Return-Path: Received: from bewersdorff.com ([192.220.83.90] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with SMTP id 2620106 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:13:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 74378 invoked by uid 21338); 1 Oct 2003 17:13:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rapunzel) ([216.101.149.124]) (envelope-sender ) by 192.220.83.90 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Oct 2003 17:13:20 -0000 From: "Marko Bewersdorff" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: alternator choice? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:13:04 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal What was the reason for going external regulator? By going to a dual alternator can't I just switch one off if it goes bonkers (or have an overvoltage relay do that for me)? re Marko > -----Original Message----- > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On > Behalf Of Mark Steitle > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:07 AM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternator choice? 8< 8< > I plan on wiring my a/c according to the > Aero-Electric > Z-14 drawing (dual batteries, dual alternators). Only problem is Bob > Nuckols discourages builders using internally regulated alternators on > a/c. So, I plan on removing the internal regulator and using common Ford > electronic voltage regulators (VR-166) in their place. I paid > approx. $100 > ea. (without cores) for these units from an auto-electric > specialty shop in > town.