Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:53 AM - Re: ENDURANCE BUS ALTERNATIVE (Henador Titzoff)
2. 07:29 AM - Re: ENDURANCE BUS ALTERNATIVE (user9253)
3. 11:20 AM - Re: MGL Avionics (Richard Girard)
4. 02:34 PM - Re: MGL Avionics (Peter Pengilly)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ENDURANCE BUS ALTERNATIVE |
Joe,
Your description of one common bus with multiple switches to select singula
r on and offs is brilliant!=C2- It assumes that one has plenty of time to
determine what to turn on and off, but it's typically true in light emerge
ncies such as an alternator failure. I'm not sure what you mean by the "bac
kup-electrical-current" path that the E-bus relay provides.=C2- Can you p
lease explain it?
I'm not saying that the E-bus concept is a failure.=C2- It's being used s
uccessfully today in many experimentals and when certain failure modes occu
r, I'm sure it validates itself.=C2- From a pilot's point of view, it's a
much simpler interface, and simplicity is good in dire emergencies.
Henador Titzoff
On Sunday, February 24, 2019, 8:37:01 PM EST, user9253 <fransew@gmail.c
om> wrote:
If the main purpose of the Endurance Bus is to reduce pilot workload in cas
e the
alternator fails, then there is an alternative solution.=C2- Arrange the
switches in
order of importance and color code them.=C2- When the alternator fails, t
he pilot
finishes his coffee, then starts shutting off switches on the far right and
works his way to the left.=C2- Several switches could be shut off with on
e motion
of the hand.=C2- A physical barrier or open space could separate essentia
l
switches from non-essential ones.=C2- The advantage of this architecture
is a
simplified electrical system, only one bus, no diodes, and yes, even reduce
d
pilot workload.=C2- She will not have to remember which loads are connect
ed to
which bus.=C2- Some loads could be essential or not depending on the flig
ht
conditions.=C2- Just turn them on or off as needed.
_=C2- What about the backup-electrical-current path that the E-Bus relay
provides?=C2- No problem, just install a 40 amp automotive relay (disable
d
during starting) in parallel with the battery contactor.=C2- The master s
witch
would have 3 positions: down-off, center-relay, up-contactor.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=487800#487800
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: ENDURANCE BUS ALTERNATIVE |
Thanks for your reply Henador. Most of Bob's "Z" figures have an Endurance
Bus which can receive electrical power from the battery via two possible paths.
Using Z-13/8 as an example, the normal path is from the battery, through the
battery contactor and though a diode to the Endurance Bus. The alternate
current path is from the battery bus, through the E-Bus relay to the Endurance
Bus. There is certainly nothing wrong with Bob's architecture. In fact, many
builders are better off using one of his proven wiring diagrams instead of
designing their own. Some builder architecture has a hidden flaw that only
becomes apparent under certain conditions. The more complicated the
electrical architecture is, the greater the chance of pilot error when the mind
goes blank in in a emergency.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=487806#487806
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: MGL Avionics |
I have no love for MGL avionics. I work on an airplane with an Enigma EFIS
and a better name could not be made for it unless it was prefaced with POS.
The problem is the user manual(s). There might as well be none since what
there are are almost completely worthless. I've spent many days and nights
trying to figure out how to get the thing to talk to standard Rotax
sensors. There aren't any options for them and what there are just don't
work. MGL abandoned the model after the second faulty revision of the
manuals so it's a mystery of what to do to get it to talk to its display.
To this day I cannot get the thing to display oil pressure. We've changed
out the sender and run down the wires connecting the RDX box to the display
without result. I've tried every option the software gives (and none of it
is as the manual(s) say it is) and cannot get a reliable readout.
So my recommendation is that unless you are capable of writing your own
code and want to spend many, many extra hours trying to get what you paid
for, give MGL a very wide birth.
Rick Girard
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:20 PM Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net> wrote
:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019, 5:17:28 AM EST, Peter Pengilly <
> Peter@sportingaero.com> wrote:
>
> Peter@sportingaero.com>
> Users have access to much of the code, particularly the display
> configuration, which is good and bad.
> The owner can make the display what he wants, but many smart people have
> spend many, many hours defining standards for aircraft displays - why
> should you be able to do better than them?
>
>
> I don't mean to start a week long thread, but this is a legitimate
> question that is often asked, and it has a very good answer that applies
to
> a larger set of problems.
> A user can do better than the professionals, because the user has to worr
y
> about exactly ONE airplane. The "smart people", professionals, have to
> worry about a great many airplanes that are flown in a wide range of
> scenarios. I'm a software engineer, and I spend half of my design time
> trying to constrain the scope. I'm constantly explaining to my workmates
> that taking on one more requirement increases the complexity
> exponentially. A user can design a better interface, because he is deali
ng
> with a smaller problem space.
>
> Doesn't mean she will. It means she can.
>
> Also, , generally the user isn't needing to make a living off of the
> results.
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
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 |
|
All true, but assumes the user is smart enough to figure out which
aspects can be safely modified and which should be left alone.
How many times have you read magazine reports about a featured aircraft
where you are left asking,
=9CWhy did s/he do that?!!=9D
Many modifications are shown to be ill-conceived in the light of
operational experience. When working away on his own in the garage the
builder rationalises a modification that seems an obvious improvement.
Except that his lack of operational experience with the
aircraft/equipment fails to highlight the reason the modification has
not been included by the designer.
How many times have you heard, just a small software change
For some the ability to make software changes will be a significant
bonus. Not my cup of tea.
Peter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com> On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: 24 February 2019 20:15
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: MGL Avionics
On Sunday, February 24, 2019, 5:17:28 AM EST, Peter Pengilly
<Peter@sportingaero.com <mailto:Peter@sportingaero.com> > wrote:
<Peter@sportingaero.com <mailto:Peter@sportingaero.com> >
Users have access to much of the code, particularly the display
configuration, which is good and bad.
The owner can make the display what he wants, but many smart people have
spend many, many hours defining standards for aircraft displays - why
should you be able to do better than them?
I don't mean to start a week long thread, but this is a legitimate
question that is often asked, and it has a very good answer that applies
to a larger set of problems.
A user can do better than the professionals, because the user has to
worry about exactly ONE airplane. The "smart people", professionals,
have to worry about a great many airplanes that are flown in a wide
range of scenarios. I'm a software engineer, and I spend half of my
design time trying to constrain the scope. I'm constantly explaining to
my workmates that taking on one more requirement increases the
complexity exponentially. A user can design a better interface, because
he is dealing with a smaller problem space.
Doesn't mean she will. It means she can.
Also, , generally the user isn't needing to make a living off of the
results.
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! --
|