nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:31 pm Post subject: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus |
 |
|
| Quote: | If you don’t have a second alternator, you should have a small backup battery. Sizing would depend on your typical/ maximum distance between airports. Current draw of the pump, ECU, injectors and coils would be around 12 to 14 amps. A 12 amp/hour battery should give you a solid 30-40 minutes of flight time, just running the engine electrics. An 18 amp/hour one, around 1 hour. We want to be able to sustain at least 10 volts to the electrics.
We’ve found the most reliable, simple and light way to get backup battery power to the engine electrics is a single 12 to 14 gauge wire running from the backup battery, through a 30 amp ATO fuse, to a heavy duty switch, to an emergency buss where all the engine electrics can receive power. Simply charge the backup battery every 30 days and load test annually.
If you have the recommended check engine light fitted, it will warn you any time the battery voltage falls below 12.5V. You can monitor battery voltage in Gauge 3 mode. |
A statement that is understandable and predictable.
EVERY supplier of electrically dependent aircraft
accessories has a vested interest in NOT having
their product figure into the script for your
bad day in the cockpit.
Their "most reliable finding" focuses on
their product . . . and while certainly
critical for continued flight, it's not
the only critical electro-whizzie on the
airplane.
All creative assemblages stand on the 3-legged
stool of energy-management, properties-of-
materials and refinement-of-process. It doesn't
matter if you're cooking breakfast or building a
space shuttle.
I think I've suggested before that installation
manuals for such products should call for, "Energy
supplied by a robust, failure tolerant and competently
maintained electrical system."
To be sure . . . many of our brothers don't
have strong interests or appreciation for
elegant solutions and prefer the cookie-cutter
approach. Nothing overtly wrong with that
but it can generate systems with high
costs of ownership, unnecessary weight
and complexity. Complexity adds risk for lack of
understanding and mis-application of features
originally intended to keep a tense day
in the cockpit from getting worst.
We don't do gps receivers here . . . or engines,
or auto-pilots. We do system integration with
a goal of achieving the simplest, failure tolerant
supply and distribution systems. A natural fallout
of those endeavors is lower cost of ownership
and weight.
Getting back to the subject engine, what's
the 'advantage' of carrying a second battery
that may never be used as opposed to carrying
one battery sized and maintained to meet
what ever endurance goals are sought for
the whole airplane?
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
