Bill Boyd
Well Known Member
I'm inching closer to the point of having to commit to a power distribution architecture for my 10, and there are some fundamental considerations I have yet to resolve. I shall tap the Hive Mind and all will be good
My thoughts going in: some level of redundancy is essential for safety of flight in an electrically-dependent aircraft especially for electrically-dependent (no-vacuum) IFR flight. While the basic combination of alternator and battery offers some margin based on battery charge and health, this is too bare-boned to be prudent. Remaining energy in the battery at the time the light comes on may not be near enough and can never be precisely known as the battery ages, and in the event of a battery failure, the alternator may not behave properly to deliver steady, regulated voltage to the bus.
A dual-alternator, dual-battery "Cadillac/NASA" system offers very comfortable margins - but at considerable cost and weight penalties, from my personal perspective.
By process of elimination, the sweet spot is a dual-alternator or dual-battery architecture. The question is, which one is preferred, and why.
I'd really like to hear some thoughts on the relative merits of doubling down on alternators vs. batteries, particularly as it pertains to RV-10 W&B and installation challenges. Thanks!
(And if this has been hashed before, kindly redirect me to the thread.)
My thoughts going in: some level of redundancy is essential for safety of flight in an electrically-dependent aircraft especially for electrically-dependent (no-vacuum) IFR flight. While the basic combination of alternator and battery offers some margin based on battery charge and health, this is too bare-boned to be prudent. Remaining energy in the battery at the time the light comes on may not be near enough and can never be precisely known as the battery ages, and in the event of a battery failure, the alternator may not behave properly to deliver steady, regulated voltage to the bus.
A dual-alternator, dual-battery "Cadillac/NASA" system offers very comfortable margins - but at considerable cost and weight penalties, from my personal perspective.
By process of elimination, the sweet spot is a dual-alternator or dual-battery architecture. The question is, which one is preferred, and why.
I'd really like to hear some thoughts on the relative merits of doubling down on alternators vs. batteries, particularly as it pertains to RV-10 W&B and installation challenges. Thanks!
(And if this has been hashed before, kindly redirect me to the thread.)