europa-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Designing for Failure

Subject: Re: Designing for Failure
From: Robert L. Nuckolls III <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:15:07
 <19990720.165854.4214.27.kitfoxflyer@juno.com>

>Be aware that when you disconnect the battery from a vehicle or aircraft
>fitted with a alternator a sudden surge may occur. This can damage the
>alternator depending on the type of surge diodes fitted and can also in the
>case of motor vehicles damage electronic control units.

  This rather generalized caveat has been floating around
  in various forms for decades in transportation industries
  where vehicles use battery/alternator DC power systems.
  Many folk have interpreted it to have applicability under
  all conditions, even when the engine is not running.
  Others have enlarged the meaning to include the attachment
  or disconnection of jumper cables between the vehicle's
  power supply and that of another vehicle or exernal power
  source.

  I'd guess that the basis for the statement comes from what
  we learned about alternator behavior when they first replaced
  generators on airplanes back in the early 60's.  While
  a generator would willingly start up and provide stable,
  useful power even when there was no battery on line, the
  new fangled alternator would not.  Depending on design
  of the alternator/regulator combination, power supplied
  by an alternator sans battery could be anything from
  barely satisfactory to wildly hazardous to the health
  of electro-goodies on the airplane.

  This lays foundation for the birth of the split rocker,
  battery master switch that found its way onto most of
  the single engine airplanes flying today. The idea of
  the split rocker was to prevent leaving an alternator
  on line unless the battery was also on line. However,
  it did allow leaving the alternator OFF until after
  engine start and for battery-only ground ops. Of course,
  it also allowed turning off the alternator in flight.

  This last fact raised a new issue. 60 amp alternators
  were standard equipment on most Cessnas . . . even the
  lowly Day/VFR training ships like the C-150. As the
  battery slid off toward oblivion, it's ability to
  stabilize an alternator degraded too . . . especially
  when the machine was a 60-amp, fire-breathing dragon.
  Some folks experimenting with the alternator switch
  in flight found that re-energizing the alternator at
  cruise RPM, low system loads and a soggy battery produced
  surge transients of wallet vacuuming proportions. Hence
  the placard you see on many single engine certified 
  ships saying "DO NOT TURN ALTERNATOR OFF IN FLIGHT
  EXCPET IN AN EMERGENCY".

  Again, we find the certified side of the house "fixing"
  a design problem with increased training and pilot workload.
  It also shifts the blame for subsequent mishaps off onto
  the pilot when the happless chap fails to observe the
  placard.  In conversations with a number of TC aircraft
  owners, I've suggested that they superglue the halves
  of their split rocker switches together if their airplane
  has a pullable field breaker.  This prevents inadvertent
  operation of only the alternator side of the rocker switch
  but still allows battery only ground ops and/or disabling
  the alternator in flight should the situation warrant it.

  Our recommended wiring diagrams for amateur built aircraft
  show single operator, two pole switches for the DC power
  master switch and a pullable breaker for the alternator
  feeding the alternator field. Alternator and battery
  come ON and OFF together.

  Getting back to the original statement, we need to understand
  also that as long as there is a battery of reasonably
  good condition on the line (even if it's presently 
  discharged), there is no risk from adding or disconnecing
  an external battery with or without the alternator on line
  and/or engine running.

  The risks associated with external power connection are
  from inadvertent reversal of polarity and/or connection
  of 28v ground power to a 14v airplane (unlike connectors
  on the wall of your house for 120 versus 240 volts,
  ground power connectors on airplanes are not mechanically
  different for 14 versus 28v). The last risk associated
  with ground power shows up on some TC aircraft where
  the pilot has no control from his seat over the application
  or removal of ground power from his aircraft's system.
  All three of these gotchas have been addressed in the
  recommended wiring we show for ground power jacks as
  published on our website.

  Bottom line is that there are valid reasons for people
  to hand down these little bits of hangar wisdom. However
  without an understanding of the physics and circumstances
  behind the statement, it becomes more folklore than fact. 
  Educated pilots are much less likely to have a bad day - 
  in the air or on the ground. Education by sound byte
  or excerpt can be worse than none at all. The politicians
  and news anchors prove it every day.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>