Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4276710A.6030706@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:27:22 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To Fuse or not to Fuse
References: <list-922430@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-922430@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Dube wrote:

>
>>
>> Here is Bob K's and his well reasoned  argument  FOR fuses
>>
>> <http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch10-9.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch10-9.pdf 
>>
>>
>>
>
> The keystone of Bob's endorsement of fuses:
>
>
> When the failure manifests itself by opening the breaker or
> fuse likelihood of recovering the system by replacing a
> fuse or pushing in a breaker is very, very small.

I don't read Bob that way, Bill.  What I hear him saying is that when 
the stuff hits the fan, pilot's shouldn't be pulling off their pilot 
caps in order to put on their mechanics cap.  They should keep paying 
attention to flying the airplane and leave the troubleshooting till 
they're on the ground.  The plane's electrical system should have been 
designed so that it would keep flying with  any one system on the kaputz 
(technical Native American term).

But I bet I know what Leon's flight instructor would say about this 
discussion:
"What you gonna' do now?"

I've got an idea.  Let's all install circuit breakers and then ACT like 
they're fuses.   Then if you're gliding in from 10,000ft and get board, 
you can start playing Mr. Goodwrench to see if the fan will come back 
online.  Best of both worlds 8*)

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |