---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 02/25/19: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:53:03 AM PST US From: Henador Titzoff Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:29:18 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ENDURANCE BUS ALTERNATIVE From: "user9253" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:20:06 AM PST US From: Richard Girard Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 02:34:40 PM PST US From: "Peter Pengilly" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MGL Avionics 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 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 > wrote: > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse 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.