Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Power (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 11:46 AM - Re: Re: Power (FLYaDIVE)
3. 04:03 PM - Re: Re: Power (C&K)
4. 04:54 PM - Re: Re: Power (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 |
|
At 11:10 PM 8/4/2018, you wrote:
>
>Ok, thanks for the feedback.
>
>Yes, I currently have the secondary ECU powered
>another bus in the front of the airplane. What
>I failed to think out completely was the load
>shedding side of things. My intent was to have
>the ability to load shed everything except the
>critical engine items, the second ECU not being
>critical. The problem is the switchology has
>become more complex than I like due to the
>injector relays and their relationship with the
>ECUs. I feel it=99s a safer and a more
>simplified solution just to have the same power
>source with both ECUs and leaving no possibility
>to inadvertently shut down the engine during load shedding.
>
Hmmmm . . . perhaps we can help sort the
sands of your FMEA. Can you describe the
current architecture . . . or better yet
. . . post a drawing? What is your base
architecture . . . one of the z-figures?
Have you done a load analysis to define
your actions upon loss of alternator?
Bob . . .
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Scotty:
"The more they overtake the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain.
"
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 11:38 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:10 PM 8/4/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> Ok, thanks for the feedback.
>
> Yes, I currently have the secondary ECU powered another bus in the front
> of the airplane. What I failed to think out completely was the load
> shedding side of things. My intent was to have the ability to load shed
> everything except the critical engine items, the second ECU not being
> critical. The problem is the switchology has become more complex than I
> like due to the injector relays and their relationship with the ECUs. I
> feel it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s a safer and a more simplified solution j
ust to have the same
> power source with both ECUs and leaving no possibility to inadvertently
> shut down the engine during load shedding.
>
>
> Hmmmm . . . perhaps we can help sort the
> sands of your FMEA. Can you describe the
> current architecture . . . or better yet
> . . . post a drawing? What is your base
> architecture . . . one of the z-figures?
> Have you done a load analysis to define
> your actions upon loss of alternator?
>
>
> 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 |
|
15 years ago when I was making similar decisions I picked up a second
set of injectors and fuel rail from the local auto wrecker and welded
them in.
It simplified the "switchology" quite a bit.
Both ecu's run all the time and are hard wired to the negative side of
their dedicated injectors.
Manual toggle switches send positive power to whichever set of injectors
I wish to operate.
Z-14 allowed independent powering of the two systems without using any
diodes or relays.
Same thing with the ignitions.
(Now Scotty has to stop up two drains to spoil my day...)
Ken
On 05/08/2018 2:45 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Scotty:
>
> "The more they overtake the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the
> drain."
>
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 11:38 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>
> wrote:
>
> At 11:10 PM 8/4/2018, you wrote:
>> <andydelk@mac.com <mailto:andydelk@mac.com>>
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Yes, I currently have the secondary ECU powered another bus in
>> the front of the airplane. What I failed to think out completely
>> was the load shedding side of things. My intent was to have the
>> ability to load shed everything except the critical engine items,
>> the second ECU not being critical. The problem is the switchology
>> has become more complex than I like due to the injector relays
>> and their relationship with the ECUs. I feel its a safer and a
>> more simplified solution just to have the same power source with
>> both ECUs and leaving no possibility to inadvertently shut down
>> the engine during load shedding.
>>
>
> Hmmmm . . . perhaps we can help sort the
> sands of your FMEA. Can you describe the
> current architecture . . . or better yet
> . . . post a drawing? What is your base
> architecture . . . one of the z-figures?
> Have you done a load analysis to define
> your actions upon loss of alternator?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
>I feel it=99s a safer and a more simplified
>solution just to have the same power source with
>both ECUs and leaving no possibility to
>inadvertently shut down the engine during load shedding.
>
This was a component of the philosophy for the
E-bus. The idea was to have maximum endurance
loads on the e-bus and battery bus. If the alternator
quits you (1) close alternate e-feed, (2) open battery
master contactor.
There are no switch ops associated with an appliance
or system, hence the probability of inadvertently
shutting down and endurance load was essentially
zero.
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! --
|