REFLECTOR: Using the starter supply(+) wire as a charge wire

David Scharfenberg dave at winco.net
Mon Jan 29 22:33:29 CST 2007


Hi

    My theory is that I can turn off the battery contactor (in the nose, 
near the batteries) if the #2 wire should short to ground somewhere 
between the battery and the starter.

Dave Scharfenberg


On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Scott Derrick wrote:

>  Terry,
>
>  This conversation about protecting the "big" wire that runs to the 
> rear of the plane to power the starter and to provide for the 
> alternators charge circuit got me interested in possibly protecting it 
> with a big fuse or breaker.  200 Amp or so... Starters draw a huge 
> current.  
>
>  I'm not talking about protection for the alternator, this being the 
> short #10/8 or so wire that connects the alternators charge circuit(B 
> lead) to the supply side of the main starter relay(big wire from main 
> relay to starter relay).  That small wire should have a fuse or 
> resettable breaker. I think a fuse would be the right choice.
>
>  I searched the Aero-Electric list and found this... Its not for a 
> canard but it is about a battery lead from the rear of a tractor style 
> airplane to the firewall.  Similar application..
>
> >
> >Bob and everyone else ...
> >When considering a ground fault, what is best used to protect a #4 
> cable
> >run, from the rear battery, in an RV, while powering a bus?
> >
> >What is best used to protect this same #4 cable, when it is in 
> parallel with
> >the front battery and charging current is flowing to the rear batt?
> >Thanks ...
> >Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
>     Fat wires in light aircraft are not, as a rule, "protected".
>     If you study the wiring diagrams for light airplanes going
>     back to the first generator and battery installations
>     (mid 40's), things like fuses and circuit breakers do not
>     appear in the fat feeders. Let's see what the certified guys
>     design to by reading from FAR23.
>
> Sec. 23.1357   Circuit protective devices.
>
>     First, keep in mind that I quote this document only as a means
>     of illustrating thought processes for crafting the most trouble
>     free system . . . and in no way am I suggesting that these
>     words be treated as a "requirement" that should flow down into
>     the OBAM aircraft community.
>
> (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
> installed in all electrical circuits other than--
>
>      (1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
>
>      (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
>
>      I can tell you that these paragraphs describe the portion of the
>      architecture you are asking about. Fat feeders in light aircraft
>      are seldom if ever involved in a hard fault situation because of
>      the extra care we take in securing such wires and thoughtfulness
>      for installation to keep them clear of moving parts that might
>      pose a threat.
>
>      When a fat feeder suffers compromised insulation, it's generally
>      against thin sheet metal and the fault tends to be "self 
> clearing",
>      i.e., it take a lot of force designed to drive the faulted 
> conductor
>      to ground such that the conductor is now at-risk for catastrophic
>      failure due to high currents. Relatively light, passing contacts
>      tend to burn open with little or no effect on the rest of the 
> system.
>
> (b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may 
> not be
> used to protect any other circuit.
>
>      Common sense. A fuse or breaker for every accessory. Don't stack
>      multiple accessories on a single breaker/fuse whether "essential"
>      or not.  Of course, this begs for a definition of "essential" 
> which
>      is a topic for a who chapter. The government position on aviation
>      is to build ever more goodies into the essential category . . .
>
>      As I've described in Chapter 17 . . . it's up to YOU to decide
>      what's "essential" based on your understanding of personal
>      and mechanical limits based on proposed missions.
>
>
> (c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in 
> which
> the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) 
> must be
> designed so that--
>
>     (1) A manual operation is required to restore service after 
> tripping; and
>
>     (2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open 
> the
>     circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
>
>     Common sense.
>
> (d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
> essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
> located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in 
> flight.
>
>     Yup, good thing to do. Now, I've suggested for years that there's
>     no good reason for ANY single piece of equipment to become so
>     "essential" that it qualifies for special treatment of access to
>     fuses or breakers. There are hundreds more things that cause
>     an accessory to fail that DOES NOT open a fuse compared to
>     failures that DO open a fuse. Focusing on the ability to restore
>     a fuse or breaker circuit is non-productive. These are
>     a tiny proportion of all failures and likelihood of getting
>     a system back by replacing the fuse is nil.
>
>     It stands to reason then that if any one SYSTEM is so
>     desirable, then there had better be a backup SYSTEM.
>     Once this condition is achieved, there is no reason for
>     making ANY fuse or breaker accessible in flight.
>
> (e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
>
>    (1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent
>    spare fuses of each rating, whichever is greater; and
>
>    (2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any
>    required pilot.
>
>    As thoughtful designers and users of OBAM aircraft, we're
>    able to craft flight systems that completely negate any
>    reason to observe this requirement . . . we can design
>    so that there is no need to reach any fuse/breaker because
>    there are no singular, "essential" systems likely to be
>    resurrected by replacing a fuse or resetting a breaker.
>
>    This is the general answer on circuit protection . . . the
>    short answer to your specific question is that experience
>    and common sense have shown that there is no value in
>    adding "protection" to long battery feeders (other than
>    the locally situated battery contactor). This includes
>    the generally smaller but still quite robust feeder from
>    the cranking circuit to the main bus.
>
>    Bob. . .
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> -
>     The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public 
> opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The 
> agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep 
> the waters pure.
>
>     Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit 
> http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
> user:pw > Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
> Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7273 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20070129/739da592/attachment.bin 


More information about the Reflector mailing list