> . . . . I want an IFR capable, all electric
>plane. The only architecture that has an automatic full scale backup uses
>the B&C SD-20 with their standby regulator that senses when the main bus
>voltage drops off due to a primary alternator failure and thereby gets
>activated. No thoughts, no pilot action, seamless transition, lots of money
>and weight. Overkill for my application. The architecture I am proposing
>does have many options that provide for three independent pathways to power
>the essential bus.
>Where did I end up on this issue? I am buying all the parts to "make it
>so." I have also sent a hard copy of this architecture to Bob Nuckolls
>asking for feedback. I still am a year or so away from completion so all is
>subject to change based on better information.
>> Anyway, here are my thoughts: what you are proposing should work, and it
>> looks like you have planned for most contingencies, but I *personally*
>> still have a problem with ANY of these multi-bus approaches...
simplicity. My
>> thinking is that any sort of electrical malfunction or failure is a
>> stressful event. It will undoubtedly happen at an inopportune time thus
>> adding to the stress. I have experienced enough stressful times when
>> flying . . .
"most contingencies?" . . . "three independent pathways?"
Guys . . . you're letting decades of "dark and stormy night"
stories played out in certified aircraft drive unfounded
fears and scenearios to the top of your architecture decisions.
Virtually every known reason for an electrical system malfunction
has been addressed in the variety of system architectures
we've illustrated over the years. Yes, things MIGHT break
but there is no reason for any failure of an electrical system
component to precipitate an electrical emergency. Please review
chapter 18 in our book. You guys are building the best airplanes
to have ever flown. Certified ships smoke a lot because they
are BUILT and MAINTAINED that way. Further, they feature components
overhaulable only to ORIGNAL configuation as designed in 1965.
Please do your best to use our experience in certified aviation
to evolve AWAY from their mistakes . . . not ACCOMODATE them.
It's not difficult. Before you start pushing things around on the
wiring diagrams, tell me of any single failure event with
any of our power distribution diagrams that creates a tense
situation in flight that has no simple resolution. If you have
good reason to depart from the published suggestions, then
we need to fix the drawings.
Let's do this like critical thinking scientists, not pilots
and mechanics educated and trained to government standards.
This isn't a "not invented here" protest rather an invitation
to participate in critical review of contemporary thinking
to advance the state of our art . . . Bottom line is, wire
your airplane any way you wish . . . but be aware that lots
of folks are listening in. I get a couple of wiring diagrams
a month from folks asking, "what's wrong with THIS way?"
If we don't have solid advice to give, let's fix the advice
before we create dozens of variations on a theme based on
nothing better than our distrust of aviation hardware
and a lack of understanding about how to fix it.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different from )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
|