Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - New role for the E-Bus?

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

New role for the E-Bus?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

johnbright

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 165
Location: Newport News, VA

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote: 	
		  RE: the FAR23 issue, I was referring to a drawing posted earlier that had multiple relays fed from a bus which itself was already controlled. Most of the loads could have been handled easily by     switches.  

     

     

     Charlie 	




Thanks Charlie... you are correct.... I removed the coil and pump relays... my latest thinking is in that previous post at http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16775049&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=05

_________________
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright@yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
N1921R links

Last edited by johnbright on Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:57 pm; edited 2 times in total

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:56 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  Quote: 	
		  As I said in the reply to Bob, most of the loads in the drawing are 'artifacts' of copy/paste operations from a basic AEC drawing to my Paint program. The only items of significance for our discussion at the moment are the two alternators and the way they connect to the system, vs connecting both to the main bus as shown in other AEC drawings.



 I'll ponder the bus tie issue. The reason it's there is a convenient way to get alternator/battery to the main bus if there's a failure in the master control path causing the master contactor to open. 	


   Is there anyone on this list who has experienced

   battery contactor failure in flight? I've had

   two or three crap but all manifested during

   engine cranking.



   Even if you did drop the contactor, the alternator

   will continue to supply power to the bus . . .

   you wouldn't know it was bad until on the

   ground . . . probably at engine shut down

   when electro-whizzies go dark with the

   battery switch still on.



   Just found your drawing . . . my bad.



   Was down with the crud last weekend, got behind

   in my conversations then we had a REALLY busy day

   on the EMS crews yesterday . . . finally had time

   this morning to sit at the keyboard and ponder a

   drawing that was inspired by this thread and has

   roots in the old Z8/20.



   Here is the work in progress:



  https://tinyurl.com/wvmc68v



   Only 2 switches. Airplane flies with either switch

   in the full up position. No combination of switch

   positions is potentially hazardous.



   Switches side-by-side . . . easy full shut down

   with one motion.



   All normal and abnormal operating modes are

   pre-flight testable.



   Two engine driven power sources, both capable

   of delivering power to both buses depending

   on switch positions . . .



   No always-hot b-leads while parked . . .



   Let's massage this a bit . . . perhaps it

   should become the more practical successor

   to Z13/20  



 

   Bob . . .

cofford

Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 9
Location: Puget Sound, WA

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:58 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: 	
		  

   Here is the work in progress:



  https://tinyurl.com/wvmc68v



   Only 2 switches. Airplane flies with either switch

   in the full up position. No combination of switch

   positions is potentially hazardous.



   Switches side-by-side . . . easy full shut down

   with one motion.



   All normal and abnormal operating modes are

   pre-flight testable.



   Two engine driven power sources, both capable

   of delivering power to both buses depending

   on switch positions . . .



   No always-hot b-leads while parked . . .



   Let's massage this a bit . . . perhaps it

   should become the more practical successor

   to Z13/20  



 

   Bob . . . 	




Hi Bob,



Thank you for this.  I do find it interesting (though not surprising) that my own personal designs for an engine bus have basically come back around to a Z12 with a heavy-duty E Bus, or some variation of the same (such as posted above).



Questions:  What is the purpose of the overvoltage protection on the aux alt?  If I understand the operation of such things correctly, if both alternators are switched on, and an overvoltage condition occurs on either alternator, both crowbars will activate and both alternators will be taken offline.  This would mean that normal operation would be to have the aux alt switched off during flight, and not used unless the main alt is lost.  I suppose adding overvoltage protection to the aux alt adds protection for a case in which BOTH alternators suffer an overvoltage event, but this seems highly unlikely on the same flight.  On the other hand, it really doesn't add much complexity to have a crowbar on the aux alt, so maybe it is a good idea.



I'm a bit unclear what attaching the aux alternator to the Poly E-Bus buys us in this case.  Can you elaborate on your thinking here?



Thanks,

Casey

Dan Fritz

Joined: 02 Apr 2020
Posts: 16

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:49 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

Moving this to the correct thread.  Anyone see any issues with Bob's new/proposed architecture for an IO-360 with one mag and one electronic ignition?  Would folks recommend the ignition be on the Battery bus?



http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z99P1.pdf



thanks



********************



Bob,

Itâ€™s been a while since you posted your Z99P1 and Iâ€™ve been having problems posting to the list. 



I like your proposed architecture.  It appears to be a nice evolutionary step from previous architectures and maintains much of the Z12/8 simplicity.  Allowing the backup alternator to bypass the main contactor as youâ€™ve shown appears to me to provide a fully redundant path to powering the Poly E-bus.  Iâ€™m running one electronic ignition and one mag on my IO-360 with conventional injection.  This Z99P1 looks good for my use.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:13 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 10:49 AM 4/3/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Fritz" <Dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>



 Moving this to the correct thread.  Anyone see any issues with Bob's new/proposed architecture for an IO-360 with one mag and one electronic ignition?  Would folks recommend the ignition be on the Battery bus?



  http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z99P1.pdf

 	


   That was not so much a 'proposal' as the

   seed for the evolution of a replacement

   for Z12 . . . dual alternator, single battery,

   electrically dependent engine.



   The Z99 was a first pass sketch that ultimately

   moved to the proposal/discussion stage

   with Z01.



   Z01P3 as presently posted is the latest iteration

   and as Joe noted, still needs the 'nits' combed

   out.



  https://tinyurl.com/qnzenca



   No bus requires more than powering up the aircraft

   with DC power master switch to become HOT. Any

   time the main bus is up, all busses are up

   irrespective the position of any other switch.



   Given two, robust alternators, the endurance-

   bus function is unnecessary. There is no time

   that one might expect to operate battery

   only.



   There is a 'brownout' bus which is optional

   and could be 'boosted' during cranking if

   the airplane is fitted with any electro-whizzies

   vulnerable to cranking brownout. At a minimum,

   this bus might power the #1 comm transceiver

   whereupon the crew controlled, alternate feed to this

   bus could be used to power up just that radio

   to get clearance delivery (an optional feature

   going into Bonanzas and Barons while I was

   still working there).



   If the system supports no devices needing 

   always hot battery power, the battery bus

   can also be eliminated. The minimalist

   configuration for Z01 would be a MAIN

   and ENGINE bus.



   The engine bus also features an crew controlled,

   alternate feed directly from the battery. There

   is no single failure of the power system that

   would cause loss of engine.



   There are only 4 switches of which only one

   has profound control over the status of ship's

   power. The other 3 are normally OFF pending

   failures that prompt reconfiguration.



   Suggested accessories go to simplifying

   installation while minimizing costs

   and potential pilot workloads.



   If the List is willing, I'd like to continue

   to refine this configuration with an eye

   to retiring Z12 and probably Z14 as well.



 

 

   Bob . . .

Dan Fritz

Joined: 02 Apr 2020
Posts: 16

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

Bob, 

Maybe it's in there, but if one has to power down the main bus due to smoke/fumes, is the Engine Bus then relegated to battery duration only?  Is this an argument for having the aux alternator feed on the other side of the battery contactor?



Dan

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 2:31 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 04:07 PM 4/3/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Fritz" <Dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>



 Bob, 

 Maybe it's in there, but if one has to power down the main bus due to smoke/fumes, is the Engine Bus then relegated to battery duration only?  Is this an argument for having the aux alternator feed on the other side of the battery contactor? 	


  Still ruminating over that issue in Z01 . . .

  is Z13/8 too small for you?



 

 

   Bob . . .

donvansanten(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:40 pm Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

Bob,

I have a dual EFIS  dual P-MAG Z 12 system.  My Pmags are wired using

the locking version of the 2-10 switch Switch down, master on,

ignition is powered but shorted, switch centered  ignition powered,

not shorted, switch up, ignition not powered not shorted. The aircraft

has flown for years with this setup.

The EFIS's have separate power and standby battery ports. The efis

will not boot if only the standby port is powered.. Once the efis

comes on line it will remain online as long as power is applied to

the standby port. I am currently using a TCW  6 A standby battery to

power the efis standby ports. The switch to backup power is not

automatic, the efis starts a count down when main power fails, any

button on the efis being pusher stops the count down and switches the

efis to backup power.  Once this mode is entered there is no way to

shut the efis off without turning the backup battery off. This is done

by a ground switch (separate from the main ground wire that provides

the return to the battery) sorry I can not figure a better way to say

that.

My GPS navigator browns out on each start up.



I never talk to clearance delivery before starting the engine and with

the P-Mags, I do not need an engine bus. I also do not have a battery

bus.

I like the idea of ditching the backup battery and using a backup bus.

I am not familiar with the brown out booster and would like ore

information and possible  articles about this device.. Thanks in

advance. Don



On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:22 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III

<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 At 10:49 AM 4/3/2020, you wrote:



 



 Moving this to the correct thread.  Anyone see any issues with Bob's new/proposed architecture for an IO-360 with one mag and one electronic ignition?  Would folks recommend the ignition be on the Battery bus?



 http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z99P1.pdf

   That was not so much a 'proposal' as the

   seed for the evolution of a replacement

   for Z12 . . . dual alternator, single battery,

   electrically dependent engine.



   The Z99 was a first pass sketch that ultimately

   moved to the proposal/discussion stage

   with Z01.



   Z01P3 as presently posted is the latest iteration

   and as Joe noted, still needs the 'nits' combed

   out.



 https://tinyurl.com/qnzenca



   No bus requires more than powering up the aircraft

   with DC power master switch to become HOT. Any

   time the main bus is up, all busses are up

   irrespective the position of any other switch.



   Given two, robust alternators, the endurance-

   bus function is unnecessary. There is no time

   that one might expect to operate battery

   only.



   There is a 'brownout' bus which is optional

   and could be 'boosted' during cranking if

   the airplane is fitted with any electro-whizzies

   vulnerable to cranking brownout. At a minimum,

   this bus might power the #1 comm transceiver

   whereupon the crew controlled, alternate feed to this

   bus could be used to power up just that radio

   to get clearance delivery (an optional feature

   going into Bonanzas and Barons while I was

   still working there).



   If the system supports no devices needing

   always hot battery power, the battery bus

   can also be eliminated. The minimalist

   configuration for Z01 would be a MAIN

   and ENGINE bus.



   The engine bus also features an crew controlled,

   alternate feed directly from the battery. There

   is no single failure of the power system that

   would cause loss of engine.



   There are only 4 switches of which only one

   has profound control over the status of ship's

   power. The other 3 are normally OFF pending

   failures that prompt reconfiguration.



   Suggested accessories go to simplifying

   installation while minimizing costs

   and potential pilot workloads.



   If the List is willing, I'd like to continue

   to refine this configuration with an eye

   to retiring Z12 and probably Z14 as well.

   Bob . . .

wsimpso1

Joined: 04 Nov 2018
Posts: 27
Location: Saline MI

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:30 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: 	
		  



   If the List is willing, I'd like to continue

   to refine this configuration with an eye

   to retiring Z12 and probably Z14 as well.

 

   Bob . . . 	




Bob,



I would rather you not "retire" Z14. I like it and am planning on using it in my bird - wiring has commenced. My bird is single engine with EFII, glass panel, IFR, night, whole continent capability. Two batteries, two masters, cross-feed, and very low probability of finding myself dark. I am rather attached to that scheme. 



Even if it progresses no more because you have a single battery scheme that looks more reliable, I would like to see it remain on-line, perhaps with the caution that another scheme now scores better on FMEA. 



Bill Simpson

wsimpso1

Joined: 04 Nov 2018
Posts: 27
Location: Saline MI

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:30 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

 	  nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: 	
		  



   If the List is willing, I'd like to continue

   to refine this configuration with an eye

   to retiring Z12 and probably Z14 as well.

 

   Bob . . . 	




Bob,



I would rather you not "retire" Z14. I like it and am planning on using it in my bird - wiring has commenced. My bird is single engine with EFII, glass panel, IFR, night, whole continent capability. Two batteries, two masters, cross-feed, and very low probability of finding myself dark. I am rather attached to that scheme. 



Even if it progresses no more because you have a single battery scheme that looks more reliable, I would like to see it remain on-line, perhaps with the caution that another scheme now scores better on FMEA. 



Bill Simpson

Dan Fritz

Joined: 02 Apr 2020
Posts: 16

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:12 am Post subject: Re: New role for the E-Bus?

Bob,

I've resumed my build after a 10-year layoff and had installed the 13/8 architecture.  Turns our the engine I bought to hand on the firewall already had a B&C 20 Amp alternator hanging on the accessory case.  So I've opted to leave it there but keep the 13/8 architecture.  I like the Z99 architecture because I can adopt it with very little change to what I've already installed.



Dan

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:51 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 07:30 AM 4/4/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "wsimpso1" <wsimpso1(at)comcast.net>

 nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:

 > 

 > 

 >    If the List is willing, I'd like to continue

 >    to refine this configuration with an eye

 >    to retiring Z12 and probably Z14 as well.

 I would rather you not "retire" Z14. I like it and am planning on using it in my bird - wiring has commenced. My bird is single engine with EFII, glass panel, IFR, night, whole continent capability. Two batteries, two masters, cross-feed, and very low probability of finding myself dark. I am rather attached to that scheme. 	

   Don't get wrapped around any axles-of-

   authority for what's published in the

   'Connection. It's your airplane and if

   it's performing as-advertised combined

   with your complete understanding of it's

   operation, then there's no risk for

   Our mission here is a compilation

   of the best-we-know how to do. To

   refine design goals that minimize

   complexity, weight, cost of ownership

   while minimizing risk.

   I suggest that no airplane, motorcycle,

   4-wheeler, bass boat or any other high

   energy endeavor can be made SAFE.

   We can reduce risk through though attention

   to history, reverence for good physics,

   pride of craftsmanship, a quest for

   understanding by all participants and

   responsible operation by the pilot.

  	  Quote: 	
		  Even if it progresses no more because you have a single battery scheme that looks more reliable,

 I would like to see it remain on-line, perhaps with the caution that another scheme now scores better on FMEA. 

   . . . not 'more' reliable from a performance

   perspective but from a cost of ownership

   and operations perspective. I don't think I've

   every heard of a systems guy getting hammered

   'cause he took out things that reduced weight,

   cost of ownership and/or simplified system

   operation . . . you won't have a failure or

   maintenance burden from a part that isn't

   installed!

   Z-14 performs as advertised but in my never

   humble opinion, it is too complex. It served a

   purpose of limited utility that is quickly

   passing. Electrical power needs are changing

   while the reliability of all components

   is going up. If N811HB had been fitted with

   Z01PX . . . that fine machine might still

   be in service with nobody getting hurt.

   Revision 12 is in wide distribution both

   in print and digitally. Z14 isn't 'going

   away.' But if it can be replaced with greater

   elegance of design and purpose, then so be it.

   Bob . . .

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:57 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 10:12 AM 4/4/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Fritz" <Dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>



 Bob,

 I've resumed my build after a 10-year layoff and had installed the 13/8 architecture.  Turns our the engine I bought to hand on the firewall already had a B&C 20 Amp alternator hanging on the accessory case.  So I've opted to leave it there but keep the 13/8 architecture.  I like the Z99 architecture because I can adopt it with very little change to what I've already installed.



 Dan 	


    Watch this space. From my current digs which

    I refer to as '100 miles from everywhere', I

    have a lot of opportunity for what I call

    'asphalt engineering'. Did about 6 hours

    of that exercise over the past week.



    Had a bit of an epiphany about the evolution

    of Z01 (the technical term is brain f(at)&t).

    I'm working on the next submission for

    everyone's input . . . I think you'll

    find it compatible with your desires

    cited above.

   



 

 

   Bob . . .

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:17 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

Bob from what I have seen Z01 would be exactly what I would be looking for on my next aircraft.Â 



1. Z-14 is too complex for me from a cost, weight, and maintenance point of view.Â 

2. I have no need for an e-bus since an alternator failure will be detected right away and after switching to the SD-8 there is plenty of time to shut down individual loads that aren't required at that time if the flight time remaining deems it necessary.

3. Since both Garmin and Dynon have excellent backup batteries that will power essential systems only for flight and navigation, I was never interested in a brownout bus. Last year I discovered that if you program your flight plan into the GPS navigator with the engine shut down it's usually fine but every once in a while the engine cranking takes a bit too long and the navigator resets, clearing out the flight plan. Preventing this would be useful so now I'm a fan of the brownout bus. Having the nav lights, one COM and the GPS navigatorÂ on that bus with a clearance delivery switch to power it by itself would be something I would use just about every flight.

4. I think electrically dependent engines are becoming the norm rather than the exception for new amateur built aircraft.

Regards,

Sebastien

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 9:02 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    At 10:12 AM 4/4/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Fritz" <Dfritzj(at)yahoo.com (Dfritzj(at)yahoo.com)>



 Bob,

 I've resumed my build after a 10-year layoff and had installed the 13/8 architecture.Â  Turns our the engine I bought to hand on the firewall already had a B&C 20 Amp alternator hanging on the accessory case.Â  So I've opted to leave it there but keep the 13/8 architecture.Â  I like the Z99 architecture because I can adopt it with very little change to what I've already installed.



 Dan 	


 Â Â  Watch this space. From my current digs which

 Â Â  I refer to as '100 miles from everywhere', I

 Â Â  have a lot of opportunity for what I call

 Â Â  'asphalt engineering'. Did about 6 hours

 Â Â  of that exercise over the past week.



 Â Â  Had a bit of an epiphany about the evolution

 Â Â  of Z01 (the technical term is brain f(at)&t).

 Â Â  I'm working on the next submission for

 Â Â  everyone's input . . . I think you'll

 Â Â  find it compatible with your desires

 Â Â  cited above.

 Â  



 

 

 Â  Bob . . .

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:08 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 12:13 PM 4/5/2020, you wrote:

 Bob from what I have seen Z01 would be exactly

 what I would be looking for on my next aircraft. 



 1. Z-14 is too complex for me from a cost,

 weight, and maintenance point of view. 



   Probably true for 95+ percent of all

   OBAM aircraft.



 2. I have no need for an e-bus since an alternator failure

 will be detected right away and after switching to the SD-8

 there is plenty of time to shut down individual loads that

 aren't required at that time if the flight time remaining

 deems it necessary.



   Another feature of the e-bus was to unburden

   the SD8 of carrying a battery contactor load.

   The battery contactor is about a 0.7A load,

   a significant fraction of SD8 output. That

   amount of current would be better used to

   keep a couple of solid state electro-whizzies

   lit up . . . but if your load analysis says

   that contactor loads can be handily support

   as part of  your plan-b loads, then no

   problem!



 3. Since both Garmin and Dynon have excellent backup

 batteries that will power essential systems only for

 flight and navigation, I was never interested in a brownout

 bus. Last year I discovered that if you program your

 flight plan into the GPS navigator with the engine shut

 down it's usually fine but every once in a while the

 engine cranking takes a bit too long and the navigator resets,

 clearing out the flight plan. Preventing this would be

 useful so now I'm a fan of the brownout bus. Having the

 nav lights, one COM and the GPS navigator on that bus

 with a clearance delivery switch to power it by itself

 would be something I would use just about every flight.



   Brown out/endurance/clearance are one

   and the same bus. Why nav lights?



 4. I think electrically dependent engines are becoming

 the norm rather than the exception for new amateur

 built aircraft.



   Yup, the seeds were already in the ground 

   at my first trip to OSH in '86. There

   were a couple electronic ignitions being

   offered that year not the least of what

   would become LightSpeed.



 

   Bob . . .

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:36 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

I have the Nav lights on anytime the aircraft is electrically powered. Several times it has saved me from walking away to come back to a dead battery.



On Mon, Apr 6, 2020, 09:14 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    At 12:13 PM 4/5/2020, you wrote:

 Bob from what I have seen Z01 would be exactly

 what I would be looking for on my next aircraft. 



 1. Z-14 is too complex for me from a cost,

 weight, and maintenance point of view. 



 Â  Probably true for 95+ percent of all

 Â  OBAM aircraft.



 2. I have no need for an e-bus since an alternator failure

 will be detected right away and after switching to the SD-8

 there is plenty of time to shut down individual loads that

 aren't required at that time if the flight time remaining

 deems it necessary.



 Â  Another feature of the e-bus was to unburden

 Â  the SD8 of carrying a battery contactor load.

 Â  The battery contactor is about a 0.7A load,

 Â  a significant fraction of SD8 output. That

 Â  amount of current would be better used to

 Â  keep a couple of solid state electro-whizzies

 Â  lit up . . . but if your load analysis says

 Â  that contactor loads can be handily support

 Â  as part ofÂ  your plan-b loads, then no

 Â  problem!



 3. Since both Garmin and Dynon have excellent backup

 batteries that will power essential systems only for

 flight and navigation, I was never interested in a brownout

 bus. Last year I discovered that if you program your

 flight plan into the GPS navigator with the engine shut

 down it's usually fine but every once in a while the

 engine cranking takes a bit too long and the navigator resets,

 clearing out the flight plan. Preventing this would be

 useful so now I'm a fan of the brownout bus. Having the

 nav lights, one COM and the GPS navigator on that bus

 with a clearance delivery switch to power it by itself

 would be something I would use just about every flight.



 Â  Brown out/endurance/clearance are one

 Â  and the same bus. Why nav lights?



 4. I think electrically dependent engines are becoming

 the norm rather than the exception for new amateur

 built aircraft.



 Â  Yup, the seeds were already in the ground 

 Â  at my first trip to OSH in '86. There

 Â  were a couple electronic ignitions being

 Â  offered that year not the least of what

 Â  would become LightSpeed.



 

 Â  Bob . . .

kenryan

Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 424

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:46 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

Another feature of the e-bus was to unburdenÂ  the SD8 of carrying a battery contactor load.Â  The battery contactor is about a 0.7A load,Â  a significant fraction of SD8 output. ThatÂ  amount of current would be better used toÂ  keep a couple of solid state electro-whizziesÂ  lit up . . . but if your load analysis saysÂ  that contactor loads can be handily supportÂ  as part ofÂ  your plan-b loads, then noÂ  problem!



Are solid state contactor loads significantly less than the traditional contactors?



On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:14 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    At 12:13 PM 4/5/2020, you wrote:

 Bob from what I have seen Z01 would be exactly

 what I would be looking for on my next aircraft. 



 1. Z-14 is too complex for me from a cost,

 weight, and maintenance point of view. 



 Â  Probably true for 95+ percent of all

 Â  OBAM aircraft.



 2. I have no need for an e-bus since an alternator failure

 will be detected right away and after switching to the SD-8

 there is plenty of time to shut down individual loads that

 aren't required at that time if the flight time remaining

 deems it necessary.



 Â  Another feature of the e-bus was to unburden

 Â  the SD8 of carrying a battery contactor load.

 Â  The battery contactor is about a 0.7A load,

 Â  a significant fraction of SD8 output. That

 Â  amount of current would be better used to

 Â  keep a couple of solid state electro-whizzies

 Â  lit up . . . but if your load analysis says

 Â  that contactor loads can be handily support

 Â  as part ofÂ  your plan-b loads, then no

 Â  problem!



 3. Since both Garmin and Dynon have excellent backup

 batteries that will power essential systems only for

 flight and navigation, I was never interested in a brownout

 bus. Last year I discovered that if you program your

 flight plan into the GPS navigator with the engine shut

 down it's usually fine but every once in a while the

 engine cranking takes a bit too long and the navigator resets,

 clearing out the flight plan. Preventing this would be

 useful so now I'm a fan of the brownout bus. Having the

 nav lights, one COM and the GPS navigator on that bus

 with a clearance delivery switch to power it by itself

 would be something I would use just about every flight.



 Â  Brown out/endurance/clearance are one

 Â  and the same bus. Why nav lights?



 4. I think electrically dependent engines are becoming

 the norm rather than the exception for new amateur

 built aircraft.



 Â  Yup, the seeds were already in the ground 

 Â  at my first trip to OSH in '86. There

 Â  were a couple electronic ignitions being

 Â  offered that year not the least of what

 Â  would become LightSpeed.



 

 Â  Bob . . .  

	


-- 

Stay strong. Read books. Listen to music. Ignore the orange psychopath.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:17 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 11:32 AM 4/6/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I have the Nav lights on anytime the aircraft is electrically powered. Several

 times it has saved me from walking away to come back to a dead battery. 	


  You don't have obnoxious notification of low volts?



 

   Bob . . .

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:19 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

At 11:41 AM 4/6/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Another feature of the e-bus was to unburden

 Â  the SD8 of carrying a battery contactor load.

 Â  The battery contactor is about a 0.7A load,

 Â  a significant fraction of SD8 output. That

 Â  amount of current would be better used to

 Â  keep a couple of solid state electro-whizzies

 Â  lit up . . . but if your load analysis says

 Â  that contactor loads can be handily support

 Â  as part ofÂ  your plan-b loads, then no

 Â  problem!



 Are solid state contactor loads significantly less than the traditional contactors? 	


   Yes. I'm not yet convinced that going

   solid-state has a useful return on

   investment . . . what are you planning

   to spend on an SS battery contactor?



 

 

   Bob . . .

kenryan

Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 424

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:35 am Post subject: New role for the E-Bus?

I'm not planning on an SS contactor, just wondering if that info was factored into the decision of e-bus/no e-bus?



On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:26 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    At 11:41 AM 4/6/2020, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Another feature of the e-bus was to unburden

 Ã‚Â  the SD8 of carrying a battery contactor load.

 Ã‚Â  The battery contactor is about a 0.7A load,

 Ã‚Â  a significant fraction of SD8 output. That

 Ã‚Â  amount of current would be better used to

 Ã‚Â  keep a couple of solid state electro-whizzies

 Ã‚Â  lit up . . . but if your load analysis says

 Ã‚Â  that contactor loads can be handily support

 Ã‚Â  as part ofÃ‚Â  your plan-b loads, then no

 Ã‚Â  problem!



 Are solid state contactor loads significantly less than the traditional contactors? 	


 Â  Yes. I'm not yet convinced that going

 Â  solid-state has a useful return on

 Â  investment . . . what are you planning

 Â  to spend on an SS battery contactor?



 

 

 Â  Bob . . .  

	


-- 

Stay strong. Read books. Listen to music. Ignore the orange psychopath.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum