Generator vs Alternator

I was wondering if the cost of going to an alternator verse the current
generator was worthwhile. Anyone gone this way and
found a difference? Any advantages or disadvantages? TIA.

Brendan

I have an O320 powered Piper Pacer that has a modern alternator
conversion, with solid-state regulator and overvoltage cutout.

This is a certified aircraft, and the conversion was done years ago
under the field approval process. There are some STCed conversions
available, and it may much easier to get those approved in today's FDSO
climate.

The alternator is capable of 60A, charges at low rpm, has enough output
to carry radios, transponder, engine instruments, strobe, nav lights,
landing/taxi light, and pitot heat all at the same time.

MikeM
Pacer '00Z
Skylane '1MM


Brendan Grace wrote:

I was wondering if the cost of going to an alternator verse the current
generator was worthwhile. Anyone gone this way and
found a difference? Any advantages or disadvantages? TIA.

Brendan

Wow, I didn't know it was that big a change. Thanks for your help.

Brendan


"mikem" wrote in message
...
I have an O320 powered Piper Pacer that has a modern alternator
conversion, with solid-state regulator and overvoltage cutout.

This is a certified aircraft, and the conversion was done years ago
under the field approval process. There are some STCed conversions
available, and it may much easier to get those approved in today's FDSO
climate.

The alternator is capable of 60A, charges at low rpm, has enough output
to carry radios, transponder, engine instruments, strobe, nav lights,
landing/taxi light, and pitot heat all at the same time.

MikeM
Pacer '00Z
Skylane '1MM


Brendan Grace wrote:

I was wondering if the cost of going to an alternator verse the current
generator was worthwhile. Anyone gone this way and
found a difference? Any advantages or disadvantages? TIA.

Brendan

STC's and field approvals not withstanding. Remember that an alternator
needs current to 'start'. If you loose power due to battery and alternator
failure, a generator is the only way to restore power, albeit lower. FWIW.

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



take off my shoes to reply

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote:

STC's and field approvals not withstanding. Remember that an alternator
needs current to 'start'. If you loose power due to battery and alternator
failure, a generator is the only way to restore power, albeit lower. FWIW.

Not 100% true. Some alternators have enough residual magnetism that they can
self-energize.

Russell Kent

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:
STC's and field approvals not withstanding. Remember that an alternator
needs current to 'start'.
If you loose power due to battery and alternator
failure, a generator is the only way to restore power, albeit lower. FWIW.


If you loose power due to a SIMULTANEOUS failure of the battery AND the
alternator then you are screwed no matter what!

If you loose a generator, the battery supplies current to the appliances until
it is drained. Since most generator charging systems are marginal, the
likelyhood is that battery is not fully charged at the time the genny craps out,
meaning that the battery goes dead sooner...

If you loose an alternator, the battery supplies current to the loads until it
is drained. Since alternator charging systems are much better at keeping a
battery fully charged, you have more capacity to get on the ground.

In this context, explain why a generator is preferable to an alternator?

If you run a battery completely dead (by doing the dumb**** thing of leaving
the master on for a few days), then you manage to get the engine started by
handpropping, the generator MAY have a slight advantage over the alternator in
bootstraping itself. However, since most of us use a battery charger to charge
the battery before restarting, then this difference is moot!

MikeM

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message ...
STC's and field approvals not withstanding. Remember that an alternator
needs current to 'start'. If you loose power due to battery and alternator
failure, a generator is the only way to restore power, albeit lower. FWIW.

Actually, most alternators have enough residual magnetism to self start and
it doesn't take much battery to do so either. Even if you drain the battery
because the alternator was not there, it comes back pretty quick when you
get the alternator turned back on.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ...
"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message ...
STC's and field approvals not withstanding. Remember that an alternator
needs current to 'start'. If you loose power due to battery and alternator
failure, a generator is the only way to restore power, albeit lower. FWIW.

Actually, most alternators have enough residual magnetism to self start and
it doesn't take much battery to do so either. Even if you drain the battery
because the alternator was not there, it comes back pretty quick when you
get the alternator turned back on.


The alternator, besides being far more efficient and lighter for
power produced, will last much longer. The generator's brushes and
commutator handle all the produced power, while the alternator's
handles only field current. Further, it will produce lots of power at
idle, while most generators won't produce anything. Why wouldn't an
owner convert to an alternator? Car manufacturers did it 40 years ago.

Dan

Thx for the reply. I was sure someone more informed would chime in.

Now tell me, why did Bonanza put backup GENERATORS on the A36 (and I'm sure
other models) with the resultant switch to choose from NavComm1 or 2?

Why not just add a second alternator?

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



take off my shoes to reply