|
|
Being a little owly after having my dog wake me up at 5:30 to go out for a leak (he's going on 15 yrs, give him a break) I ran across a prime example of the "extended unnecessary quoteback" phenomenon, of which I have written so frequently. The poster (who shall remain anonymous) chose to type in a 4-stroke response ("YES.") to a question at the top of the post to which he was replying. The question was very succinct, one sentence, and to the point. Rather than taking the additional 5 seconds required to scroll down 5 additional lines, use a <control-shift-end> to highlight everything else (about 100 lines) from there down and then the <delete> key to get rid of it, he chose to hit the "send" button instead and submit his post without cleaning. Even though storage is cheap, sending back the entirety of 4 prior posts with their associated footers (also uncleaned by previous posters, names removed from the example) just doesn't make any sense. Stuff like this slows down the archive search engine and is one of the causes of search results to come back with many more "hits" to dig through than may have been necessary. Please help. The example follows.
<Marv>
PS... I apologize for baiting this post with a phony subject. I figured if I used the word "quoteback" up there 90% of you would have deleted it without ever seeing it. I'm going back to bed now.
""""""""
YES.
<deleted> wrote:
Assuming you lose your alternator belt, won't battery-only operation last much longer than not having any water circulation? (unless you are equipped with EWP)
<deleted>. -----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft on behalf of <deleted>
Sent: Fri 2/18/2005 11:58 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 2nd battery Re: Amps required to run engine & amp- hours available
<... If the 2nd alt. is big enough to carry essential loads, it can be lighter ...>
The problem is that for it to be a true /backup/ and not merely /redundant/, you would have to figure out a way to drive it - preferably at the other end of the engine. Two alternators driven by the same belt (or belts anywhere near each other) doesn't solve much. Particularly in light of the fact that belt failures probably outnumber electrical failures, and when a belt fails you don't know /what/ it's going to cascade into.
Where you gonna put the 2nd alt? ... <deleted>
<deleted> wrote:
<deleted> wrote:
Now THAT'S encouraging ... but I think I'll tote a spare anyway .. what's 12#? ... <deleted>.
---------------------------------
<deleted>, I'm torn between 2nd battery. Tracy had one for a while, but no longer and don't believe ED had one. Flying over the lower 48 without a 2nd battery once I'm past 40 hours does not bother me, but think I will have the option to run the 2nd one anytime I'm over water flights (a long time from now!) or doing another flight to Alaska.
<deleted>
For those that don't follow the Matronics Aeroelectic list, the moderator now recommends 2 alternators and only one battery, replaced at each annual inspection. His logic is that modern batteries like the Hawker, etc. are so reliable that you aren't any more likely to lose a battery *in flight* than a wing while alternators aren't quite that good. If the 2nd alt. is big enough to carry essential loads, it can be lighter than even the 12 lb battery & your endurance isn't battery limited.
A lot tougher to install, though.
<deleted>
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
"""""""""""""""
|
|