AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Fri 10/19/18


Total Messages Posted: 10



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:43 AM - Re: New Z-figure (Av8rrob)
     2. 05:28 AM - Re: Re: New Z-figure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 05:29 AM - Re: New Z-figure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 06:07 AM - Re: New Z-figure (Jeff Page)
     5. 06:38 AM - Re: New Z-figure (Charlie England)
     6. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: New Z-figure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: New Z-figure (Charlie England)
     8. 08:20 AM - Re: New Z-figure (user9253)
     9. 08:36 AM - Re: New Z-figure (user9253)
    10. 09:40 AM - Re: Re: New Z-figure (Charlie England)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 04:43:29 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    From: "Av8rrob" <av8rrob@gmail.com>
    Bob, is is possible to change the switch configuration from off/bat/ bat+ pri alt , to off/batt/ batt +alt; then change the second switch to selecting either primary or secondary alternator? It would seem to be a bit easier operationaly that way. What do you think? Rob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483875#483875


    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
    Time: 05:28:16 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    At 06:42 AM 10/19/2018, you wrote: > >Bob, is is possible to change the switch configuration from off/bat/ >bat+ pri alt , to off/batt/ batt +alt; then change the second switch >to selecting either primary or secondary alternator? It would seem >to be a bit easier operationaly that way. What do you think? That 'mixes' controls between two systems which, by legacy design goals, should be as independent from each other as possible. 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
    Time: 05:29:24 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    At 10:59 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: >>I have a high current 'engine master' switch that directly >>connects the battery to the engine bus, and a conventional looking >>master contactor that feeds the 'aircraft bus'. Only the starter is >>fed by the master contactor; all other engine functions are fed by >>the engine master switch. One alternator conventionally feeds the >>load side of the master contactor; the other (identical model) >>alternator feeds through its alternator contactor to the battery >>side of the master contactor. There is a high current crossfeed >>switch between the two buses, to cover the possibility of 'engine >>master' switch failure. > > >If it were my airplane, I'd run engine critical loads >directly from the battery bus with each of those loads >enjoying it's own feeder protection and switch. This >keeps the engine running with all other switches off. >No relays or contactors in series with the feeders. The >Z02 battery bus enjoys THREE energy sources with minimal >sharing of hardware. All three sources are pre-flight >testable.` Can you describe the engine's electrical feeders? Does the system have any redundant features like pri/sec ECU, dual fuel pumps, etc? 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
    Time: 06:07:19 AM PST US
    From: Jeff Page <jpx@qenesis.com>
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    Bob, I have always wondered why the feed to the main alternator field breaker are different sizes on each side of the breaker. This is unchanged from earlier versions. I assume the Ebus brown out booster is significantly cheaper than the TCW Intelligent Power Stabilizer ? I don't know what the internal failure modes are, but their wiring diagram shows it directly wired in at all times, rather than being switched out with a relay. The think the biggest advantage of the IPS is that it boosts the voltage as the battery sags after an alternator failure, which doesn't apply to this architecture, but it does supply a boost during starting. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > Time: 11:48:16 AM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Z-figure > > >>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages >>> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and >>> Z-13 combined. >> >> What's the timeframe on this being published? >> >> --Rick > > > I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and > I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 > to the drawing . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary.pdf > > Critical review most welcome . . . > > > Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 06:38:01 AM PST US
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:33 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 10:59 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: > > I have a high current 'engine master' switch that directly connects the > battery to the engine bus, and a conventional looking master contactor that > feeds the 'aircraft bus'. Only the starter is fed by the master contactor; > all other engine functions are fed by the engine master switch. One > alternator conventionally feeds the load side of the master contactor; the > other (identical model) alternator feeds through its alternator contactor > to the battery side of the master contactor. There is a high current > crossfeed switch between the two buses, to cover the possibility of 'engine > master' switch failure. > > > If it were my airplane, I'd run engine critical loads > directly from the battery bus with each of those loads > enjoying it's own feeder protection and switch. This > keeps the engine running with all other switches off. > No relays or contactors in series with the feeders. The > Z02 battery bus enjoys THREE energy sources with minimal > sharing of hardware. All three sources are pre-flight > testable.` > > > Can you describe the engine's electrical > feeders? > > Does the system have any redundant features > like pri/sec ECU, dual fuel pumps, etc? > > Bob . . . > Please forgive the rough looking drawing; I've never had time to learn a cad program, so I tweaked a z drawing with MS Paint to create the attached. Ignore the fused feeder values on the engine bus; most are artifacts from my cut & paste operation. Both alternators in the drawing are auto-style internally regulated; the engine comes with an IR alternator, and I just hung a 2nd where the air conditioner compressor used to reside. As yet unresolved in this draft is the fact that both OV modules can 'see' both alternators. My original intent was to run both alternators all the time, but I may modify that idea to primary/backup. My controller (from Real World Solutions, specifically for Mazda rotary engines) does have primary/secondary controllers in one box, but a single power feed to the controllers. The RWS controllers have been set up this way for over 20 years. Over the years, multiple fliers have had controller issues requiring switching to the backup controller, but none have ever had a power supply failure to the box caused by an issue with one controller. If the controller box had separate power feeds to each controller, it would obviously beg for running one from the a/c bus, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing, from the standpoint of trying to keep the systems similar (as possible) to old habit driven pilots. The controllers' control of the injectors & ignition coils is switched by an external control, which drives a bank of internal relays to do the switching (I believe this is how the ones for a/c engines do it, as well). Power to each injector & coil is individually fused; the controller switches the ground side of the injectors/coils. There are dual Walbro high pressure fuel pumps, each with it's own fuse/switch. The choice to have an engine master was driven by the same logic mentioned earlier. Just as the airframe can go dark without affecting the engine, a typical a/c can shut off the engine by turning a key or flipping a pair of mag switches. The engine master switch is my 'mag switch'. But I'm not married to this, is there good reason to change? If the above isn't clear, I can try to do a rough drawing of power flow to the engine's power feeders. Charlie


    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
    Time: 06:48:25 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    At 08:06 AM 10/19/2018, you wrote: > >Bob, > >I have always wondered why the feed to the main alternator field >breaker are different sizes on each side of the breaker. This is >unchanged from earlier versions. Because the hot side is a bus extension with recommended protection. 20AWG fuselinkwire is readily available now so a 20GFLW followed by a 16AWG extension is called for up to the breaker. After that, it's just alternator field loads. >I assume the Ebus brown out booster is significantly cheaper than the >TCW Intelligent Power Stabilizer Yes . . . $10 vs. $hundreds$ >I don't know what the internal failure modes are, but their wiring >diagram shows it directly wired in at all times, rather than being >switched out with a relay. ? It's expected to funtion and powered only while the starter button is depressed. Given that it functions ONLY during cranking, then there are no significant failure modes. It gets pre-flight tested but is not needed in flight. If it craps, there are no safety implications to the rest of the ship's electro-whizzies or comfortable termination of flight. >The think the biggest advantage of the IPS is that it boosts the >voltage as the battery sags after an alternator failure, which doesn't >apply to this architecture, but it does supply a boost during starting. Yes . . . and why do you want to boost the voltage with a dead alternator? Recall that the brown-out issue is based on battery voltage sagging BELOW a brown-out threshold of the electro-whizzy during starter inrush. Except while cranking, the battery is expected to supply the legacy adopted and understood supply voltage of 10-12 volts. By the time a battery drops to 10.5 or thereabouts, it's 95% used up. All electro-whizzies qualified for aircraft operate quite happily down to 10.5 and usually below . . . so boosting bus voltage during alternator out conditions only adds complexity and increased energy consumption. When the brown-out issue first reared its ugly head about 10 years ago, the energy budget for preventing brown-out reset was small. The resourceful Eric Jones crafted an array of super-caps that would grunt loads to the victimized devices for the few milliseconds that the battery was suffering starter-sag. But it seems that more and more devices are being offered to the OBAM aviation community that suffer the same short coming. So assuming the builder objects to brown-out resets. then its left to us to craft a band-aid to accomplish a design goal that should have been built into the electro-whizzy in the first place. The capacitor array is less practical and more expensive than the architecture proposed in Z02. MUCH less expensive than the TCW approach. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 06:51:28 AM PST US
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    Jeff, that 'after alternator failure' voltage boost might buy you a few seconds (as in less than 10) longer operation beyond typical low voltage shutdown. When the energy is depleted from the battery, it's gone. Using a 'switcher' on a virtually dead battery when it's down to 9 or 10 volts will just drive it down to low single digit volts almost instantly. On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:13 AM Jeff Page <jpx@qenesis.com> wrote: > > Bob, > > I have always wondered why the feed to the main alternator field > breaker are different sizes on each side of the breaker. This is > unchanged from earlier versions. > > I assume the Ebus brown out booster is significantly cheaper than the > TCW Intelligent Power Stabilizer ? > I don't know what the internal failure modes are, but their wiring > diagram shows it directly wired in at all times, rather than being > switched out with a relay. > The think the biggest advantage of the IPS is that it boosts the > voltage as the battery sags after an alternator failure, which doesn't > apply to this architecture, but it does supply a boost during starting. > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > > > Time: 11:48:16 AM PST US > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Z-figure > > > > > >>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages > >>> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and > >>> Z-13 combined. > >> > >> What's the timeframe on this being published? > >> > >> --Rick > > > > > > I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and > > I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 > > to the drawing . . . > > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary.pdf > > > > Critical review most welcome . . . > > > > > > 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
    Time: 08:20:19 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com>
    Charlie, I suggest that the bus tie-switch be replaced by a DPDT switch. Connect the N.C. second half of the switch in series with the start push button. Doing that will disable the starter if the bus-tie switch is turned on. The purpose is to prevent starter current from taking a parallel path from the battery to the engine bus to the main bus to the starter. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483883#483883


    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
    Time: 08:36:17 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com>
    Jeff, the brownout booster (DC-DC converter) is only energized while the relay is energized (except for milliseconds through diode). The relay is only energized while the start button is pressed (except for milliseconds dropout delay). -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483884#483884


    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
    Time: 09:40:18 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: New Z-figure
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    On 10/19/2018 10:19 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Charlie, > I suggest that the bus tie-switch be replaced by a DPDT switch. Connect the N.C. second half of the switch in series with the start push button. Doing that will disable the starter if the bus-tie switch is turned on. The purpose is to prevent starter current from taking a parallel path from the battery to the engine bus to the main bus to the starter. > > -------- > Joe Gores Hi Joe, Good idea. I think we may have discussed that issue in the past; I just haven't revised the rough draft. The -7 project has been stagnant for several months while I dealt with family illnesses and built a hangar door. Thanks, Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --