On Friday 14 November 2003 15:42, Erik Hofman wrote: > 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
I'm not an eletrics scientist... ...but I have a reasonable founding in it (from about eight years old). Each individual instrument will try to draw it's own current. Assigning ratings to the instruments makes a lot of snese to me, as would the supply capacity of the generator system and batteries. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
