I am using 2 x rows of the push pull circuit breakers (that look like the Klixon 7277-2 series) All black including the screw thread with a white number indicating the amp rating.

As I will have a 60 amp altinator I need a 60 amp CB.

The problem is the only 60 amp CB I can find is either the Klixon 6752 100 series which seems to have 2 x small screw either side of the push/pull knob or the 60 amp type that has a WHITE plastic pop out that you can't grab by your hand and manually pull out.

In other words my 60 amp CB is going to look different to all the others.

Any suggestions of finding one that is all black, pull out/push in, with 60 written in the middle in white numbers?
 
how about using a current limiter and no 60A CB in the cockpit. There are a number of threads on this subject that you can search for
 
Dave,

There is one more option...

Put an ANL fuse on the firewall. That way you won't have to run that big wire up to the panel and back.

Check Dan's site, he has some good pictures of this.
 
I am using 2 x rows of the push pull circuit breakers (that look like the Klixon 7277-2 series) All black including the screw thread with a white number indicating the amp rating.

As I will have a 60 amp altinator I need a 60 amp CB.

The problem is the only 60 amp CB...

I am going to use the current limiter form B&C

http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218#c905-100

You will need the base as well as the limiter

Ditto on the ANL current limiter.
 
Use the series 100 and give it a special spot

I am using 2 x rows of the push pull circuit breakers (that look like the Klixon 7277-2 series) All black including the screw thread with a white number indicating the amp rating.

As I will have a 60 amp alternator I need a 60 amp CB.

The problem is the only 60 amp CB I can find is either the Klixon 6752 100 series which seems to have 2 x small screw either side of the push/pull knob or the 60 amp type that has a WHITE plastic pop out that you can't grab by your hand and manually pull out.

In other words my 60 amp CB is going to look different to all the others.

Any suggestions of finding one that is all black, pull out/push in, with 60 written in the middle in white numbers?
KEEP THE PULLABLE CB IN THE COCKPIT, GOOD IDEA. Go with the 100 series. That is what I have and it mounts up in its own little spot FAR RIGHT and the rows of CB's (7277-1) are in their happy home along the bottom right panel.

This may or may not help you, but you could get by with 50 amp CB if the total load is less. What is you max current load? Take the flaps, lights, heated pitot, 7 amps for battery charging (usually much less) and microwave :rolleyes: and the sum is? If its less than 50 amps you can use a 50 amp CB. You really don't want to run your 60 amp alterantor at 60 amps. I am not suggesting you undersize the CB, but if you total load is say 45 amps (including 5-7 amp dead battery charge) a 50 amp CB (or what ever size your load indicates) is good enough. There seems to be jump in CB case size (and cost as well) with CB's over 50 amps. +50 amp range means more heat & the need for a bigger case.

I am going to use the current limiter form B&C
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218#c905-100
You will need the base as well as the limiter
Current LIMITER? ha-ha :D That's a fancy word for a FUSE, a big fat remote fuse. I know Bob of Aeroelectic promotes this remote FUSE under the cowl deal. It does have some advantages, like one less wire run of about 2 or 3 feet (to a panel mounted CB). That is it. In general Bob is a fuse-man. Nothing wrong with that, but if going CB's (like 100% of the planes in the world) than go CB. Put that BIG FAT CB IN THE PANEL! :D

Bob makes good points for this FUSE set-up, but I disagree that its for "noise control". No mater where you run the B-lead or if you use a FUSE or CB, its electrically connected to the airplane, including inside the cockpit. The location of fuse/cb is not critical to noise. If the alternator/regulator are making noise you will hear it regardless. Back in the OLD days regulators where "noisy", but modern alternators and regulators are not. If there is alternator noise there is a problem with it or there is a poor ground.
 
Last edited:
I know there is an off (read very, very, small) chance where pulling the field breaker will not accomplish the same thing as having a pull-able breaker for the alternator B lead itself, but it has and continues to work for certified aircraft so why re-invent the wheel?
~$16 at Spruce.
6070circuitbreak.jpg

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/6070amp.php

I'm not a big fan of the ANL. While I will use fuses for other things, I would not use one on the alternator B lead. Also, I may be wrong but, I don't think any certified aircraft uses ANL.
 
Why would you need to run "that big wire up to the panel and back" if you are using a breaker?

Charge the battery.

As to using a pullable breaker for the alt output, somewhere in the deep dark recesses of my poor little brain I seem to remember reading that pulling the breaker on an alternator while it is putting out juice is not a good thing. The proper way to stop the output is to stop the field current.

That is why the "alt" switch is on the field, not the output----not to mention that the load rating of the switch can be a lot lower.
 
w1curtis said:
Why would you need to run "that big wire up to the panel and back" if you are using a breaker?
Charge the battery.
Hmm, the alternator is connected to the buss, the battery is connect to the buss--alternator charges battery--what did I miss? This is the way it is wired in my Cessna.
 
Bill, I think maybe you and I are talking about the same thing, only different, as my mom used to say.

Big wire goes from alternator to breaker, with no interruptions.

Other side of breaker feeds buss, and power to charge the battery. One large wire from either the buss, or the breaker terminal back to the battery-----could tie in at the master solenoid, or as in my 10, due to rear mounted battery, the charge circuit is actually hooked up to the hot side of the starter solenoid.

Of course, the wire that carries the "charge" current is the same one that supplies "battery" power to the buss. Dual purpose wire.

Thus 2 "big wires" through the firewall.
 
You are right twice but one thing

Charge the battery.

As to using a pull-able breaker for the alt output, somewhere in the deep dark recesses of my poor little brain I seem to remember reading that pulling the breaker on an alternator while it is putting out juice is not a good thing. The proper way to stop the output is to stop the field current.

That is why the "alt" switch is on the field, not the output----not to mention that the load rating of the switch can be a lot lower.
That is true Mike for externally regulated alternators that you have access to the FIELD, but stock ND internally regulated alternators do not have a field wire, just an wake/sleep logic wire that is a on/off signal. In theory you don't have control to the alternator with the ALT switch in some failure scenarios.

You are right pulling a CB while running would be bad. However if the alternator is dead or acting up (over voltage) you have that option to disconnect the alternator decisively.


Chicken before egg or scrambled eggs:

>the Alternator to the Battery (via a fuse), than Battery to Buss

- OR -

>You run in parallel: Alternator to Buss (via a CB usually) & Battery to the Buss.

Either way order does not matter, they are all electrically connected or tied together (one "node").

Food For Thought?
Notice: How no one protects the BAT to BUSS wire run???? In cars they use fusible-links for protection of all wires off the battery, but most RV folks leave it unprotected, no fuse, fusible-link or CB. Why? Is it not important? I guess since we have a master relay, we can manually disconnect the wire from the battery. A fusible link or an in-line fuse would be be a good idea, I think, but few people do this. Bob Aeroelectric does not show protection for this critical wire in his "Z" diagrams. I suppose since its the main wire providing all the power to the plane you don't want a inadvertent or nuisance blown fuse, but chances are if it blows its a good thing. Fusible links are a little mysterious. Basically they are a short section of lower gauge wire made to burn up in that designated location, usually covered in protective material so it does not burn surrounding objects. Now they make nice in-line fuse holders for ATC fuses up to 60 or 80 amps. I'm thinking of putting an in-line fuse in the BAT to BUSS wire. Can anyone think of a reason a fuse on the BAT to Buss wire would be a bad idea?
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking of putting an in-line fuse in the BAT to BUSS wire. Can anyone think of a reason a fuse on the BAT to Buss wire would be a bad idea?

I'm going to do the same thing, George. In fact I just ordered a bunch of Midi Fuses in various sizes to fulfill this task. (I'm also going to try to use them in place of the more expensive ANL current limiters).

Seems to me that there is benefit and little cost or downside in protecting that fat wire that passes through the firewall and runs a couple feet to your breaker bus or fuse block (depending on your stand on the whole CB's vs fuses issue).

For what it's worth, I asked the tech guy at B&C about this and he said:

I always recommend a limiter for the main bus feed in airplanes configured like yours. [battery on the firewall] Oddly, many TC'd airplanes do not have such a device. But, a case in point would be the '84 and newer Bonanzas. They have the contactors all out on the firewall with the battery, and then provide several branch circuit feeder current limiters on the firewall to feed the circuit breaker buses in the cockpit. I believe this is good design practice.

cheers,
mcb
 
Last edited:
Can anyone think of a reason a fuse on the BAT to Buss wire would be a bad idea?

Playing devil's advocate, I guess the only reason I could come up with is that the purpose of a fuse is to protect the wiring between a power suplier and a power consumer. Since each of the items on the busses is already protected by either a fuse, fuselink, or C/B, what are you protecting with another fuse?

The only thing I can come up with is a short-circuit from a worn-through BATT to BUSS wire, but in most cases I think you can prevent that with good construction standards. (Of course, you could have an engine fire or a firewall-forward vibration of some kind, resulting in that wire being compromised.)

Maybe my thinking is foggy. But it IS past my bedtime. :D

[Devil's Advocate Mode OFF]

I think it's a good idea.
 
Last edited:
That is true Mike for externally regulated alternators that you have access to the FIELD, but stock ND internally regulated alternators do not have a field wire, just an wake/sleep logic wire that is a on/off signal. In theory you don't have control to the alternator with the ALT switch in some failure scenarios.

You are right pulling a CB while running would be bad. However if the alternator is dead or acting up (over voltage) you have that option to disconnect the alternator decisively.

Internal regulated-----oops.

George, you got me on that one.

I was thinking of the system in my plane, and in addition I had just digested the thread "electrical system for review" by mburch, both of which are using external regulation.

R.E. your question about fused leads from the battery-----I have a 30 amp fuse on my aux battery feed line, and the line runs through a disconnect switch also. Gives me both manual control, and automatic protection.
 
Last edited:
Bill, I think maybe you and I are talking about the same thing, only different, as my mom used to say.

Big wire goes from alternator to breaker, with no interruptions.

Other side of breaker feeds buss, and power to charge the battery. One large wire from either the buss, or the breaker terminal back to the battery-----could tie in at the master solenoid, or as in my 10, due to rear mounted battery, the charge circuit is actually hooked up to the hot side of the starter solenoid.

Of course, the wire that carries the "charge" current is the same one that supplies "battery" power to the buss. Dual purpose wire.

Thus 2 "big wires" through the firewall.
I keep forgetting that most other planes (other that what I fly and am building) have the battery firewall forward. The "fat" wire from the battery to the buss is not so fat in the rear mounted battery scenario, nor does it have to penetrate the firewall twice.

BattAlt.jpg
 
William, is the diagram above how your plane is wired, or a plan on what you are going to do??

The #8 wire-----formerly called "fat"----from the buss that you show being tied into the #2 would require two additional cable ends to be crimped on, and a terminal block or binder post setup.

I ran the #8 through the same hole in the firewall that the start solenoid wire goes through, and hooked it to the battery side of the solenoid.

There must be a hole for the starter engagement wire, cant escape it, hooking the #8 like I described actually simplifies the setup, and lowers parts count.
 
Last edited:
Metric...

I'm going to do the same thing, George. In fact I just ordered a bunch of Midi Fuses in various sizes to fulfill this task. (I'm also going to try to use them in place of the more expensive ANL current limiters).
.......
cheers,
mcb

Matt... the only disadvantage I can see with these MIDI fuses is that they are metric...
They will probably use the only M5 nuts in your entire plane....:)

I do like the snap-on cover though....

gil A
 
Since we are on a wild tangent

Having got that far though you might start wondering (as I am) if you still want a starter contactor on the firewall since you have one on the starter unit. I am considering ditching the starter contactor and using a simple relay just to switch on the power to pull the solenoid in.

The relay is because you have to switch 30 amps which is required initially to pull the solenoid. Once you have wired it this way, you might as well send the alternator power back down the starter cable also! Saves a bit more weight. I am still thinking about it, but would welcome comments....if you have followed this far.

Oh, and to make it safe I think I would put a 40amp ANL between the alternator and outer end of the starter cable, and a 300? amp ANL right by the master contactor where the power heads out to the starter. As I said, still thinking.
My thoughts exactly. Here is a cartoon incorporating your ideas, mine and other folks ideas and concerns. (pic worth 1000 words).


** click


From the cartoon above you can see that a simple small relay controls all power to the plane (except starter). I think it would save some weight and cost. It definitely would be less stuff and clutter under on the firewall.

The principle concern people have told me, is their worried the starter cable is hot all the time, mostly for short/fire reasons. The BIG fuse may belay the worry of a starter cable short. If you go with a fuse on the starter cable as shown above, I'd go with a 350/400 amp fuse because PM starters pull a little over 300 amps. The wire-wound starters draw less, in the mid 200's. The Big 350/400 amp fuse is not needed, in my opinion, if you keep at least one firewall contactor, master or starter, since you can de-energize the starter circuit.

A second worry is the danger of inadvertent starter activation and the prop moving while working on the plane. I could see that happening if your wrench or screwdriver made contact with the bat & start terminals on the starter solenoid. Definitely have boot covers on those terminals. A emergency battery cut-off or disconnecting the battery for maintence would eliminate the worry of inadvertent starter activation on the ground.



Note: The in-line fuse's shown are just that, in-line bussman (tm) maxi sized blade fuses blade. LINK They come in 20 amp to 80 amp ratings. No firewall fuse holder needed. The in-line fuse holder for the MAXI fuse is rated up to 60 amps and can be mounted or secured if desired. LINK (bottom of page HHX) If you don't like the idea of using blade fuses and splicing in the fuse holder than the Midi fuse holder would be the way to go. At least than you can used crimped lugs. Not sure if that is an advantage. Personally I'd rather splice the in-line fuse holder in with solder and heat shrink. I know crimped terminals, if done well with good quality terminals and tools are grand, but for wire to wire splices......I have to go with the solder. The worry of a brittle solder failure is there but minimized with heat shrink (several wraps) to keep the joint from flexing where the solder is.

** My lawyers Dewey, Cheatem & Howe ("Do we cheat 'em? And how!") told me this is for discussion purposes only.
 
Last edited:
George, sorry not to get back before. All last week was busy painting the plane. Just catching up. I am delighted someone has picked up on my post. I had rather given up

I am quite serious about this and have a very similar sketch to your cartoon. The significant differences are that I will keep the master relay in front of the firewall and only bring the power I need for the main bus into the cabin, and I will not take the current for the starter solenoid into the cabin. A small, quality automotive relay in front of the firewall can activate that.

The worry I have is about the big cable from the battery to the starter being live all of the time once the master is on. In fact though, the problem is there with the alternator cable anyway once the alternator is on. Yes, its normally behind a much smaller ANL, say 40/60/80 amps rather than say 300, but either way there is going to be a flash and the ANL blows if there is a short. Clearly NO chafe points!

My thought concurrs with yours that I will put a 300amp ANL in beside the battery. If it blows when I hit the starter I will increase it, but very much doubt I will have to.

Under the engine, almost between the starter and alternator there are some tappings in the block. (I think these were used for old fashioned starters.) I was going to mount a smaller ANL there in case the alternator ran away. Your idea to put a maxi blade fuse there is interesting, though I havnt really mulled it over properly. I only have a 40 amp alternator so I guess a 40 amp fuse is plenty. The link is VERY short from the alternator output to the starter cable. Since I dont have 40 amps of load it is hard to see how 40 would flow unless the battery was empty....but then I could not start the engine.

Inadvertent starter activation appears to me no different than it was before surely? In the 'normal' situation you have to cause the starter relay to function which will then cause the second starter relay to function. Here you will just have to cause the second relay to function. There seem about the same number of ways to do this with either setup. The main message is dont work on the plane with the master on. Situation normal! Have I missed something?

I struggle to see how the Skytec solenoid would inadvertantly operate while the engine is running. Why should it get jolted into action any more than the conventional one. Is this a real worry? I cant see it. What is a real worry is that I operate the starter in error once the engine is cooking, but my thought here is that with a double pole switch I will ensure that once the alternator is on I can not put power on the relay that pulls the solenoid in.

There is a nice Bosche relay that some of the Aviat Huskys use to start their O-360. I figure it will take the power to spin up an O-320 just fine. It is rated for brief surges up to 400 amps from memory. As soon as the starter spins the current must drop back quite a way because of the back emf.

Right now my biggest problem is sourcing the part cole hersee part no : 46211, hole dia 1-17/64 or the other part you quoted the other day. Do you have a model / make numbers for the second pair of parts?

Thanks for your interest!
 
My battery is in the "old" aft of the firewall location (RV6A --- in the cockpit), but I like the idea of being able to "kill" numerous high amperage contact points with the master switch, should I know that I'm about to initiate an unplanned "semi-crash" sequence.

My master relay is less than a foot from the positive battery terminal. Beyond that point, all heavy capacity wires would be "lifeless" when the master switch is off.

I also left an engine side, firewall mounted B-lead relay in place; that was used for an internally regulated alternator OV protection scheme; but removed the OV module that had some potential problems until a new schematic is possibly finalized. This also "kills" another three feet or so of potential high amperage wiring under the panel. If the master switch is off, then this relay is "off" automatically. This relay is activated by the five amp alternator field switch.

Yes, it's a bit more weight, but I feel better about not having all those heavy duty wires ---- constantly live on the engine/ fuel side.

L.Adamson
 
LA - its in what I wrote, but I should have been more explicit. The way I plan it, the master relay will be the first thing AFTER the +ve terminal of the battery, so with that turned off, only maybe 6" or less will be live. From there there would be a feed to the starter and another to the main bus. In that way I differ from George.....but dont have the picture.

One of the points I was making is you do in fact have a fairly high load wire out there, and that is the power off the alternator, so its not so different and that never really worries most folk.
 
I think you are right

The worry I have is about the big cable from the battery to the starter being live all of the time once the master is on.
Cars are even worse, the starter cable is hot all the time! I don't see a big problem and if making a forced off field landing turning the master off, which would de-energize the starter wire, if I understand your design. Turning the master off is one part of the non-normal check-list for forced landings, in every factory plane I remember, along with turning the fuel off and some times opening the door a crack.

My thought concurrs with yours that I will put a 300amp ANL in beside the battery. If it blows when I hit the starter I will increase it, but very much doubt I will have to.
It depends on the starter but you are probably right, 300 amps is max, wire wound are less, PM starters higher.

Under the engine, almost between the starter and alternator there are some tappings in the block. (I think these were used for old fashioned starters.) I was going to mount a smaller ANL there in case the alternator ran away. Your idea to put a maxi blade fuse there is interesting, though I havnt really mulled it over properly. I only have a 40 amp alternator so I guess a 40 amp fuse is plenty. The link is VERY short from the alternator output to the starter cable. Since I dont have 40 amps of load it is hard to see how 40 would flow unless the battery was empty....but then I could not start the engine.
I think you are good either way. The only comment I have is a fuse will not help with an OV, Over Voltage, just over current, ie short. BTW they make in-line fuse and fuse holders up to 60 amps in the MAXI ATC blade style.

Inadvertent starter activation appears to me no different than it was before surely? In the 'normal' situation you have to cause the starter relay to function which will then cause the second starter relay to function. Here you will just have to cause the second relay to function. There seem about the same number of ways to do this with either setup. The main message is don't work on the plane with the master on. Situation normal! Have I missed something?
I agree. I think about poor Stein & his hand, ouch! Be careful around props. I agree, but with master-off, mixture cutoff and ignition off, you are pretty safe. However there's no fail safe to keep us from doing something absent minded. May be a big sticker on the starter or somewhere under the cowl to remind you to "CHECK MIXTURE/MASTER/OFF OFF BEFORE MAINTENANCE".

I struggle to see how the Skytec solenoid would inadvertently operate while the engine is running. Why should it get jolted into action any more than the conventional one. Is this a real worry? I cant see it. What is a real worry is that I operate the starter in error once the engine is cooking, but my thought here is that with a double pole switch I will ensure that once the alternator is on I can not put power on the relay that pulls the solenoid in.
Again I agree with your logic. The old saying s**t happens, but short of pushing the start button, the starter is very unlikely to activate. Actually the typical secondary firewall starter contactor most use is a weak point. If you don't mount it properly, so positive G's keeps it open, it can make the starter engage. Van did not know this years ago and many RV's ended up doing acro and finding their starter engaging, than acting like a generator in-flight. Actually before Van's recommended mounting contactors the way they do now, for an interim period they suggested horizontal mounting, but they don't work well horizontal. They are not designed for that orientation and fail.

Right now my biggest problem is sourcing the part cole hersee part no : 46211, hole dia 1-17/64 or the other part you quoted the other day. Do you have a model / make numbers for the second pair of parts?
Van sells the #24115 continuous duty 12v contactor. Its cole hersees basic part. I'm not sure what a #46211 is.

For a while I looked at the #24200 Latching Solenoid, SPST 12V. It's brilliant and basically like the #24115, but it latches either closed or open. You activated it with momentary switch, which does makes it a little weird. Hit the momentary switch once, it latches open, hit it again it latches closed. Once in either position, it stays there with no power to the actuation coil through the switch, which is the nice part. It does take 3/4 amp to keep the #24115 closed while the #24200 takes nothing (once latched). I gave up on the #24200 latching solenoid for two reasons: one, weird switch operation with a momentary switch; two, it stays latched closed if you lose power to activate it. The basic #24115 is normally in the open position; without the 3/4 amps to stay closed, it's fail-safe or normal position is open. I like the idea of not wasting an amp holding a relay closed, but its part of doing business with remote contactors with high current capacity.

You may want to check with boat suppliers, heavy truck and equipment suppliers like forklift and gate lift dealers. They all use these cole hersee relays.
 
Last edited:
As you say, **** happens!

George, that was a very helpful reply. Yes I understand the ANL will only protect me from the amps running wild, but I doubt the amps will not run wild if the volts are heading up. If they are not then I think the alternator will give up anyway.

The way I look at it is the less stuff you have the less that goes wrong. (What you dont have cant fail!) Sort of obvious, but frequently missed. It has the additional advantages that it is cheaper and lighter.

Twice in my professional life I have run into this in a major way. Saturn V and very large mainframe computers.

This weeks implementation of less is better is flashes of paint on the flaps that will tell me their position. Somewhat simpler than a bunch of electronics and displays!

So, thanks again. Useful to have a thoughtful and critical consideration.
 
Steve...
My thought concurrs with yours that I will put a 300amp ANL in beside the battery. If it blows when I hit the starter I will increase it, but very much doubt I will have to.
I considered this, but then discarded it.

My logic is, what are you "protecting"? CBs/Fuses etc. are there to protect the wires not the components. In turn, the wire needs protection from a chafe or accidental short etc. We spend enough time trying to get the contacts on the starter wire to pass 200A+ intentionally - the chance of an accidental chafe etc. making a good enough contact to blow a 300A fuse seems somewhat small...? More, you could generate a fire etc. with far less (say 50A+) and your fuse will sit there merrily passing the current.

Finally, adding a 300A fuse is 2 more connections and one more component in the wire run that needs minimum connections / components in order to give starter highest voltage etc.

Just my thoughts, and probably completely wrong!

Andy Hill
G-HILZ RV-8 nearly there :)
 
Since I dont have 40 amps of load it is hard to see how 40 would flow unless the battery was empty....but then I could not start the engine.
FWIW, we cranked our engine ~1min (in a few goes) to prime the oil lines (plugs out). PC680 battery was fairly well charged prior. Then did the first start - fired and ran almost instantly. Left it Alternator off for say 1-2 mins (wanted to check/test things one at a time). Selected Altn on - it is a 60A Altn and went straight to ~54A and then slowly decayed.

Seems to me a 60A (or 40A or whatever) will likely put out near it's rating after start into the now somewhat depleted battery. It's not an issue of the loads you put on it. Someone advised me a 60A fuse will blow from time to time on a 60A Altn unless real slow-blo. With their advice, and my observations, I have now swapped for a 80A fuse... don't fancy cowls off to change too often! 80A fuse will cope with a serious runaway, and current is after all monitored / switchable to off...

HTH
Andy Hill
RV-8 G-HILZ nearly there...
 
Thinking about contactorless starter.

I'm about to tear into my RV-4 for a complete electrical makeover, new starter, alternator, battery, battery location, power distribution, instruments, etc.

I'm intrigued by George's drawing. It could save significant weight and complexity. Is anyone still seriously planning to use this system?

One thing that would help justify it to me would be if it resulted in lower total resistance between battery and starter. The system might be great for that except for the resistance of the 300A ANL fuse. I wouldn't do it without a fuse but I couldn't find the resistance on Busman's website. Anyone know?
 
It's up to you

I'm about to tear into my RV-4 for a complete electrical makeover, new starter, alternator, battery, battery location, power distribution, instruments, etc.

I'm intrigued by George's drawing. It could save significant weight and complexity. Is anyone still seriously planning to use this system?

One thing that would help justify it to me would be if it resulted in lower total resistance between battery and starter. The system might be great for that except for the resistance of the 300A ANL fuse. I wouldn't do it without a fuse but I couldn't find the resistance on Busman's website. Anyone know?
As I tell everyone, stick to the plans, keep it light and simple. There is nothing in the world wrong with the traditional wiring, which 99% of the RV's use. Of course the architecture I proposed is not per planes but it is simple. The BUSMAN resistance will be next to ZERO. You can get rid of the fuse. Just leave it or use a starter relay. Regardless the resistance of the fuse will not be an issue.

With the RV-4 with the battery right there between your feet, so you may consider a real honest to goodness manual battery switch. That would save you the master relay/contactor. Some come with a key or some allow you to put a lock on it. Kind of secondary theft protection:

flaming_battery_cutoff.jpg
flaming_battery_cutoff1.jpg


It could be mounted near the battery and with in reach. If I was building a RV-4 or RV-6 I would strongly consider doing it. There is a RV-6 flying around with this set-up. The RV-7 has the battery fwd firewall and mine needs it there for CG anyway. The down side with a manual disconnect switch is high quality ones are not cheap. Also weight savings will be a wash. The big advantage is a little less wiring. Like anything you change from the plans it has impact on other things and you trade one thing for another. A master relay/contactor does use almost an amp to stay latched, which of course the manual Bat cutoff does not need.
 
Last edited:
I don't like it....

The idea of "always on" hot leads, and no way to kill a masterswitch, using a very short wire between the battery & master relay; before or after a "crash", just bugs me.

Imagine being upside down, trying to break the canopy, and knowing the whole front end is possibly still hot! You could only hope that the wing tanks separated, and that the big fuse possibly blew.

At least most automobiles have the gas tank in the back, when it goes "crunch" up front...

L.Adamson

edit: the battery switch as in the last reply, makes me feel better! :)

edit again: except that battery switch may be too hard to reach in an emergency. Same reason I moved my fire extinguisher from the 6A battery case, to between the seats. I think I'll stick with the master relay technique, again.
 
Last edited:
"L", I must admit that the possibility of a post-crash short touching off spilled gasoline never occurred to me. I'll give that some more thought.

George, thanks for the pointer to the manual switches. I meant to thank you for that the last time you brought it up but forgot.

How do you know the anl resistance is "next to ZERO"? Anyway, it's a relative term and needs to be more precisely bounded for the high current starter circuit. I've seen significant voltage drop across fuses in electrical equipment I've worked on. I wouldn't consider a value of more than about 1mOhm negligible. Even that would be a 0.3 V drop if one anticipates a motor stall current of around 300A. That would be 90W across the fuse which sounds a bit high for for such a small component to withstand continuously so I can believe the resistance is < 1mOhm. I'd feel better with hard numbers, though. After all, a fuse must dissipate a significant amount of power at > max current or else it wouldn't blow.
 
I agree with you guys

I like the idea of protecting every wire off the battery with a nearby in-line fuse. There is no reason you can not do that, just as long as you accept you will lose main electical if the fuse blows. However if a 50 or 60 amp fuse blows its probably best it blows and says blown.

No fuse protection for the main buss feed wire is common with planes, but even old cars have fusible links off the battery. New cars mount a fuse box adjacent the battery to protect all the wires, except the big starter cable.

I don't believe the starter cable in cars are fuse protected. The more I think about it, the more I like having two starter relays, one on firewall, near battery, one on the starter itself. A normally OFF firewall starter relay means the starter cable is not HOT all the time. A side bonus of the firewall starter relay, it's easier on the cockpit starter switch. Using only the starter solenoid/contactor, you need a big 30-35 amp rated switch. They do make big fat starter buttons that mount in a 5/8" dia hole. The good thing of just using the starters solenoid/contactor is saving the extra FW starter relay.

The fuse deal is nice but if you use a switch nice.

The main goal is support, protect and wire to avoid shorts at all cost. Also crashing should be avoided as well. :rolleyes: I think the status quo could be better with fuse protection off of the battery.
 
Last edited:
(Live) Starter Cables / big Fuses

There has been debate here, and on the UK RV Forum, about "permanently" hot wires (e.g. Starter Cables), and also the merits (or otherwise) of high current fuses / links etc.

This UK AAIB Report has some relevant points:

High Current (indeed maybe all?) cables benefit from having some form of switching to remove the supply. Usually the Master Solenoid near the battery and an (accessible) Alternator Field Switch / Fuse / CB do this for typical RVs... but for those leaving the Start Cable live :confused:

The circuit was protected by a 130A fuse, yet a decent fire still started and was maintained... until the power source was removed.

Our design in fact has not used fuses / links in the really high power cables (Starter / Busbar supplys), and nobody could be criticised for using them... However, it would seem wise to note they will only protect you from a very well made short circuit - a more typical chafe / moisture short will happily start and feed a fire without getting near the fuse rating. Only real protection seem good insulation at design / build and regular inspections....

Just a thought to add to the debate ;)

Andy & Ellie Hill

RV-8 G-HILZ Test Flying complete...