Return-Path: Received: from tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.26]) by ns1.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-64832U3500L350S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:59:19 -0500 Received: from laurentian ([206.172.96.132]) by tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010101180728.WVPP16490.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@laurentian> for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:07:28 -0500 From: "Gary Rodgers" To: "Lancair List" Subject: alternators Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:11:16 -0500 Message-ID: Importance: Normal X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I'm not an alternator guru, but automotive alternators seem to work just fine on top of Pike's Peak. The Electric Connection may have additional insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On top of Pike's Peak your still on the ground if anything does fail, your still breathing air without oxygen needed, and your not really spending much time there. As I said in my comments, if you do not intend on flying your plane at higher altitudes where voltage more easily jumps gaps (from carbon particle to carbon particle to ground) then an automotive alternator may be adequate. I know I had an automotive alternator on a 182 I had quite a few years ago, but I would not put one on my T210, or the Duke I had. And knowing what I know now, I would not have kept the automotive alternator on the 182 beyond need at the time that caused me to put it on. Gary Rodgers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>