engine started
generally uses only a few percent of total stored
energy. Just as B&C demonstrated years ago, having
an energetic little SVLA battery wired to the
starter with low loss wiring and controls proved
very adequate to the starting task.
If you're planning dual alternator, dual battery
with a split bus (Z-14) then battery integrity
is very low on the system reliability totem pole.
I would go for two of the smallest practical batteries
mounted as close to the engine as practical so that
their energy is not wasted getting it piped around
the airplane.
Why the desire to start on one battery? Do you not
plan to maintain your batteries with the same
due diligence as you would tires, oil changes, fuel
in tanks, spark plugs, prop nicks, brake fluid level,
etc. etc?
With that much engine driven power there is little
performance gain to be secured by carrying around
a lot of lead. If it were my airplane, I would use
two of the smallest practical batteries located
as described above. A pair of 18A.h. batteries
should be fine. Plan on both batteries for cranking
and the either (1) cap check the batteries every
100 hrs or annual with a goal of discarding at
80% of new capacity -OR- (2) put a new battery
in the main battery slot every year and move the
year-old main battery to the aux battery slot.
That way, you have one battery always less than
a year old, no battery more than two years old
and no need to cap check.
The only reason to worry about getting started
on one battery is because you don't have the foggiest
notion of the condition of either battery. Batteries,
PROPERLY MAINTAINED, are the most reliable source
of energy in your airplane. Carrying around two,
oversized batteries is not a good substitute for
knowing their condition.
Bob . . .
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: | Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! |
I am building a dual bus ala'Bob and I am hopeful someone would PLEASE
double check my homework.
Attached is a picture of what I want to do. Do I have the cables connected
to the correct side of the ties?
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
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: | Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540 |
THANKS Bob for your help and thoughts on this!!!
Yes.I read your book (multiple times) and yes maintain the batteries and
will swap them out every two years whether they need it or not.
I bought a flying Velocity and it came with two batteries mounted in the
nose. The larger battery is a 54 pound Optima Red Top and the small battery
is a 26 pound Power Sonic 26 Ampere Hour 12260 NB.
As per your book I am moving one battery to the firewall (closer to the
starter) and leaving the other battery in the nose (weight and balance
reasons). I am switching the Power Sonic out for a 26 pound Optima Yellow
Top AGM Group Size: JIS 46B24R (Prius Battery) and next year the huge Optima
Red Top will most likely go with your recommended battery and go with the
annual switch program.
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Optima Prius Battery For TIO-540
Even though my airplane will have two batteries I still want to be able to
start my 6 banger engine with a single battery.
Does the collective wisdom on this forum believe that a singular Prius
battery will be sufficient for the starting of my engine?
Many moons ago, B&C did some testing on one of their
SMALLER SVLA batteries for cranking a high performance
engine on an aerobatic aircraft. As I recall, they
performed 5 or 6, 10-blade cranking events before
the starter performance began to noticeably flag.
Cranking performance has more do to with LOOP
RESISTANCE in the wiring path and CONDITION of
the battery than with gross battery size.
Fitting your airplane with such beastly batteries
in a quest for starting performance seems a bit
counter-intuitive . . . it is, after all, an
airplane. Any increase in empty weight should
equate to some highly desired performance gain.
Keep in mind that getting your engine started
generally uses only a few percent of total stored
energy. Just as B&C demonstrated years ago, having
an energetic little SVLA battery wired to the
starter with low loss wiring and controls proved
very adequate to the starting task.
If you're planning dual alternator, dual battery
with a split bus (Z-14) then battery integrity
is very low on the system reliability totem pole.
I would go for two of the smallest practical batteries
mounted as close to the engine as practical so that
their energy is not wasted getting it piped around
the airplane.
Why the desire to start on one battery? Do you not
plan to maintain your batteries with the same
due diligence as you would tires, oil changes, fuel
in tanks, spark plugs, prop nicks, brake fluid level,
etc. etc?
With that much engine driven power there is little
performance gain to be secured by carrying around
a lot of lead. If it were my airplane, I would use
two of the smallest practical batteries located
as described above. A pair of 18A.h. batteries
should be fine. Plan on both batteries for cranking
and the either (1) cap check the batteries every
100 hrs or annual with a goal of discarding at
80% of new capacity -OR- (2) put a new battery
in the main battery slot every year and move the
year-old main battery to the aux battery slot.
That way, you have one battery always less than
a year old, no battery more than two years old
and no need to cap check.
The only reason to worry about getting started
on one battery is because you don't have the foggiest
notion of the condition of either battery. Batteries,
PROPERLY MAINTAINED, are the most reliable source
of energy in your airplane. Carrying around two,
oversized batteries is not a good substitute for
knowing their condition.
Bob . . .
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: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! |
Do the banded ends of the diodes connect to the positive side of the coils? If
so, OK. I can not tell from the picture.
The lower right contactor looks like it has an extra diode that connects the
two fat terminals together. Is that what it is, a diode? If so, it is in parallel
with the contactor and will be destroyed by high current. A schematic would
be easier for me to understand than the picture.
If the mounting surface vibrates, flexible cables are better than a bus bar.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458197#458197
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: Contactor orientation |
>At 01:37 PM 7/14/2016, you wrote:
>I am a little confused about your statement,
>
>" If you think about it, the plunger in a starter
>contactor mounted on fire wall moves PARALLED to
>fuselage axis..".
>
>Although the device moves parallel to the fuselage, that is
>really a non-issue. even with severe aerobatics. It is when a hard
>landing occurs that the spring which keeps the contacting mechanism
>open can be compressed and contact made.
Okay, the plunger mass moves along the longitudinal
axis of the aircraft. All the flight dynamics plots
I've observed speak to really big loads along Z-axis,
this is the one that breaks the wings off. What is
the forcing function that accelerates the fuselage
along the X-axis with any degree of robustness in
a 'hard' landing?
> The contact mechanism I think a thick washer)
Not exactly . . .
Emacs!
> and its associated armature have mass.
Yes, but even less than the legacy whisky-barrel
contactor . . .
Emacs!
> When the aircraft hits the ground it stops its downward movement
> but momentum makes the contact mechanism and armature continue on
> its downward movement compressing the spring.
Actually, aircraft Z-axis acceleration is at 90 degrees
to the contractor's stroke axis.
> Added to that, the aircraft rebounds and not only does the contact
> mechanism continue to move downward, the shell of the solenoid,
> being connected to the firewall is now moving upward increasing
> the possibility that the contactor will contact, until the energy
> contained in the spring overcomes the closing movement of the
> contactor---or the contactor actually makes contact, at which the
> spring disengages it.
Assuming contactor closure CAN be achieved with
airframe g-loads . . . what do you suppose the
duration of closure might be? What is the delay
between first application of power to a starter
until the pinion gear is extended and gears make
contact? Assuming they do make 'contact' what is
the behavior of starter's parts?
Contactor closure times are at best measured in
tens of millisonde. Time from first energization
of starter to gear tooth engagement is many tens
of milliseconds . . . perhaps as much as 200. When
the ring gear tries to drive the starter pinion,
the output shaft will spin ahead of motor velocity
due to the starter's built in over-run clutch.
>
>
>Actually, if you look at ACS starter solenoid (contactor) you will
>see that the terminals are on the top of the "can", the lower part
>is the electromagnet which pulls the armature (connected to the
>actual contact device) downward to complete the circuit. It has to
>be held up (open) by a compression spring.
If you study the disassembly photos of an exemplar
contactor at . . .
http://tinyurl.com/o5turon
Energizing this style of contactor LIFTS the armature
and pushes a very light moving contact up against
the inside of the dome which mounts the contact
studs. The return spring resides between the stationary
contacts.
>
>The pilot will never notice that this happens save for the
>possibility of damaged gears which will probably be blamed
>on something else.
You're right. The pilot who bought a new starter
and contactor at OSH was unaware that his starter
had probably been engaged for the duration of his
performance . . . not because of some transient
g-loading but more likely from contact welding
promoted by low battery voltage.
G-loading to contactor mounted on the fire wall
isn't even on the right axis for moving the
contactor's inner workings. Even if the contactor
were mounted upside down . . . maintained a Z-axis
g-load induced contact for an interval needed to get the
pinion gears extended is problematic.
Bob . . .
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: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! |
Thanks for your kind reply!
The top-left contactor is a BNC S701-1 and the bottom-right contactor is a
BNC S701-2.
I believe the design of the S70 1-1 battery contactor is such that you're
supposed to connect the battery positive to the left hand Pole and the
electricity flows from left to right. The diode is as delivered and the
silver band is to the left Pole.
The bottom-right contactor is supposed to be a bus tie... the idea for the
system is when the bus tie switch is off (not grounded) then the left-hand
electrical system is powering the left bus independently and the right-hand
electrical system is powering the right-hand bus independently.
When the bus tie switch is turned on (ground introduced) then that bus tie
contactor acts as the connection between the left hand system and the right
hand system.
I do not intend to have the bus tie to automatically close with the starter
switch so the question I have is... what Pole do I connect the bus tie
switch grounding wire to?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
+1 408-464-1902
On Jul 14, 2016 15:50, "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do the banded ends of the diodes connect to the positive side of the
> coils? If so, OK. I can not tell from the picture.
> The lower right contactor looks like it has an extra diode that connects
> the two fat terminals together. Is that what it is, a diode? If so, it is
> in parallel with the contactor and will be destroyed by high current. A
> schematic would be easier for me to understand than the picture.
> If the mounting surface vibrates, flexible cables are better than a bus
> bar.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458197#458197
>
>
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: Contactor orientation |
Not sure if I can find it again but Cessna Pilots Assn had an article on contactors
and orientation about a year ago. One of the interesting quirks was the mention
of a mislabeled contactor that was routinely installed incorrectly at the
factory resulting in several instances of starter engagement many years after
the install. I'll see if I can find it again.
Jim Baker
405 426 5377
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: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! |
Also... since the starter relay is powered by a 12-volt source it I
ASS-U-ME it does not matter what side of the relay is the power side and
what side goes to the starter motor... is this correct?
Bill Hunter
Bill Hunter
+1 408-464-1902
On Jul 14, 2016 6:33 PM, "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for your kind reply!
>
> The top-left contactor is a BNC S701-1 and the bottom-right contactor is a
> BNC S701-2.
>
> I believe the design of the S70 1-1 battery contactor is such that you're
> supposed to connect the battery positive to the left hand Pole and the
> electricity flows from left to right. The diode is as delivered and the
> silver band is to the left Pole.
>
> The bottom-right contactor is supposed to be a bus tie... the idea for the
> system is when the bus tie switch is off (not grounded) then the left-hand
> electrical system is powering the left bus independently and the right-hand
> electrical system is powering the right-hand bus independently.
>
> When the bus tie switch is turned on (ground introduced) then that bus tie
> contactor acts as the connection between the left hand system and the right
> hand system.
>
> I do not intend to have the bus tie to automatically close with the
> starter switch so the question I have is... what Pole do I connect the bus
> tie switch grounding wire to?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
> +1 408-464-1902
>
> On Jul 14, 2016 15:50, "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Do the banded ends of the diodes connect to the positive side of the
>> coils? If so, OK. I can not tell from the picture.
>> The lower right contactor looks like it has an extra diode that
>> connects the two fat terminals together. Is that what it is, a diode? If
>> so, it is in parallel with the contactor and will be destroyed by high
>> current. A schematic would be easier for me to understand than the picture.
>> If the mounting surface vibrates, flexible cables are better than a bus
>> bar.
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458197#458197
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
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: Contactor orientation |
At 08:50 PM 7/14/2016, you wrote:
>
>Not sure if I can find it again but Cessna Pilots Assn had an
>article on contactors and orientation about a year ago. One of the
>interesting quirks was the mention of a mislabeled contactor that
>was routinely installed incorrectly at the factory resulting in
>several instances of starter engagement many years after the
>install. I'll see if I can find it again.
Super! I've got good G2 at Cessna . . . it will
be interesting to see which parts were involved.
Bob . . .
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: Can Someone PLEASE Double Check My Homework?!?!?! |
At 05:20 PM 7/14/2016, you wrote:
>
>Do the banded ends of the diodes connect to the positive side of the
>coils? If so, OK. I can not tell from the picture.
The S701-1 and -2 contactors START with the same,
4-terminal, off-the-shelf device. When used as a
S702-2, bus tie contactor the schematic looks like this
excerpt from Z-14. TWO diodes provide power to
energize the contactor from either bus . . . this
insures that you can get the cold bus connected to
the hot one no matter which is which. The THIRD
diode is the legacy coil suppression device.
Emacs!
A photo of the as-aSsembled product from B&C
looks like this:
Emacs!
The S701-1 contactor is for more rudimentary tasks
like battery contactors. Here you only need the coil
suppression diode and the schematic looks like this:
Emacs!
And the finished product looks like this
Emacs!
Bob . . .
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! --
|