Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:57 AM - Please critique my electrical design (N884RA)
2. 08:15 AM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:16 AM - Re: Charging Issue (user9253)
4. 10:06 AM - Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI (blues750)
5. 10:16 AM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (N884RA)
6. 10:23 AM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (user9253)
7. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: Charging Issue (FLYaDIVE)
8. 01:03 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (FLYaDIVE)
9. 01:46 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: Charging Issue (Rene)
11. 02:49 PM - Car clock in an aircraft (Carlos Trigo)
12. 03:38 PM - Re: Car clock in an aircraft (FLYaDIVE)
13. 03:44 PM - Re: Car clock in an aircraft (user9253)
14. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Charging Issue (FLYaDIVE)
15. 04:15 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (FLYaDIVE)
16. 04:17 PM - Re: Re: Charging Issue (Rene)
17. 04:35 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Rene)
18. 05:07 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Mark Moyle)
19. 05:19 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Sebastien)
20. 05:49 PM - Re: Charging Issue (mhealydds)
21. 05:55 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (N884RA)
22. 07:40 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Charlie England)
23. 08:07 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Ken Ryan)
24. 08:10 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (user9253)
25. 09:00 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Charlie England)
26. 09:07 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (don van santen)
27. 09:26 PM - Re: Please critique my electrical design (Ken Ryan)
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: | Please critique my electrical design |
I've been working on the electrical architecture for my RV-8 and I'm getting close
to a solution, but before I start buying and installing components, I'd like
to get some feedback on my deign.
I'm planning an IFR-capable RV-8 with a Titan IO-370, dual P-mags and a Whirlwind
constant speed prop. Avionics will be the G3X system with G-5, GTN-650, GTR20,
et al. I'm planning to use the Earth-X ETX680 battery as the main, and a
TCW 3 Ah backup battery. The main alternator will be a belt-driven B&C BC-460H
(60 Amps) with a gear-driven SD-8 backup (
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479224#479224
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/load_analysis_156.png
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: Please critique my electrical design |
At 06:55 AM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>I've been working on the electrical architecture for my RV-8 and I'm
>getting close to a solution, but before I start buying and
>installing components, I'd like to get some feedback on my deign.
>
>I'm planning an IFR-capable RV-8 with a Titan IO-370, dual P-mags
>and a Whirlwind constant speed prop. Avionics will be the G3X
>system with G-5, GTN-650, GTR20, et al. I'm planning to use the
>Earth-X ETX680 battery as the main, and a TCW 3 Ah backup battery.
>The main alternator will be a belt-driven B&C BC-460H (60 Amps) with
>a gear-driven SD-8 backup (
>
the very first example of Z13/8 to fly was in an RV8.
Lost contact with the builders out in CT about 10 years
ago . . . but the system had hundreds of hours on it
then and the builders were delighted with the performance.
The larger standby alternator suggests Z12 which has
also been incorporated on a fleet of OBAM aircraft
and hundreds of TC aircraft.
With two alternators, why a backup battery?
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: Charging Issue |
Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=403
My interpretation of the poll results is that:
28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
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: | Bulb replacement for my Sandel 3308 EHSI |
Here is one for the experts...I currently have a Sandel 3308 EHSI which uses T3
G4 30W halogen bulbs (4mm pins). These are getting hard to find and pricey.
Would like to replace with LED comparable bulbs. Two questions, how do I ascertain
correct bulb for socket and circuit? What are the considerations I need
to know about when selecting a LED bulb as a replacement to halogen (if any?)
Appreciate (as always) this "teachable" moment! [Idea]
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479229#479229
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: | Re: Please critique my electrical design |
I heard back from EMAG today and they recommended the following:
>
> The P-mags should be put on the main bus because we only require a battery for
starting. After 800 RPM or so we switch to running off our internal generator
and do not require an external source. In the event of an internal generator
failure we would switch back to the external power (main bus). Be sure to do
the minimum cut-out test to see where the ignitions drop off and note it so in
the event of an alternator failure you wont run the risk of the having to low
of RPM for our ignitions to continue sparking.
>
> If you do put us on the battery directly you run the chance of leaving us on
and draining your battery.
>
I've updated my design to put the P-mags back the way I initially had them and
removed the Battery Bus fuse block once again.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479230#479230
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: Please critique my electrical design |
The main voltage regulator sense terminal (3?) should
connect to the to the main power bus and not share a wire
with the field current. The way it is connected now will
eventually lead to overvoltage conditions due to
increasing resistance as terminals and switch contacts
corrode over time.
The start switch does not need to be on a circuit
breaker. A fuse on the main power bus should never blow.
And if it did, there should be a good reason.
And the plane will be safely on the ground if and
when the start fuse does blow.
There should not be 2 fuselinks in series going to the
main alternator field breaker. One is good enough. The
second one is redundant.
Who knows if the aux alt 2 amp breaker will trip before
the 15 amps fuse blows. Maybe increase the fuse to 30
amps?
Consider doing away with the avionics switch.
Maybe the trim indicator and fuel gauge should be on the
endurance bus. They use very little power.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479231#479231
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: Charging Issue |
Thanks for the post Joe,
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=403
> My interpretation of the poll results is that:
> 28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
> 20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
> 2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
>
>
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: Please critique my electrical design |
>
>
> With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
=8BBecause what if the battery fails?
G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =8Byou can apply that
money
to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start the plane
and supply days of power for the G-5. I have not installed the G-3, but I
have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI). With dual G-5's in a
certified plane you are required to
have dual Garmin batteries... That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 AH
battery. Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery - a small
one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
situation.
Yea, happened to me one night. No Fun!
Barry
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: Please critique my electrical design |
At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>=C2 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
>
>=C2 Bob . . .
>
>
>=8BBecause what if the battery fails?
>G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or
>=8Byou can apply that money to a much larger
>second battery which will be big enough to start
>the plane and supply days of power for the
>G-5.=C2 I have not installed the G-3,=C2 but I
>have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI &
>HSI).=C2 With dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C2
>have dual Garmin batteries...=C2 That is $300 for
>a stinking 1 or 2 AH battery.=C2 Yea, I would be
>very happy to install a second battery - a small
>one - With just enough to start the plane in a
>24:00 DARK stranded situation.=C2 =C2
>Yea, happened to me one night.=C2 No Fun!
>
>Barry
Was this in spite of a considered preventative
maintenance program? What was the battery's last
cap-check value before the failure?
A battery that is watched and maintained as
carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
you of engine driven energy in spite of the
loss of one alternator.
The rule of thumb for battery replacement
in the TC world is when it falls to less than
75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
RG battery world, this means it probably
still cranks the engine but is in substantial
decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
home hangar.
Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
battery.
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: | Re: Charging Issue |
Not throwing stones..but this is a very unscientific poll
dating back to 2005.
My experience2 automotive alternators failed in less
than 250hr. Can not remember how long each latested. B&C 8
amp..700 hrs and counting. PP 70 amp, I think it has been
about 400 hours and counting
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
Thanks for the post Joe,
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com
<mailto:fransew@gmail.com> > wrote:
<mailto:fransew@gmail.com> >
Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=
403> &pollid=403
My interpretation of the poll results is that:
28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Car clock in an aircraft |
To the electrowizzards in this list.
(This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on this)
I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with temperature indication,
to install in the back of my RV-10, as a courtesy to the rear passengers.
(please avoid any comments on this decision... :-)).
As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with the clock,
doesnt have any information about the electric circuit, so Im in the guess
field here.
This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has 2 of those
coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a backup to the
ships power.
But Im not sure...
This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power cable.
Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft Master
switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft battery?
Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master is Off,
the clocks coin batteries will be powering the clock and only a very tiny current
will be draining from the always hot bus, not depleting the aircrafts battery?
Even knowing that without information on the clocks electric circuit it is difficult
to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
Thanks
Carlos
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: Car clock in an aircraft |
Carlos:
You can do either.
I would put it on a SWITCHED (On/Off) buss.
The 'watch battery' is as you guess for a 'keep alive' circuit for the
clock.
The easy way of proving this would be to remove the watch battery while the
unit is plugged into the planes power. THEN! Shut OFF the plane's power.
Since the keep alive battery is no longer in circuit the clock should die
and loose time (keep the plane's power off for 5 minutes just for S&G's.
The clock should NOT hold memory and should either die or loose time...
The 5 minutes.
Why would I use a switched buss? Because if you do not fly for a REAL long
time the clock and what ever else you have connected directly to the
battery would drain the battery. Slowly for sure but, drain none the less.
I just had a fellow tell me his 18 Ah battery was dying every two weeks.
I checked the current draw on the battery with EVERYTHING Off.
There was a 45 ma draw.
When you work out the Ah and the hours in 2 weeks ... The battery would be
dead!
Problem identified...
Problem solved... The plane had a CD player with a keep alive circuit.
For what? The CLOCK and the play list memory.
Pulled the CD player and the problem went away!
The CD player was illegal for a certified plane anyway!
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Carlos Trigo <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> wrote
:
> trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>
> To the electrowizzards in this list.
> (This is not a rocket science aircraft subject, but I need your help on
> this)
>
> I bought one of those cheap (chinese) digital car clocks, with temperatur
e
> indication, to install in the back of my RV-10, as a courtesy to the rear
> passengers. (please avoid any comments on this decision... :-)).
> As one could expect, the miserable instructions leaflet which came with
> the clock, doesn=99t have any information about the electric circui
t, so I=99m
> in the guess field here.
>
> This critter has a 2-wire cable to be connected to 12V/24V, and also has
2
> of those coin type batteries, so I suppose that the batteries are a backu
p
> to the ship=99s power.
> But I=99m not sure...
>
> This leaves me with a doubt on where to connect the + wire of the power
> cable.
> Should I connect it to a circuit which is only powered when the aircraft
> Master switch is on, to avoid this critter to deplete the aircraft batter
y?
> Or can I connect it to the always hot bus, hoping that when the Master is
> Off, the clock=99s coin batteries will be powering the clock and on
ly a very
> tiny current will be draining from the always hot bus, not depleting the
> aircraft=99s battery?
>
> Even knowing that without information on the clocks=99 electric cir
cuit it
> is difficult to know the answer, comments and suggestions are welcome
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: Car clock in an aircraft |
Set your multi-meter to read milliamps and connect it in series with a 12 volt
power wire. Then measure the clock's current draw. Once armed with the numbers,
a decision can be made. It is puzzling why a digital clock would even have
a power wire unless it is for a back light. Most digital clocks are powered
by internal batteries.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479240#479240
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: Charging Issue |
How scientific do you want to get?
A failure is a failure!
And a failure ONLY hurts when YOU have to pull money out of YOUR pocket to
fix it.
Or when it cost YOU time.
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Rene <rene@felker.com> wrote:
> Not throwing stones..but this is a very unscientific poll dating
back to
> 2005.
>
>
> My experience2 automotive alternators failed in less th
an 250hr. Can
> not remember how long each latested. B&C 8 amp..700 hrs and cou
nting. PP
> 70 amp, I think it has been about 400 hours and counting
>
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com <
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
>
>
> Thanks for the post Joe,
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=
403
> My interpretation of the poll results is that:
> 28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
> 20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
> 2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
>
>
> ========================
===========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
> matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
> ========================
===========
>
>
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: Please critique my electrical design |
Bob:
Let's get a show of hands...
How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So, if
there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that would
cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did not
build.
What do you think would sell a plane faster:
'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
Or...
'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
>
> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>
>
> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9y
ou can apply that
> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start t
he
> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed t
he
> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 A
H
> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>
> Barry
>
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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: Charging Issue |
It did not poll the populationonly a slice of the
population that just happened to see it on the site. That is all I am
saying. Applying failure rates to a random set of installations may be
misleading to some and implies a certain amount of certainty. My
experience lines up with the poll for the most part, but I am just one
datapoint.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
How scientific do you want to get?
A failure is a failure!
And a failure ONLY hurts when YOU have to pull money out of YOUR pocket
to fix it.
Or when it cost YOU time.
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Rene <rene@felker.com
<mailto:rene@felker.com> > wrote:
Not throwing stones..but this is a very unscientific poll
dating back to 2005.
My experience2 automotive alternators failed in less
than 250hr. Can not remember how long each latested. B&C 8
amp..700 hrs and counting. PP 70 amp, I think it has been
about 400 hours and counting
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
<owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> > On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36 PM
<mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging Issue
Thanks for the post Joe,
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com
<mailto:fransew@gmail.com> > wrote:
<mailto:fransew@gmail.com> >
Here is link to a poll taken on Vansairforce about alternator failures:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=
403> &pollid=403
My interpretation of the poll results is that:
28 percent of Plane Power installations have failed prematurely.
20 percent of automotive installations have failed prematurely.
2 percent of B&C installations have failed prematurely.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479225#479225
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/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: | Please critique my electrical design |
I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
Batteries +.
I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery
failures.one self induced and the other was infant mortality.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
Bob:
Let's get a show of hands...
How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
not build.
What do you think would sell a plane faster:
'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
Or...
'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> >
wrote:
At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
=C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
=C3=82 Bob . . .
=C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or
=C3=A2=82=AC=B9you can apply that money to a much larger second
battery which will be big enough to start the plane and supply days of
power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed the G-3,=C3=82 but I
have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3=82 With dual
G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second
battery - a small one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00
DARK stranded situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
Barry
Was this in spite of a considered preventative
maintenance program? What was the battery's last
cap-check value before the failure?
A battery that is watched and maintained as
carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
you of engine driven energy in spite of the
loss of one alternator.
The rule of thumb for battery replacement
in the TC world is when it falls to less than
75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
RG battery world, this means it probably
still cranks the engine but is in substantial
decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
home hangar.
Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
battery.
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: Please critique my electrical design |
Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture pulled.
Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15 seconds the
battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery is good. If
not charge the battery and test again.
Mark Moyle
Platinum Alaska
From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> on behalf of Rene
<rene@felker.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at Batteries
I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is 10+
years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures.one self
induced and the other was infant mortality.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
Bob:
Let's get a show of hands...
How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So, if
there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that would
cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did not
build.
What do you think would sell a plane faster:
'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
Or...
'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9you can apply
th
at money
>> to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start the pl
ane
>> and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed the G-3,=C3=82
but I
>> have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3=82 With dual G-5's i
n a
>> certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 AH
>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery - a s
mall
>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
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: Please critique my electrical design |
I have a load tester. I leave it in the hanger though as superfluous weight
(like for example 4 electrical sources) is a performance killer.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 7:19 PM FLYaDIVE <flyadive@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
> battery!
> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
> not build.
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
> Or...
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9
you can apply that
>> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start
the
>> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed
the
>> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
>> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: Charging Issue |
I was the original poster and found my issue. I had a cracked firewall passthrough
fitting (it was Blue Sea fitting a lot of other RV-10 user reported using).
Anyway, it was in a spot not easy to inspect and never thought about it being
cracked, just he connections on the fitting. Now a have a bad alternator noise
I have thing to track down. Anyone dealt with that?
Matt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479250#479250
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: Please critique my electrical design |
Thanks for the feedback!
user9253 wrote:
> The main voltage regulator sense terminal (3?) should
> connect to the to the main power bus and not share a wire
> with the field current. The way it is connected now will
> eventually lead to overvoltage conditions due to
> increasing resistance as terminals and switch contacts
> corrode over time.
I just followed Bob's wiring on the Z-13/8, but I'll be sure to check that against
the manufacture's instructions when I buy the voltage regulator.
> The start switch does not need to be on a circuit
> breaker. A fuse on the main power bus should never blow.
> And if it did, there should be a good reason.
> And the plane will be safely on the ground if and
> when the start fuse does blow.
I put the starter on a CB so I'd have an alternate way of turning it off in the
event the starter switch failed closed. I suppose turning off the master would
have the same effect though.
> There should not be 2 fuselinks in series going to the
> main alternator field breaker. One is good enough. The
> second one is redundant.
The distance between Main Bus 1 and Main Bus 2 was 6 feet, so I thought I needed
circuit protection on it. Other builders advised me not to use a fuse for fear
of nuisance trips. I've since moved the location of the CBs to the front
of the instrument panel which has reduced the length of that wire run to less
than 18". Does that length of wire need circuit protection?
> Who knows if the aux alt 2 amp breaker will trip before
> the 15 amps fuse blows. Maybe increase the fuse to 30
> amps?
I have to confess I'm don't understand the intricacies of that set up as well as
I wish. Bob also recommends 30A inline fuse and I'm not completely sure why
I have it shown as 15A. The manufacturer recommends a 10A CB as the feed into
the main bus, but I opted to go with Bob's design. Or I attempted to! :?
> Consider doing away with the avionics switch.
I know I'm in the old school here, but I want the switch function.
> Maybe the trim indicator and fuel gauge should be on the
> endurance bus. They use very little power.
That's a good point.
Thanks again,
Rob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479251#479251
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: Please critique my electrical design |
Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that
might not be the most reliable test.
On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
> pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after
> 15 seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the
> battery is good. If not charge the battery and test again.
> Mark Moyle
> Platinum Alaska
>
> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>> on behalf of
> Rene <rene@felker.com <mailto:rene@felker.com>>
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
> Batteries +.
>
> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
> 10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery
> failures.one self induced and the other was infant mortality.
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
> <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>> *On Behalf Of
> *FLYaDIVE
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
> Bob:
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
>
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test
> a battery!
>
> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders.
> So, if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt
> that would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane
> and did not build.
>
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>
> Or...
>
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
> Barry
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>
> wrote:
>
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Because what if the battery fails?
> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or you can
> apply that money to a much larger second battery which will be
> big enough to start the plane and supply days of power for the
> G-5. I have not installed the G-3, but I have installed 2
> planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI). With dual G-5's in a
> certified plane you are required to
> have dual Garmin batteries... That is $300 for a stinking 1
> or 2 AH battery. Yea, I would be very happy to install a
> second battery - a small one - With just enough to start the
> plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded situation.
> Yea, happened to me one night. No Fun!
>
> Barry
>
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Please critique my electrical design |
Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage drop
would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but if
done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than doing
nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand new
battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
Enlighten!
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that might
> not be the most reliable test.
>
> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>
> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
pulled.
> Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15 seconds th
e
> battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery is good. I
f
> not charge the battery and test again.
> Mark Moyle
> Platinum Alaska
>
> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> on behalf of Rene <
> rene@felker.com>
> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at B
atteries
> +.
>
>
> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is 10+
> years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures.
one self
> induced and the other was infant mortality.
>
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com <
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>
>
> Bob:
>
>
> Let's get a show of hands...
>
> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>
> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
> battery!
>
> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
> not build.
>
> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>
> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>
> Or...
>
> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>
> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>
>
> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9y
ou can apply that
> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start t
he
> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed t
he
> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2 A
H
> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>
> Barry
>
>
> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
> cap-check value before the failure?
>
> A battery that is watched and maintained as
> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
> loss of one alternator.
>
> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
> RG battery world, this means it probably
> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
> home hangar.
>
> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
> battery.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm
_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free
.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm
_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> <#m_6581499881476749600_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
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: Please critique my electrical design |
If you look at B&C's wiring diagram
https://www.bandc.aero/pdfs/LR3C_Installation_Manual.pdf
the voltage sense terminal 3 is separate from the field terminal 6.
Also look at Bob's Z-12.
_
One fuselink provides protection for everything downstream of it.
A second fuselink is not required. All the second one does is make
an unnecessary failure point.
_
The maximum of 6" rule of thumb for unprotected wires is not cast
in stone. It all depends on what dangers the wire is exposed to.
_
Circuit breakers are mechanical devices that take time to operate.
That time could be longer than it takes a smaller fuse to blow. A larger
fuse will be slower to blow in case of the over-voltage module shorting out.
The aux alternator fuse protects the battery. It will not hurt to use a 30
amp fuse. Z-13/8 uses a 20awg fuselink which will probably carry more
than 30 amps before the wire melts. The aux alternator output is self
current limiting and will never exceed 10 amps or so.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479255#479255
Message 25
| 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: Please critique my electrical design |
If the only use for the battery is starting, then it's a valid test. But
if the battery is backup electrical power for the alternator and you
need electrical power to keep the flight safe to its conclusion, then it
isn't a valid test.
It can be down to 50% capacity & still reliably crank the engine. But if
the alternator dies and you need the battery to keep the engine running
(electronic ignition, glass panel in IFR, etc), then you'd only have
half or less the time you thought you'd have, based on the battery's
rated capacity.
It's the difference between power and energy. 400 HP Corvette with 1/2
gallon of gas, vs 80 HP Chevette with 15 gallons.
That help?
On 4/10/2018 10:06 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning
> the starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the
> voltage drop would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most
> accurate, but if done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be
> much better than doing nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact
> that it only takes 5% of battery capacity to start the engine has any
> relevance on whether such a rudimentary engine spinning stress test is
> valid, or not. Are you saying that it is likely that one would note
> the same voltage drop on a brand new battery as on a battery that is
> nearing the end of its useful life? Enlighten!
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com
> <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine,
> that might not be the most reliable test.
>
> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
>> pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If
>> after 15 seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6
>> volts DC the battery is good. If not charge the battery and test
>> again.
>> Mark Moyle
>> Platinum Alaska
>>
>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>> on behalf
>> of Rene <rene@felker.com <mailto:rene@felker.com>>
>> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>>
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
>> Batteries +.
>>
>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery
>> that is 10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two
>> battery failures.one self induced and the other was infant
>> mortality.
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
>> <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>> *On Behalf
>> Of *FLYaDIVE
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical
>> design
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>
>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>
>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load
>> test a battery!
>>
>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are
>> builders. So, if there are fellows out there that do have a load
>> tester I doubt that would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only
>> purchased the plane and did not build.
>>
>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>
>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
>> <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or you
>> can apply that money to a much larger second battery
>> which will be big enough to start the plane and supply
>> days of power for the G-5. I have not installed the
>> G-3, but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI
>> & HSI). With dual G-5's in a certified plane you are
>> required to
>> have dual Garmin batteries... That is $300 for a
>> stinking 1 or 2 AH battery. Yea, I would be very happy
>> to install a second battery - a small one - With just
>> enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.
>> Yea, happened to me one night. No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>
>
> <#m_6581499881476749600_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 26
| 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: Please critique my electrical design |
A valid test needs to take the battery to lower than 75%. After that fully
charge and then retest, I usually go the manufactures suggested low charge
level. This will tell you if the bat is capable of 75% charge.If not,
replace it.
I do this and also replace my AGM Bat
every two years. I have no steam gagues in my AC.
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018, Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage drop
would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but if
done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than doing
nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand new
battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
Enlighten!
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that
might not be the most reliable test.
>>
>> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>>
>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
pulled. Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15
seconds the battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery
is good. If not charge the battery and test again.
>> Mark Moyle
>> Platinum Alaska
>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> on behalf of Rene <
rene@felker.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
Batteries +.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is
10+ years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures
.one
self induced and the other was infant mortality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com <
owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>
>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>
>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
battery!
>>
>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
not build.
>>
>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>
>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9
you can apply that
money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start the
plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed the
G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3=82
With
dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery - a
small
one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> <
https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/M2-ctzJ6_LQ91UgZhwqiad0T5NTuMKxW_Wy
q6Hwe3O5NlmAAXUIN70IL704-sgeGK_EUk1emkSHFb89ojOgJMH73hkYFO_E705cCwjimC_9onv
xtCWJ7EZN27-OVK4jjjO_ucLFuIks7qIMzuswpUsWNzJ_u=s0-d-e1-ft#https://ipmcdn.
avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v
1.gif>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
Message 27
| 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: Please critique my electrical design |
Charlie, It seems to me that your response does not address that the test
involves monitoring the voltage drop that occurs when the consistent load
is applied. The test is not simply, "will the battery spin the prop." The
test is, "what is the voltage drop caused by spinning the prop."
It seems to me that if the voltage drops down further on a worn out battery
than it does on a fresh battery, there is at least the possibility that
this test could be quite useful. It does not seem to me that the simple
fact the battery "can be down 50% capacity and still reliably crank the
engine" is germane to whether or not monitoring voltage under a consistent
load (in this case spinning the propeller for a specific time) can be
useful as a way to determine whether or not it is time to replace a battery
.
I'm not saying that the spin-the-prop-and-monitor-voltage test is valid.
But it seems to me like it might be. I just can't see where simply noting
that a depleted battery can still spin a prop says anything about the
usefulness of such a test. Sorry, but I just can't seem to make that
connection. Probably I am a little bit dense :) -- it wouldn't be the first
time.
In evaluating the suggested test, as a starting point I would like to know
if the voltage drop would be significantly different on a new vs a worn out
battery. If the answer is no, the drop would be about the same, then case
closed. Test invalid. But if it turns out the voltage drop is significantly
greater on a worn out battery, then I think there is reason to believe that
the test might be useful.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 20:04 Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the only use for the battery is starting, then it's a valid test. But
> if the battery is backup electrical power for the alternator and you need
> electrical power to keep the flight safe to its conclusion, then it isn't
a
> valid test.
>
> It can be down to 50% capacity & still reliably crank the engine. But if
> the alternator dies and you need the battery to keep the engine running
> (electronic ignition, glass panel in IFR, etc), then you'd only have half
> or less the time you thought you'd have, based on the battery's rated
> capacity.
>
> It's the difference between power and energy. 400 HP Corvette with 1/2
> gallon of gas, vs 80 HP Chevette with 15 gallons.
>
> That help?
>
> On 4/10/2018 10:06 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Charlie, It would seem to me that putting a consistent load (turning the
> starter, similar temperatures) on the battery, and noting the voltage dro
p
> would constitute a valid test. It is surely not the most accurate, but if
> done in a consistent manner, it is seems it would be much better than doi
ng
> nothing at all. Also, I don't see how the fact that it only takes 5% of
> battery capacity to start the engine has any relevance on whether such a
> rudimentary engine spinning stress test is valid, or not. Are you saying
> that it is likely that one would note the same voltage drop on a brand ne
w
> battery as on a battery that is nearing the end of its useful life?
> Enlighten!
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Since it only takes around 5% of capacity to start the engine, that migh
t
>> not be the most reliable test.
>>
>> On 4/10/2018 7:06 PM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>>
>> Quick load test on a battery ismags grounded or off and mixture
pulled.
>> Crank the engine and monitor the battery voltage. If after 15 seconds t
he
>> battery voltage does NOT drop below 10.6 volts DC the battery is good.
If
>> not charge the battery and test again.
>> Mark Moyle
>> Platinum Alaska
>>
>> From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> on behalf of Rene <
>> rene@felker.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>> I do not know about what sells..but I have mine load tested at
Batteries
>> +.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two batteries and two alternators. I have one battery that is 10
+
>> years and the other is about 5 now. I had two battery failures
.one self
>> induced and the other was infant mortality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com <
>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:15 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Please critique my electrical design
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's get a show of hands...
>>
>> How many Pilots out there have a LOAD tester?
>>
>> I can't get owners to check their tires and you want them to load test a
>> battery!
>>
>> Granted! This is a aero-electric email list and many are builders. So,
>> if there are fellows out there that do have a load tester I doubt that
>> would cover the rest of the BUYERS that only purchased the plane and did
>> not build.
>>
>> What do you think would sell a plane faster:
>>
>> 'Oh, and this plane has Dual Alternators and Dual Batteries.'
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> 'And every year at annual I Load Test the battery."
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 4/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> =C3=82 With two alternators, why a backup battery?
>>
>> =C3=82 Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> =C3=A2=82=AC=B9Because what if the battery fails?
>> G-5's can have the Garmin $150 TINNY battery or =C3=A2=82=AC=B9
you can apply that
>> money to a much larger second battery which will be big enough to start
the
>> plane and supply days of power for the G-5.=C3=82 I have not installed
the
>> G-3,=C3=82 but I have installed 2 planes with Dual G-5's (AI & HSI).=C3
=82 With
>> dual G-5's in a certified plane you are required to=C3=82
>> have dual Garmin batteries...=C3=82 That is $300 for a stinking 1 or 2
AH
>> battery.=C3=82 Yea, I would be very happy to install a second battery -
a small
>> one - With just enough to start the plane in a 24:00 DARK stranded
>> situation.=C3=82 =C3=82
>> Yea, happened to me one night.=C3=82 No Fun!
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> Was this in spite of a considered preventative
>> maintenance program? What was the battery's last
>> cap-check value before the failure?
>>
>> A battery that is watched and maintained as
>> carefully as tires, belts, propeller nicks
>> air cleaners and engine oil is very unlikely
>> to fail. Dual alternators virtually assures
>> you of engine driven energy in spite of the
>> loss of one alternator.
>>
>> The rule of thumb for battery replacement
>> in the TC world is when it falls to less than
>> 75% of original capacity . . . in the modern
>> RG battery world, this means it probably
>> still cranks the engine but is in substantial
>> decline on an ever increasing slope to failure
>> yet unlikely to go belly up away from your
>> home hangar.
>>
>> Few light aircraft owner's manuals speak to
>> affirmative-action maintenance programs . . .
>> but I'd bet that top-billing in the cast of performers
>> virtually all dark-n-stormy night stories that
>> speak to battery failure is a beyond-service-life
>> battery.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&ut
m_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-fre
e.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&ut
m_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>> <#m_-615151073569806401_m_-960492680129280463_m_6581499881476749600_DAB4
FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>
>
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! --
|