Also, on some small twin's you can't run everything on only one bus. So if you have a problem with one of the buses or the alternator you will have to shut down some extra stuff or risk draining your battery.
Ryan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Hofman Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:42 AM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Electrical system work.. Gene Buckle wrote: >>.Gene Buckle wrote: >> >> >>>Avionics power ratings are always available as nominal and max normal >>>draw. Electrical systems are designed with a bit of extra capacity to >>>deal with power on rush current, etc. >>> >>>The only time an aircraft author would have to give the the current draw >>>any thought at all is if they're also building special avionics and even >>>then, they only really need to specify the nominal draw. The only time >>>the breakers will pop is either on command from an instructor station or >>>via a random systems failure routine. >> >>But then there is no need to define amperage in the instruments, is there? > > Yes there is. That's where the load definition belongs. The load figure > should follow the equipment, not the bus it's connected to. Ah, I didn't realize those where two separate issues. So we need the nominal power consumption for the battery lifetime and such. That makes sense. This would be an excellent improvement. Erik _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
