K.I.S.S. and basics
az_gila said:
Marc, These documents should be really useful and answer questions many new builders have.
All about contactors....
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/Contactor_Wiring.pdf
How to connect connectors
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/Connector_Service_Manual.pdf
Thanks for publishing them...gil in Tucson
Yea these are excellent because it focuses on the basics:
Quality parts: wire, connectors, components
Quality tools: a crimp is only as good as the crimper
Basics: Good connections that will not fail or come un-done
Heart of System: Charge, Start, (one) Main Pos buss and GOOD Grounds
I'd rather have the most BASIC wiring architecture w/ solid connections than the most clever, fancy, redundant wiring scheme and one weak connection. The idea, make it so it never fails. Electrical systems can get close to 100% reliable with care.
Bob's Book has a zillion 'Z' drawings, but the basics as MTBehnke highlighted above really has not changed in 60 years. Extra's like the "essential buss" and extra switches are add on's to the basics. I agree with Mel, Aeroelectic's tends to go towards to more than less. Adding copper wire and switches does add weight. Every ounce counts. Consider if you really need it, before adding redundant paths, dual batteries & alternator's. If your basics are solid, you'll have a reliable system, lasting the life of the plane. More connections and 'stuff' decreases reliability.
Unique to Bob's book/philosophy and contribution to kit/home-built plane electrical systems is as follow. He's strong proponent of and items subject to debate and preference are:
Automotive blade (ATC) plastic fuse blocks. He explains in his book why he thinks this is better than CB's. Although certified planes still use CB's, fuses have some advantages over resettable CB's, light and cheap, while doing the job, protect the wiring. With fuses you can afford to protect every individual circuit with its own size fuse. There's nothing wrong with CB's. In fact its still the deluxe standard "aircraft" solution. However you need to buy expensive aircraft quality CB's. Bob also thinks accesses to the fuse is not needed in flight if you design properly. He has a point and its a design philosophy. Hidden fuses is Bob's legacy and a neat idea; its used extensively in automobiles, which have fuses under the hood and under the dash-board. Its a "philosophy".
Fast-On blade connectors. He explains they have less parts than ring terminals, no screw or washers. He makes a good argument for fast-on terminals. I use both lug & fast-on terminals where needed and compatible. There is nothing wrong with lug terminals, lock washer and screw, but torque is critical. Bob educated us all that blade / fast-on terminals have some cool advantages, less parts and reliable electrical connections. Nothing wrong with lug terminals if done right, but I like Bob's ideas when they save weight, cost while still maintain reliability. Fast one terminals do that.
Anti Avionics Master - I like an avionics master. Even today, manufactures of modern avionics recommended components be turned off during starting and stopping of engine. Bob is not a proponent of avionic master switches. Bob feels strongly about (not having) this feature, but I would defer to the manufacturers of the avionics that recommend it. You can always turn individual items on and off at each unit, but that's a pain.
OV relay on internally regulated (IR) alternators - Bob has a negative opinion of internally regulated alternators. His idea is to add extra OV relays on to the output of the alternator (B-lead). This is the main area that I disagree with from Bob's other wise sage advice. I'm against adding and OV relay primarily since there are better options; if you want additional protection to OV you have two better options: One option, get a Plane-Power IR alternator with a crow bar device added on. The 2nd option is to use an externally regulated alternator (Plane Power, B&C or Homemade). I like the
Transpo V1200 (OV protected) external voltage regulator. Technically an add-on/band-aid OV device could work, but its not as elegant as the other options.
Part two of this is over voltage is an over rated of over blown fear in my opinion. Most failures are passive or benign that I have seen. The worse cases get hyped or are just stories, myths and faults rumors. However to be fair it can happen and has happened (over voltage). Having a back-up OV protection device or scheme could save the day, although I know of no documented case where a OV relay saved the day. Your single engine plane's crankshaft can fail. Your prop can fall off, so I guess we should all fly twins? You can take redundancy to a logical limit on a single engine plane (day/night/vfr/ifr) or a paranoid limit. In the end, you're in a single engine/pilot plane.
Internally regulated alternators are very reliable and unlikely to have a critical OV, historically and statistically. Adding up all the parts for a OV relay: crow bar ($35), contactor ($26) and CB ($18) and extra connectors you are looking at $80. Vans stock alternator kit cost $270. A plane power unit is $375 and does not need anything else. A $25 buck difference. If you don't "trust" the stock alternator than get the plane power unit. Putting a band-aid on an internally regulated alternator adds, weight, cost and complexity and creates other issues; it's a less than an optimal choice in my opinion; you have better options. Cutting the "B-lead" under load is death to a good alternator.
IFR/IMC with an all electric $20,000 panel, don't mess around, get the best; don't mess around with band-aids to save $25.
The ultimate electrical redundancy is to NOT need to rely on the electrical system at all, which was the 'philosophy' in the old days with mechanical gauges and vacumn, pitot/static powered flight instruments. However no one is rushing to out vacuum pumps again. So you do want the best electrical system. However if flying VFR with an engine that's not electrically dependant, super redundancy may not be needed. Also with EFIS, GPS and handheld radios with internal self contained battery power, the electrical system is less critical (VFR). Now if launching into min IFR with an all glass panel and an auto engine that needs electrical power to run the EFI and ignition than yes Bob's dual idea are probably justified.
When using a stock internally regulated alternator, I personally recommend: Using an in-panel CB (pull-able) on the B-lead (not a fuse); Do not cycle the ALT switch on/off while the engine is running; & Cool and shield the alternator from heat. The pull-able CB in the panel adds the option to isolate the alternator manually. Bob likes to wire the "B-lead" (alternator output) direct to the battery with an in-line fuse. His idea does save wiring length, but it takes the (pull-able) CB control away. I'm not criticising, just saying its not totally compatible w/ internally regulated ND alternators.
Stock ND alternator Advantage
Going with a stock ND alternator, has the advantage of getting a replacement at any auto store. Going with a special plane-power, B&C or modified alternator means repaired or replacement in the field, say on a X-C trip might not be possible. However a plane-power internally regulated unit (with auxiliary OV device), can be switched out with a stock units in a pinch.