Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - First choice alternator decision

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

First choice alternator decision

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

wroe1(at)dbtech.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:13 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Gentleman,



This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is

best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7.  I am interested in

the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system

designs (particulary Z-13/.  The options are as follows:



	--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal

regulation, or



	--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.



This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux

alternator.



Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.



Thanks!  



Wade Roe

EAA 557 

Aeronca 7AC flying

RV-7 in process

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:34 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

At 09:01 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Gentleman,



This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is

best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7.  I am interested in

the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system

designs (particulary Z-13/.  The options are as follows:



         --Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal

regulation, or



         --B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.



This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux

alternator.



Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.


	


   Both products have good field histories and perform

   as advertised. Your choice.

        Bob . . .



         ---------------------------------------

        ( . . .  a long habit of not thinking   )

        ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )

        ( appearance of being right . . .       )

        (                                       )

        (                  -Thomas Paine 1776-  )

         ---------------------------------------

wroe1(at)dbtech.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Bob,



I noticed in some of your drawings that there are panel mount breakers

shown for the main alternator as well as the aux alternator.  Is this

preferred as compared to fuses?  Obviously the breaker grants you at

least an attempt to reset in flight...  



I am paralleling Z-13 with my design.  Thanks!



Wade Roe

 

--

bakerocb

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

6/24/2009



Hello Wade, Will you have low voltage warning with the Plane Power 

installation?



I would not be without a low voltage (battery not being charged) warning 

capability.



'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 

understand knowledge."



===============================================



Time: 07:13:44 AM PST US

From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>

Subject: First choice alternator decision

Gentleman,



This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is

best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7.  I am interested in

the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system

designs (particulary Z-13/.  The options are as follows:



 --Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal

regulation, or



 --B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.



This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux

alternator.



Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.



Thanks!

Wade Roe

EAA 557

Aeronca 7AC flying

RV-7 in process

wroe1(at)dbtech.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:10 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Thank you for the comments.  The Plane Power unit has over voltage

protection but no low voltage warning features.  My plan would be to

defer that task to the AEC9005-101 (low voltage monitor) that connects

to the main buss per diagram Z-13 AEC.  If main buss voltage drops I

don't believe that there would be anything to blame other than the

primary alternator.  In this event, you get the bright yellow LV warning

light on the panel and you're shutting down any unnecessary equipment to

see if that will temporarily remedy the issue.  My next move would be to

bring up the aux alternator and e-buss...at least I think that would be

the proper protocol. 



Wade Roe



EAA 557

Aeronca 7AC flying

RV-7 in process

 



--

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:50 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Wade,

 I don't know which model of the PP alternator you have, but if you look at  the diagrams for the 60 Amp model (http://www.plane-power.com/images/99%20-%209900B.pdf)  there is an option for an alternator out warning light.  Would that suffice  for a low voltage warning?  Actually, should the alternator fail, the  alternator out light should appear before the low voltage warning.

 Stan Sutterfield

 www.rv-8a.net

 Inspected, Ready to fly

  	  Quote: 	
		  Thank    you for the comments.  The Plane Power unit has over    voltage

protection but no low voltage warning features.  My plan would    be to

defer that task to the AEC9005-101 (low voltage monitor) that    connects

to the main buss per diagram Z-13 AEC.  If main buss voltage    drops I

don't believe that there would be anything to blame other than    the

primary alternator.  In this event, you get the bright yellow LV    warning

light on the panel and you're shutting down any unnecessary    equipment to

see if that will temporarily remedy the issue.  My next    move would be to

bring up the aux alternator and e-buss...at least I think    that would be

the proper protocol. 	


 

  

 Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.

  [quote][b]

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:14 pm Post subject: First choice alternator decision

My vote is for Plane Power, for value and design. 

 The internally regulated model is simpler and has 

EXTRA over voltage protection, that has satisfied 

 even the most knowledgeable expert. If you MUST 

 have external regulation, Plane Power has that 

as well. I have talked to them many times and 

 Customer service is good. You can buy through 

 Vans Aircraft (also good customer service).

  

 Plane Power now also makes a FAA/PMA voltage 

 regulator for $169, if you decide to go that way. 

 Very nice, compact and no doubt lighter than the 

 V1200. 

  

 I have been recommending the Transpo V1200 

 "Voyager" for years which cost less than $100. 

 It is made for Ford heavy duty applications.

  

 The main complaint of stock internally regulated 

 alternators in the past, potential of Over Voltage. 

 External regulators can have OV as well but they 

 are easier to add on EXTRA OV protection. The 

 Plane Power units eliminates this worry and have 

 added the same EXTRA OV protection that is 

 preferred by the experts. So there is no need to 

 hang another BOX on the fire wall and run more 

 wires to an external regulator. That can all be 

 internal with an internal regulator making a 

 cleaner installation.

  

 B&C is more expensive and has no internal 

 regulator choice. Nothing wrong with B&C fine 

 product, good customer care and external 

 regulation is fine. The voltage  regulator they 

 sell for $225 is over priced. You can do better 

 for less than 1/3rd the cost (Transpo V1200).

  

 So which one? Can't lose but the tie breaker 

 is the Plane power.

  

 Cheers George

  

  

  

  

 >From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net (wroe1(at)dbtech.net)>

 	  Quote: 	
		  Subject: First choice alternator decision



Gentleman,



This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is

best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7.  I am interested in

the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system

designs (particulary Z-13/.  The options are as follows:



--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal

regulation, or



--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.



This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux

alternator.



Any thoughts or comments would be  appreciated.



Thanks!


	


Wade Roe

EAA 557

Aeronca 7AC flying

RV-7 in process 



          [quote][b]

wroe1(at)dbtech.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Thanks for the insight Stan.  It’s my opinion that the alternator out light would in fact suffice.  I did not see this as an option on the unit available from Vans.  It’s also my understanding that alternators, especially those manufactured for aviation are very reliable.  I’m not sure what the average life span is.  At this point I’m mostly concerned about having the best, most reliable option.  

   

As we speak, I am doing a load analysis to determine if I even need a 60 amp alternator.  Maybe I can get away with a 40 amp and shed 2.5 lb. and $200.      

     

Wade  Roe  

   

SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.  

7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park  

Tuscaloosa, AL  35401  

   

205-248-6700  

205-248-6372 fax  

  

--

wroe1(at)dbtech.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:29 pm Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Thanks George for the comments and insight.  I’ll investigate the V1200.  

     

Wade  Roe  

EAA 557

 Aeronca 7AC flying

 RV-7 in process  

   

  

--

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: First choice alternator decision

From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>

To: <aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Re: First choice alternator decision

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:22:13 -0500



Thanks for the insight Stan.  It's my opinion that the alternator out 

light would in fact suffice.  I did not see this as an option on the 

unit available from Vans.  It's also my understanding that 

alternators, especially those manufactured for aviation are very 

reliable.  I'm not sure what the average life span is.  At this point 

I'm mostly concerned about having the best, most reliable option.



       Your electrical SYSTEM can offer satisfactory

       'reliability' in spite of individual components

       failure. This is the cornerstone of failure

       tolerant design. It's far more useful to design

       and fabricate with a foregone conclusion that

       any part can and will at some time fail in flight.



       Further, price of a component is not necessarily

       directly related to expected service life. Based

       on anecdotal observation, most failures of an

       alternator installation are unrelated to the

       physical alternator. The only mechanical wearing

       parts of an alternator are bearings-and-

       brushes-on-slip-rings. There are thermal service-life-

       limiting stresses that influence diodes, integrated

       circuits, bond-wire joints, etc. Generally speaking,

       it's not difficult to fabricate a belt driven

       alternator with a service life that equals that of

       the engine. But poor choice of attach hardware,

       wiring supports can be equally crippling of

       alternator performance.



       The purpose of this little dissertation is to suggest

       that much of what's reported as an "alternator

       problem" has nothing to do with the design or

       fabricating processes in the alternator itself.



       Given that absolute "quality" in terms of service

       life cannot be absolutely predicted, I'll suggest

       it's more useful to use what ever combination of

       products is most attractive for price, weight,

       ease of installation while mitigating reliability

       worries with crafty failure tolerant design.



       Understand that the "alternator out" light feature

       of an internally regulated alternator is operated

       from the same slab of silicon as the voltage

       regulator. See:



http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A_Block_Diagram.pdf



       This drawing is a somewhat dated (but I think exemplar)

       architecture for an internally regulated alternator.

       Note that the lamp circuit is driven from the

       integrated circuit chip. The ability of this

       lamp to annunciate ALL forms of alternator failure

       is not known. Further, since the warning functions

       share hardware and space with controlling functions,

       it does not conform with design goals for most

       aircraft systems that call for separation of

       control and failure monitoring/annunciation.



       Observance of those design goals calls for active

       notification of low voltage that is independent

       of the alternator and it's regulator. This concept

       is common to many TC aircraft and is suggested by

       illustration throughout the Z-figures.



       Bob . . .

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:07 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

In hindsight, I, too, should have given more consideration to the 40 A  unit.  As I was building, my thought was that more power was better.   While that is basically true, during my building process, new technology  low power replacements for traditionally high power gadgets became available -  such as HIDs for incandescent landing lights, LEDs for position, taxi  (landing?) lights and interior lights, low power EFIS and engine  monitors.  As a result, my power needs are dramatically less than what the  alternator can produce.  I guess the PP 60A will just be  loafing.

 Stan Sutterfield

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  As we    speak, I am doing a load analysis to determine if I even need a 60

amp    alternator.  Maybe I can get away with a 40 amp and shed 2.5 lb.    and

$200. 	


 

  

 Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.

  [quote][b]

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Bob's point is very well taken.  I would guess that his observation  that most aircraft alternator "failures" are not necessarily alternator related,  but rather failures of the methods used to connect them to the electrical system  is correct.

 His advice for separate LV detection is wise.

 Stan Sutterfield

 Do not archive

  

  	  Quote: 	
		            Observance of those design goals calls for    active

       notification of low voltage that is    independent

       of the alternator and it's    regulator. 	


 

  

 Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.

  [quote][b]

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: First choice alternator decision

Hmm..Yes the PP 60A would  be hard pressed to find any real work to do..But then its a very small  lightweight unit so I don't see that it matters. Is there a 40A unit with the  same reliability and shutdown features that is 2.5lb less than the Plane  power?

  

 Frank



   From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  Speedy11(at)aol.com

Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:04 AM

To:  aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: First  choice alternator decision

 

  In hindsight, I, too, should have given more consideration to the 40 A  unit.  As I was building, my thought was that more power was better.   While that is basically true, during my building process, new technology  low power replacements for traditionally high power gadgets became available -  such as HIDs for incandescent landing lights, LEDs for position, taxi  (landing?) lights and interior lights, low power EFIS and engine  monitors.  As a result, my power needs are dramatically less than what the  alternator can produce.  I guess the PP 60A will just be  loafing.

 Stan Sutterfield

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  As we speak, I am doing a    load analysis to determine if I even need a 60

amp alternator.  Maybe    I can get away with a 40 amp and shed 2.5 lb.  and

$200. 	


 

  

 

  Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy  recipes for the grill.

[quote]



ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

ics.com

.matronics.com/contribution



[b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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