And actually, you get quite a variety of
ammeter variation depending on if you are running battery only, have
an alternater fail, have the alternator working, have the engine
running, and or have a lot of devices and lights going.
This change in current must be due to the voltage on the
Richard Bytheway wrote:
This change in current must be due to the voltage on the supply changing, thus we actually need to know the resistance of each load, and the output voltage of each source. Then the current on the system is then calculated from Ohm's Law, V=IR, or in this case I=V/R.
Well,
The starter motor(s) and APU should also be included in the electrical system.
In real life the battery can't keep turning that engine over indefinately.
In the light aircraft it might not be such an issue but when you get to the
commercial jets you have to be very careful about your startup
Paul Surgeon wrote:
The starter motor(s) and APU should also be included in the electrical system.
In real life the battery can't keep turning that engine over indefinately.
In the light aircraft it might not be such an issue but when you get to the
commercial jets you have to be very careful
Hi Gene
Gene Buckle writes
If you're so stuck on random event generators, go use MSFS. It's full of
'em, including the flight model.
I am not stuck on randon event generators it is just that in the real world
thats the way things seem to happen.Otherwise they would be planded
events.And I can
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I know this is probably comparing apples to oranges, but back when I
was young and daring, I drove my car about 150 miles with no
alternator belt. I survived by making sure every possible electrical
item was turned off. If I even hit the turn signal
Lee Elliott writes
...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
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis Cunningham writes:
Why ?.To both this and the WB.
As Dave says the empty weight is part of the certification.And I would
think
it would be more
important to worry about fuel ,baggage,passengers and the like than the
weight of the ASI.
Why you would need to
Innis Cunningham writes:
Seeing how the ampere draw and the voltage would under normal
conditions hardly move (except maybe at start). The information could be
programmed into
the electrical supply system.I assume we are dealing with light A/C
here as I doubt anyone flying a 737 would see an
On Sunday 16 November 2003 01:08, Innis Cunningham wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis Cunningham writes:
Why ?.To both this and the WB.
As Dave says the empty weight is part of the certification.And I
would
think
it would be more
important to worry about fuel
Seeing how the ampere draw and the voltage would under normal
conditions hardly move (except maybe at start). The information could be
programmed into
the electrical supply system.I assume we are dealing with light A/C
here as I doubt anyone flying a 737 would see an amp metre in their
life
.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
.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
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
] 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
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
Gene Buckle wrote:
In part of my learning the ins and outs of how FG really works, I found
another space I can contribute - the electrical system.
The current system has no way of handling circuit breakers or measuring a
load across a whole bus.
The system now expresses a bus like this:
bus
This would be the easy way to supply the data. However, I think it
might be better if the power draw figure was part of the instrument
definition itself. This would require 2 new tags added to the xml files
that are used to define each instrument - I'm referring to the
configurationd
18 matches
Mail list logo
