gerry.vandyk(at)eastlink.
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 3:51 pm Post subject: Re[7]: Tailwind Electrical System Drawing and Power Analysi |
 |
|
No worries Peter, all fair points.
A little background on myself for you. I am an engineer and draftsman by trade. That along with a Dutch heritage, it is absolutely fair to say I AM STUBBORN! ;^)
For the last 10 years or so while I've been building I've been following along the AE list and reading the AEC. Mr Nuckolls has been recommending Z13/8 as the most bang for the buck, and I certainly agree with the idea. Along the way I've been collecting all the parts to build the system. The two alternators have been bolted to the engine for a couple of years.
Quick segue for a moment. I've always owned vehicles with 4 seats. For most of my life I've owned pickup trucks. It is shocking how rarely I carry even 1 passenger, and 4 people is more rare than a blue moon. Even carrying something in the back of the truck isn't that common, yet I, like many other people, think nothing of selecting such a vehicle, just for the utility when it comes up.
Back on point...
I've had some friends have issues with Transport Canada getting the 'no IFR' clause removed from the limitations on their flight permits. Though the rules are murky, transport usually cites redundancy of systems. I've heard of one occasion where a guy needed to put an altitude encoder into his airplane, so the altitude signal went to the encoder, was converted to grey code and then passed on to the efis which had to decode it back to the signal it was expecting in the first place. The inspected remembered some 30 year old guidance document from Transport that this was required, and weather or not the thing was still in force, (it was most certainly obsolete) when the inspector writes it up, we must comply or be denied. Actually that fellow installed the encoder, showed the inspector for the signoff, then promptly removed it before going flying. These are the things we must do to satisfy bureaucrats all over the world. In my mind, being able to show a system with two approach certified VORs, one approach certified GPS, plus a triple redundant power supply should make the IFR signoff relatively easy. And because I've been studying the drawings for so long, it does indeed give me comfort in the system.
As for acutally using the airplane for IFR, I indeed class it the same as owning a four seat pickup truck. Rarely ever used, but there when I need it. And to be sure, I still need to earn the rating, and keep current, so I suspect I'll fly under the hood more often than I've carried lumber in the truck. ;^)
As for the extra bus, the battery bus is really only there for the convenience of charging a phone now and then, and lighting the baggabe bay when loading up in the wee hours of the morning before a trip. I could easily function without it, but I suspect I'll use it about as often as I fly in actual IMC. Yeah, it's a bit of overkill, but it's what I've been working towards for years, so changing the system, pulling parts off the engine, and ignoring the parts already on the shelf would really be against my nature. ;^)
Thanks for the thoughts Peter. It is wise to give some sober thought to what the hell we're doing once in a while. For what it's worth, I've got a rebuild project on a Mong Sport biplane in the wings. It'll have a simple 8 amp alternator, battery and starter circuit, and a small efis with a couple of analog instruments, because I have no delusions of flying that airplane for anything more than an afternoon of giggles. ;^)
Best regards
Gerry
----
| | - 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
