Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:13 AM - Re: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated (mikef)
2. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated (Charlie England)
3. 03:34 PM - Re: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated (mikef)
4. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated (Charlie England)
5. 08:56 PM - Re: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated (mikef)
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: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated |
bump
I am still interested in hearing from experienced voices about whether the lighter
aluminum enclosure (.050) would support the weight of around 6 pounds in a
flying, vibration environment.
Or if I should use the heavier NEMA fiberglass enclosure.
Thanks much.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=136564#136564
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: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated |
mikef wrote:
>
> bump
>
> I am still interested in hearing from experienced voices about whether the lighter
aluminum enclosure (.050) would support the weight of around 6 pounds in
a flying, vibration environment.
>
> Or if I should use the heavier NEMA fiberglass enclosure.
>
> Thanks much.
I'd take a look at what actually needs to be in the enclosure. The
contactors are designed for the 'hostile' environment under the cowl. If
you limit the stuff to the fuse holder & the less-than-robust electronic
circuit boards, you could go with extremely light weigh enclosures.
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: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated |
In this case there is no cowel. It is a Weight Shift Control aircraft with a pusher
engine. The only place left to mount additional components is below the engine,
attached to the frame that supports the engine. It is about 1' from the
batteries.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=136634#136634
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: | Re: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated |
mikef wrote:
>
> In this case there is no cowel. It is a Weight Shift Control aircraft
> with a pusher engine. The only place left to mount additional
> components is below the engine, attached to the frame that supports
> the engine. It is about 1' from the batteries.
>
That implies at least 3 mount points to stabilize the box. How about AL
angle strong enough support the weight, providing 2 of the attach points
to the frame members. Heavy components mounted through the back wall of
the box to the AL angle, rest distributed as convenient in the box. Then
box strength isn't an issue.
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: Component Enclosure Opinions Appreciated |
That is a great idea combining the major mount points with the heaviest components.
Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=136703#136703
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! --
|