X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3895976 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:54:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=Schaefer@RTS-Services.com Received: from Master.RTS-Services.com ([70.112.86.71]) by hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20091022215330524.GKPU331@hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com> for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:53:31 +0000 Received: from RTSLaptop (cpe-70-112-86-71.austin.res.rr.com [70.112.86.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by Master.RTS-Services.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9MLrM0E005987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:53:27 -0500 From: "Richard T. Schaefer" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Leading Edge Tape X-Original-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:53:25 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <23D5C00C445F4144A2849FA95B436A75@RTSLaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7600.16385 Thread-Index: AcpTRrMIr/IWN5q1Sni5YsA31aIqCgAFcz0g X-Spam-Score: -0.984 () AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 192.168.10.101 Folks, In the heat of helping to solve a serious design problem tempers seemed to have flared. I hope we can continue to have an open and civil discussion. Issues that need to be discussed are FAILURE modes. For example, I did not take Randy's previous comments to indicate that he saw 2000 PSI, but that without careful concern this could happen. The problem is when a significant volume of hydraulic fluid is warmed it expands and increases the pressure in the sealed lines. This pressure is causing the pressure switches to open. If the pressure is NOT released and the pump is engaged by by-passing pressure switches the pressures can get even higher. It's true that the pumps have internal relief valve. What's the guarantee that the relief valve seals when the pressure is reduced? I do not think any of us know! This is not a NORMAL operation mode. These pumps were designed for marine use and NOT aviation use, as such should be operated in a very conservative manner. (Not to mention high current loads when the pump is engaged with a significant pressure drop across the pump.) Wolfgang, Can you explain (or provide a circuit diagram) of your solution to this problem. If this is indeed a good design many will gladly pay for a canned solution. Others may choose to implement this them selves. In any case we can all evaluate the system characteristics and potential failure modes. Randy, As I am working on a IV-P I have not followed the discussions closely as our hydraulic system operates differently. What is your solution? Do you vent the return line to the reservoir, bypassing the shuttle/check valve? I think if we can all stick to design objectives, system design, and failure analysis we can all move forward. I personally would never put a "BLACK" box into my aircraft that was designed to change the behavior of some component in aircraft unless I could assess the impact of that component on overall system operation. I too am an EE ... there are many solid state devices used in engine compartments of automotive and trucking environments that provide much better reliability than relays, with flexible current limiting (absolute. thermal buildup, stalled motor startup surge ...) capabilities. r.t.s.