Backup alternator PA28-235...

Given the choice, I would always pick a King Air 350 over a
Piper PA 28-anything. An extra 450 gallons of fuel and a
2,000 pound payload, two big engines, two
starter-generators, a multi-bus auto load shedding
electrical system and air conditioning.

In the Piper, Cessna or Beech single, you can get the effect
of the extra 7 gallons of furl by reducing power and leaning
the engine. But since loss of electrical power can leave
you within 30 seconds of loss of control, I'd like to have
as much as I can have.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"soxinbox" wrote in message
...
|I guess it's a pilot decision, which would make you feel
safer, a second
| battery or 7 more gallons of gas?
| I'll go with the gas.
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:gEqkg.38278$ZW3.10257@dukeread04...
| A set of relays and diodes would allow the installation
of a
| second battery and a great deal of redundancy at fairly
low
| cost and weight. The standard alternator would charge
both
| batteries, only the second battery would be connected to
the
| essential bus of lights and avionics. A battery failure
| kills the alternator on most aircraft and thus kills the
| entire system. Having two isolated batteries give
| redundancy as long as the bus is able to shed load.
|
| Beech uses self-exciting alternators [and a generator
will
| produce power w/o a battery (but it isn't well
filtered)].
| On a Beech you can turn the battery OFF and still
operate.
| But in most Cessna and Piper aircraft the battery must
be ON
| for the alternator to function. A second battery and
| modified bus can give redundancy. Load shedding can be
| automatic or manual. You need to have diodes to control
| current flow.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| "soxinbox" wrote in message
| ...
| | Point taken, but the original poster sounded like he
owned
| his own plane. He
| | could probably spend the same amount of money on
getting a
| new alternator
| | every year for ten years and still come out ahead. Or
he
| could get a new
| | alternator and fix other problems that are more likely
to
| cause a problem. I
| | will take a well maintained single of a bucket of
bolts
| twin any day.
| |
| | "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
| wrote in message
| | ...
| | Aluckyguess wrote:
| | Why would you need an extra one. Wouldn't you just
land
| at the nearest
| | airport if you where IMC.
| |
| |
| | Aren't you the optomist.
| |
| | I've lost the alternator on a single engine solid
IFR
| flight over the
| | mountains one night and it ain't much fun. I got
down
| OK before the
| | battery went dead but it was definitely nerve
wracking.
| That's why I like
| | twins. It's not the extra engine so much as the
extra
| alternator and
| | vacuum pump. I've only had a very few engine
failures
| over the years but
| | I've had several alternators and vacuum pumps go TU.
| |
| | When you fly crap as a freight dog you learn to
| appreciate redundancy.
| |
| |
| |
| | --
| | Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| |
| | VE
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

Hi Jim!

Agreed.. On cruising boats, these are much used, called "battery
isolaters" ..

My boat has 3 banks of batteries, and these isolators keep the
"storage (s)" separate, but allow all 3 banks to be charged from any
or multiple sources...

Dave


On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:38:05 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

A set of relays and diodes would allow the installation of a
second battery and a great deal of redundancy at fairly low
cost and weight. The standard alternator would charge both
batteries, only the second battery would be connected to the
essential bus of lights and avionics. A battery failure
kills the alternator on most aircraft and thus kills the
entire system. Having two isolated batteries give
redundancy as long as the bus is able to shed load.

Beech uses self-exciting alternators [and a generator will
produce power w/o a battery (but it isn't well filtered)].
On a Beech you can turn the battery OFF and still operate.
But in most Cessna and Piper aircraft the battery must be ON
for the alternator to function. A second battery and
modified bus can give redundancy. Load shedding can be
automatic or manual. You need to have diodes to control
current flow.

Sounds like a nice boat.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
| Hi Jim!
|
| Agreed.. On cruising boats, these are much used, called
"battery
| isolaters" ..
|
| My boat has 3 banks of batteries, and these isolators keep
the
| "storage (s)" separate, but allow all 3 banks to be
charged from any
| or multiple sources...
|
| Dave
|
|
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:38:05 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| A set of relays and diodes would allow the installation
of a
| second battery and a great deal of redundancy at fairly
low
| cost and weight. The standard alternator would charge
both
| batteries, only the second battery would be connected to
the
| essential bus of lights and avionics. A battery failure
| kills the alternator on most aircraft and thus kills the
| entire system. Having two isolated batteries give
| redundancy as long as the bus is able to shed load.
|
| Beech uses self-exciting alternators [and a generator
will
| produce power w/o a battery (but it isn't well
filtered)].
| On a Beech you can turn the battery OFF and still
operate.
| But in most Cessna and Piper aircraft the battery must be
ON
| for the alternator to function. A second battery and
| modified bus can give redundancy. Load shedding can be
| automatic or manual. You need to have diodes to control
| current flow.
|

LOL,
I'd rather fly the King Air too. Need a not yet type rated copilot???

I don't see how the loss of electrical can lead to loss of control in 30
seconds or even 2 hours. I don't think it is even an emergency situation.
Without electrical, you lose comms and nav, but still have all IFR
instruments (except turn coordinator). Even in the soup, loss of electrical
is not a cause for alarm as long as you have portable transceiver or
portable GPS. With portable comm, just climb till ATC gets you on radar and
fly the vectors and do a vectored approach.

I think the original post was about adding a second alternator. I am not
sure that would buy you anything. The idea is to land as some as possible
after the alternator goes. As long as the battery is still good, you should
have at least half an hour to get down. The second battery mod you mentioned
makes far more sense than the second alternator, but I still rather have the
extra fuel.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:cDIkg.49013$ZW3.13535@dukeread04...
Given the choice, I would always pick a King Air 350 over a
Piper PA 28-anything. An extra 450 gallons of fuel and a
2,000 pound payload, two big engines, two
starter-generators, a multi-bus auto load shedding
electrical system and air conditioning.

In the Piper, Cessna or Beech single, you can get the effect
of the extra 7 gallons of furl by reducing power and leaning
the engine. But since loss of electrical power can leave
you within 30 seconds of loss of control, I'd like to have
as much as I can have.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"soxinbox" wrote in message
...
|I guess it's a pilot decision, which would make you feel
safer, a second
| battery or 7 more gallons of gas?
| I'll go with the gas.
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:gEqkg.38278$ZW3.10257@dukeread04...
| A set of relays and diodes would allow the installation
of a
| second battery and a great deal of redundancy at fairly
low
| cost and weight. The standard alternator would charge
both
| batteries, only the second battery would be connected to
the
| essential bus of lights and avionics. A battery failure
| kills the alternator on most aircraft and thus kills the
| entire system. Having two isolated batteries give
| redundancy as long as the bus is able to shed load.
|
| Beech uses self-exciting alternators [and a generator
will
| produce power w/o a battery (but it isn't well
filtered)].
| On a Beech you can turn the battery OFF and still
operate.
| But in most Cessna and Piper aircraft the battery must
be ON
| for the alternator to function. A second battery and
| modified bus can give redundancy. Load shedding can be
| automatic or manual. You need to have diodes to control
| current flow.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| "soxinbox" wrote in message
| ...
| | Point taken, but the original poster sounded like he
owned
| his own plane. He
| | could probably spend the same amount of money on
getting a
| new alternator
| | every year for ten years and still come out ahead. Or
he
| could get a new
| | alternator and fix other problems that are more likely
to
| cause a problem. I
| | will take a well maintained single of a bucket of
bolts
| twin any day.
| |
| | "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
| wrote in message
| | ...
| | Aluckyguess wrote:
| | Why would you need an extra one. Wouldn't you just
land
| at the nearest
| | airport if you where IMC.
| |
| |
| | Aren't you the optomist.
| |
| | I've lost the alternator on a single engine solid
IFR
| flight over the
| | mountains one night and it ain't much fun. I got
down
| OK before the
| | battery went dead but it was definitely nerve
wracking.
| That's why I like
| | twins. It's not the extra engine so much as the
extra
| alternator and
| | vacuum pump. I've only had a very few engine
failures
| over the years but
| | I've had several alternators and vacuum pumps go TU.
| |
| | When you fly crap as a freight dog you learn to
| appreciate redundancy.
| |
| |
| |
| | --
| | Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| |
| | VE
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:cDIkg.49013$ZW3.13535@dukeread04...
Given the choice, I would always pick a King Air 350 over a
Piper PA 28-anything. An extra 450 gallons of fuel and a
2,000 pound payload, two big engines, two
starter-generators, a multi-bus auto load shedding
electrical system and air conditioning.

A 350 is nice, but I'd rather have a 200 for a personal airplane. It's just
easier to "whip" around, into and out of small airports.

Karl "The Curator" N185KG
BE30 CE500 LRJET DA50

For all practical purposes, they are the same. For a
personal airplane I'd want a Helio Courier on amphib floats.
To operate a even an old 200, you need about a million
dollars a year and you can't land on water.

If I had that kind of money, the Beechjet 400 is a delight
to fly.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:cDIkg.49013$ZW3.13535@dukeread04...
| Given the choice, I would always pick a King Air 350
over a
| Piper PA 28-anything. An extra 450 gallons of fuel and
a
| 2,000 pound payload, two big engines, two
| starter-generators, a multi-bus auto load shedding
| electrical system and air conditioning.
|
| A 350 is nice, but I'd rather have a 200 for a personal
airplane. It's just
| easier to "whip" around, into and out of small airports.
|
| Karl "The Curator" N185KG
| BE30 CE500 LRJET DA50
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:21%kg.49057$ZW3.32027@dukeread04...
For all practical purposes, they are the same. For a
personal airplane I'd want a Helio Courier on amphib floats.
To operate a even an old 200, you need about a million
dollars a year and you can't land on water.

Well, actually you can -- once.


If I had that kind of money, the Beechjet 400 is a delight
to fly.

I've been thinking of upgrading to a pair of turbines since the market for
used turboprops is really good now.

You can do some good deals on used used King Air 90's and others.

Suggestions? (No, I don't want the training load of an MU-2).

Possibilities:

Conquest
Cheyenne
Twin Commander

Others?

The King Air and AeroCommander are better airplanes than the
cheaply constructed Cessna and Piper. Raytheon is still in
business and the early King Airs is still supported by the
factory. I would limit the airplanes to the C or E 90,
since the really early airplanes have weaker pressurization
and some even use combustion heaters.
The F90 is a very nice airplane but will likely cost a
little more. The -2 airplanes with the improved engine
cowling are faster and have better anti-ice features.

Hey, if I win the lottery, maybe I can find some 15,000
pound floats and have a King Air bush plane.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:21%kg.49057$ZW3.32027@dukeread04...
| For all practical purposes, they are the same. For a
| personal airplane I'd want a Helio Courier on amphib
floats.
| To operate a even an old 200, you need about a million
| dollars a year and you can't land on water.
|
| Well, actually you can -- once.
|
|
| If I had that kind of money, the Beechjet 400 is a
delight
| to fly.
|
| I've been thinking of upgrading to a pair of turbines
since the market for
| used turboprops is really good now.
|
| You can do some good deals on used used King Air 90's and
others.
|
| Suggestions? (No, I don't want the training load of an
MU-2).
|
| Possibilities:
|
| Conquest
| Cheyenne
| Twin Commander
|
| Others?
|
|

Conquest
Cheyenne
Twin Commander

A friend bought a Cheyenne three years ago. He said it had the best
safety record and least operating costs as the reasons for its purchase.
His previous aircraft was a C310.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Conquest
Cheyenne
Twin Commander

A friend bought a Cheyenne three years ago. He said it had the best
safety record

Did he cite some information, or is that hearsay?

and least operating costs as the reasons for its purchase.

By the number's I've seen, that's true _per hour_, but not _per mile_.
A couple things that bother me about the Cheyenne are that I'm not sure
about Piper's long term viability (Do they even support the Cheyenne
anymore?), 2nd is that is uses P&W PT-6 engines that are fuel hogs.

If not for the P&W's, I'd go for a King Air C90B; there's a lot on the
market, they're fairly new (mid 1990's models) and comfortable, and there's
some damn good prices on the ones for sale.

The Conquest and Twin Commander use the Garrett (now Honeywell) TPE331 and
with a -10 conversion, has a 5000 hr TBO and very low fuel flow (less than
85 GPH for both engines). I undestand that Cessna no long supports the
Conquest and there are issues with the airframe.

I've also considered one of the single engine turboprops, but they all
fairly new nad thus still fairly expensive to buy used (well over $2
million).

The Twin Commnader has some very impressive performance and cost numbers,
but they're ugly, the cabin is pretty narrow, and the cockpit is hard to get
into if you're not limber and have a fat ass. The 695 series have had only
one fatal accident (guy flew directly into a major TS cell) which is
impressive consider they're almost exclusively "owner flown", and they land
at less than 90 kts.

His previous aircraft was a C310.

Did he say what else he looked at?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)