Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:42 AM - Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. (SportAV8R@aol.com)
2. 06:47 AM - Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. (SportAV8R@aol.com)
3. 07:29 AM - Cell phones in the air (Treff, Arthur)
4. 09:19 AM - Re: Cell phones in the air (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: Knock Sensors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 02:29 PM - Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 02:50 PM - Re: Cell phones in the air (Alex Peterson)
8. 03:12 PM - Re: Cell phones in the air (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:28 PM - Hughes replica (RSwanson)
10. 07:46 PM - Re: Re: Knock Sensors (David Carter)
11. 08:37 PM - Re: Re: Knock Sensors (drew.schumann@us.army.mil)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 08/04/2003 6:59:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>
> The FCC's interest has more to do with the nature of cell
> phone systems than for aircraft systems. A cell phone site
> expects to see a relatively modest signal, sites around the
> one closest to you may have some degree of reception too ranging
> from useable to highly broken . . . but it's all fairly predictable
> and the cell system's software is designed to zero in on
> and track your best signal as you move from cell to cell.
>
Bob- any thoughts on the practicality of using a shielded antenna while using
the cell phone in flight, to reduce the incidence of multiple-tower "hits"
and system overload? I have envisioned mounting a cellular antenna inside an
inverted "soup can" open at the bottom and mounted flush with the belly of the
plane, allowing the radiating element a good view straight down and outward in
a limited cone pattern, or a corner reflector shield that allowed rf out in a
90 degree horizontal cone to cover only a quarter of the potential towers on
the horizon. I also wonder (but have not really experimented aloft) how
typical cellular operation in my low-wing RV would work, since the cockpit floor
and
side walls/wings might shield the antenna from all but the most distant
towers on the horizon.
Their suggestion is to check
>the radar
>iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
Good idea. You have no extraordinary advantage over other users
while sitting on the ground.<<
Not acceptable; the whole purpose of in flight wx is to have the data
available in real time whenever it is requested. Might as well spend the bux on
a
strike-finder and be happy with that, or mount a small marine radar in a radome
wing pod...
Appreciate your comments. I relaly want to see this in'flight wx become a
reality for us GA / OBAM types
-Bill B
RV-6A
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 08/04/2003 5:45:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard@riley.net writes:
> Therefore, under FAR 121.306 paragraph B5, if a part
> 119 certificate holder wants to permit the use of PCS
> phones in their aircraft, they are authorized to
> determine that the PCS phones dont interfere with
> communications or navigation, and proceed.
>
That would seem to settle it. All I need now is a Kyocera with a PCS
contract and the Turbo-wx product (or similar), right?
-Bill B
do not archive this one
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cell phones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff@Smartm.com>
I frequently interface with cell phone base station engineers at Ericsson as part
of my job. They claim that all the hoopla over cell phone use in the air is
from the cell providers, that in the air, (cell phones being line of sight radios)
you get a bodacious signal and lock onto more than one "cell" at a time.
This screws up billing and call switching. The carriers say that they'll fine
the user if they catch him/her calling in the air, but according to my friends
who make the gear that does the switching, it's a big job and not on the
radar screen of the accountants.
That being said, I bought a Cell Set on a recommendation from reading Aviation
Consumer (excellent investment, BTW). The Cell Set worked fine, but my cell phone,
(a Motorola Star Tak), did not get a good signal at all in the air, and
when it did, most times it could not complete the call. I was looking forward
to calling ahead to clients or my home of delayed by winds or Wx, but most times
I could get no signal at all. I tried sticking the antenna out the side window,
thinking the Mooney's 4130 tubular roll cage was in the way. Still no
go. This lack of performance surprised me, as the Mot' phone always has great
signal strength and will hold a call even if the signal strength is at the bottom
of the scale. So, I sold the Cell Set apparatus. Your performance may be
better. Before purchasing and dredging up all the info on websites re: the
legality, I'd take your phone up in your plane and see if you get any signal.
Then try to call your voice mail. If you repeatedly can get thru, you're all
set. Even when my phone showed a good signal, it would not connect calls in
the air....I hope it works for you, it is a potentially great convenience.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cell phones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:28 AM 8/5/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur"
><Arthur.Treff@Smartm.com>
>
>I frequently interface with cell phone base station engineers at Ericsson
>as part of my job. They claim that all the hoopla over cell phone use in
>the air is from the cell providers, that in the air, (cell phones being
>line of sight radios) you get a bodacious signal and lock onto more than
>one "cell" at a time. This screws up billing and call switching. The
>carriers say that they'll fine the user if they catch him/her calling in
>the air, but according to my friends who make the gear that does the
>switching, it's a big job and not on the radar screen of the accountants.
That tracks with what I've heard . . . actually, you're almost always
being tracked by multiple cells . . . they have to constantly compare
notes on your signal quality and decide who gets the hand-off for
the strongest signal . . . now if ATC were as automated.
Problem is that when you're high above average terrain, you might
hit dozens of cells as opposed to the rationally expected 1 to 5.
In these cases, it's easier for the system to temporarily block
response to your phones digital signature as opposed to tracking
you down to deliver retribution . . .
This begs the question about setting on a scenic hilltop
overlooking Denver or L.A. . . it's certain that
your phone is going to hit a bunch more cell sites
than you will wandering streets amongst the buildings and
power lines.
>That being said, I bought a Cell Set on a recommendation from reading
>Aviation Consumer (excellent investment, BTW). The Cell Set worked fine,
>but my cell phone, (a Motorola Star Tak), did not get a good signal at all
>in the air, and when it did, most times it could not complete the call. I
>was looking forward to calling ahead to clients or my home of delayed by
>winds or Wx, but most times I could get no signal at all. I tried
>sticking the antenna out the side window, thinking the Mooney's 4130
>tubular roll cage was in the way. Still no go. This lack of performance
>surprised me, as the Mot' phone always has great signal strength and will
>hold a call even if the signal strength is at the bottom of the
>scale. So, I sold the Cell Set apparatus. Your performance may be
>better. Before purchasing and dredging up all the info on websites re:
>the legality, I'd take your phone up in your plane and see if you get any
>signal. Then try to call your voice mail. If you repeatedly can get
>thru, you're all set. Even when my phone showed a good signal, it would
>not connect calls in the air....I hope it works for you, it is a
>potentially great convenience.
Your experience echoes my own experiments on several trips
in corporate transportation aircraft and from rental
airplanes. In situations where signal strength and access
to a site should NOT be an issue, ability to connect is
problematical at best.
I've attended meetings where prospective suppliers of
airborne data services acknowledged the relative uselessness
of common commercial cell phone networks for communicating
with aircraft. All proposals call for development of a
private network designed to accommodate the physics
unique to communicating with aircraft.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:24 PM 8/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
><dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of others don't
>have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of addressing the basic
>question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview isn't without
>merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a thousand)
>event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
>
> <snip>
>Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the injectors spray for
>a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which SHOULD (is
>supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
> - BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors and get less
>fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a given bit of
>time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered" mixture, which
>tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other things that can
>be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
> - That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
>auto-conversion engine.
Understand . . . and your machine is indeed an "experimental"
airplane . . . it might even be considered a "research"
tool. Allow me to offer some background to which my
antennas are tuned . . .
In a time when the latest buzzword is "FADEC" we're moving
forward with clumsy but effective evolution of aircraft power
management that reduces pilot workload and potential for
pilot error.
You've identified a real hazard associated with the operation
of your chosen powerplant. I recall a couple of decades ago,
we identified another system generated hazard to aircraft: It
seems that Ni-Cad batteries in turbine engine aircraft had
a bad habit of catching fire. Rather than mandate redesign
of ship's voltage regulators to automatically mitigate the
risk, we (the FAA . . . and industry dutifully followed
in lockstep) decided to put a battery temperature readout
on the panel with companion warning lights and a page
of new information in the POH telling pilots how to
deal PERSONALLY with this new risk.
My question for you is, "are you moving in a positive
direction?" What combination of features offered by
this powerplant transcend a perceived need to personally
intervene to forestall disaster?
If you are DEPENDING on a panel readout as warning of
impending failure, what mechanisms are or will be in
place to make sure the warning system is accurate and
reliable? If it fails, how will you know it failed and
what options are available to you for comfortable
completion of flight with engine and skin intact?
Suppose I were standing in front of my compatriots at RAC
trying to sell your system onto a production (not
experimental, not research) aircraft. They're going
to beat me soundly about the head and shoulders until
I convince them and the FAA that the proposed system
BENEFITS far outweigh the costs, risks, and increases
in pilot responsibility and workload.
Are there other options with favorable track records
that are more pilot-friendly than the configuration
currently under consideration? Are there ways to
reliably control and/or monitor the effects and
automatically reduce the risk? Keep sight of a need
for a monitor/control system that is MUCH more
reliable than the system prone to hazard?
Of course, the way you plan to use the airplane should
influence your decisions. If research is your interest
and joy, by all means drive ahead. But how much
"researching" do you want to do while you and
the wife are on your way to Santa Fe?
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:40 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
>
>My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
>quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
>for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it
>OK to
>use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
>further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
>the larger terminal?
???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
wire?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cell phones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> That tracks with what I've heard . . . actually, you're
> almost always
> being tracked by multiple cells . . . they have to
> constantly compare
> notes on your signal quality and decide who gets the hand-off for
> the strongest signal . . . now if ATC were as automated.
>
> Problem is that when you're high above average terrain, you might
> hit dozens of cells as opposed to the rationally expected 1 to 5.
> In these cases, it's easier for the system to temporarily block
> response to your phones digital signature as opposed to tracking
> you down to deliver retribution . . .
All that said, can you imagine how many cellphones are in airliners,
still turned on, at any given time? Certainly, many folks forget to
turn them off.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 331 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cell phones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:50 PM 8/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
><alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> > That tracks with what I've heard . . . actually, you're
> > almost always
> > being tracked by multiple cells . . . they have to
> > constantly compare
> > notes on your signal quality and decide who gets the hand-off for
> > the strongest signal . . . now if ATC were as automated.
> >
> > Problem is that when you're high above average terrain, you might
> > hit dozens of cells as opposed to the rationally expected 1 to 5.
> > In these cases, it's easier for the system to temporarily block
> > response to your phones digital signature as opposed to tracking
> > you down to deliver retribution . . .
>
>
>All that said, can you imagine how many cellphones are in airliners,
>still turned on, at any given time? Certainly, many folks forget to
>turn them off.
I've done that from time to time. When I remembered it and
checked, the phone is invariably "searching for service" . . .
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RSwanson" <rswan19@comcast.net>
I sure many of you saw the H-1 at Oshkosh and those who weren't there know
of it. It crashed on the way home and was fatal.
http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=113724
R
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Bob, I like your idea of looking at a different system than one that says,
"Hey, you, pilot. Look at this lite and listen to the warning tone your are
getting. Your engine is detonating and about to self-destruct."
The first obvious alternative that comes to mind, which would seem to be
more useful, would be a Fuel/Air Ratio gage. Ed Anderson has built one with
some LEDs in a "bar graph" kind of display (sorry Ed if I'm not exactly
remembering). Point being, that my previous reply indicates that my main
worry about detonation is "detonation caused by incorrect F/A ratio".
- So, Bob, you properly challenge us to look for something more useful
than "hey, you are detonating".
Maybe the F/A output could be shaped so that these modern engine instrument
systems, with all the preset limits, could give us a warning of a F/A ratio
that is not close enough to where it ought to be, e.g., , "Hey, your F/A
ratio is shifting from (or you have manually changed it from) (or your
descent from high thin air to lower denser air has caused F/A ratio to shift
from) "X" to "Y" and maybe you should tend to your mixture control vs F/A
ratio BEFORE you get detonation."
The next step up would be: Make the warning be dependent on two sensors:
Manifold pressure (limit of 75% of sea level) which, if over 75%, would
"activate" the system to look at and warn of "Fuel/Air Ratio limit(s)".
- Conventional certified aircraft piston engine design "wisdom" is that
detonation is not a worry at 75% power and below - can lean to anything you
want and you will NOT get detonation.
- So, as already said above, for really good warning, you could have a
manifold pressure sensor "limit" that would bring in the F/A ratio sensor's
output with a preset limit of "leanness" that would trigger a warning BEFORE
you could get detonation.
Is that closer to a more rational and useful and informative design
philosopy to deal with "detonation"?
F/A ratio gages and LED displays are easy enough for us home builders. We
might have to work on the nature of the output (pure optical LED readouts
would not be suitable for input to an engine monitor system) to get a
digital or analog output that could be set in the engine inst sys black box.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 09:24 PM 8/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
> ><dcarter@datarecall.net>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of others don't
> >have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of addressing the
basic
> >question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview isn't without
> >merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a
thousand)
> >event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
> >
> > <snip>
>
>
> >Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the injectors spray
for
> >a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which SHOULD
(is
> >supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
> > - BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors and get
less
> >fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a given bit of
> >time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered" mixture,
which
> >tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other things that
can
> >be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
> > - That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
> >auto-conversion engine.
>
> Understand . . . and your machine is indeed an "experimental"
> airplane . . . it might even be considered a "research"
> tool. Allow me to offer some background to which my
> antennas are tuned . . .
>
> In a time when the latest buzzword is "FADEC" we're moving
> forward with clumsy but effective evolution of aircraft power
> management that reduces pilot workload and potential for
> pilot error.
>
> You've identified a real hazard associated with the operation
> of your chosen powerplant. I recall a couple of decades ago,
> we identified another system generated hazard to aircraft: It
> seems that Ni-Cad batteries in turbine engine aircraft had
> a bad habit of catching fire. Rather than mandate redesign
> of ship's voltage regulators to automatically mitigate the
> risk, we (the FAA . . . and industry dutifully followed
> in lockstep) decided to put a battery temperature readout
> on the panel with companion warning lights and a page
> of new information in the POH telling pilots how to
> deal PERSONALLY with this new risk.
>
> My question for you is, "are you moving in a positive
> direction?" What combination of features offered by
> this powerplant transcend a perceived need to personally
> intervene to forestall disaster?
>
> If you are DEPENDING on a panel readout as warning of
> impending failure, what mechanisms are or will be in
> place to make sure the warning system is accurate and
> reliable? If it fails, how will you know it failed and
> what options are available to you for comfortable
> completion of flight with engine and skin intact?
>
> Suppose I were standing in front of my compatriots at RAC
> trying to sell your system onto a production (not
> experimental, not research) aircraft. They're going
> to beat me soundly about the head and shoulders until
> I convince them and the FAA that the proposed system
> BENEFITS far outweigh the costs, risks, and increases
> in pilot responsibility and workload.
>
> Are there other options with favorable track records
> that are more pilot-friendly than the configuration
> currently under consideration? Are there ways to
> reliably control and/or monitor the effects and
> automatically reduce the risk? Keep sight of a need
> for a monitor/control system that is MUCH more
> reliable than the system prone to hazard?
>
> Of course, the way you plan to use the airplane should
> influence your decisions. If research is your interest
> and joy, by all means drive ahead. But how much
> "researching" do you want to do while you and
> the wife are on your way to Santa Fe?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: drew.schumann@us.army.mil
I think something that would detect the out of tolerance condition, warn the pilot
and automatically fail-safe to full-rich (or some agreed upon fixed option)
through an alternative fuel/air source would be more in line with the failure-tolerant
building philosophy. Or a bypass like on the full-flow oil filter
system. Of course, something more elegant, developed by someone smarter than
me, might be in order....
Drew
----- Original Message -----
From: David Carter <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
> <dcarter@datarecall.net>
> Bob, I like your idea of looking at a different system than one
> that says,
> "Hey, you, pilot. Look at this lite and listen to the warning
> tone your are
> getting. Your engine is detonating and about to self-destruct."
>
> The first obvious alternative that comes to mind, which would seem
> to be
> more useful, would be a Fuel/Air Ratio gage. Ed Anderson has
> built one with
> some LEDs in a "bar graph" kind of display (sorry Ed if I'm not
> exactlyremembering). Point being, that my previous reply
> indicates that my main
> worry about detonation is "detonation caused by incorrect F/A ratio".
> - So, Bob, you properly challenge us to look for something
> more useful
> than "hey, you are detonating".
>
> Maybe the F/A output could be shaped so that these modern engine
> instrumentsystems, with all the preset limits, could give us a
> warning of a F/A ratio
> that is not close enough to where it ought to be, e.g., , "Hey,
> your F/A
> ratio is shifting from (or you have manually changed it from) (or your
> descent from high thin air to lower denser air has caused F/A
> ratio to shift
> from) "X" to "Y" and maybe you should tend to your mixture control
> vs F/A
> ratio BEFORE you get detonation."
>
> The next step up would be: Make the warning be dependent on two
> sensors:Manifold pressure (limit of 75% of sea level) which, if
> over 75%, would
> "activate" the system to look at and warn of "Fuel/Air Ratio
> limit(s)". - Conventional certified aircraft piston engine
> design "wisdom" is that
> detonation is not a worry at 75% power and below - can lean to
> anything you
> want and you will NOT get detonation.
> - So, as already said above, for really good warning, you
> could have a
> manifold pressure sensor "limit" that would bring in the F/A ratio
> sensor'soutput with a preset limit of "leanness" that would
> trigger a warning BEFORE
> you could get detonation.
>
> Is that closer to a more rational and useful and informative design
> philosopy to deal with "detonation"?
>
> F/A ratio gages and LED displays are easy enough for us home
> builders. We
> might have to work on the nature of the output (pure optical LED
> readoutswould not be suitable for input to an engine monitor
> system) to get a
> digital or analog output that could be set in the engine inst sys
> black box.
>
> David
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> > At 09:24 PM 8/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
> > ><dcarter@datarecall.net>
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >
> > >This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of
> others don't
> > >have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of
> addressing the
> basic
> > >question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview
> isn't without
> > >merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a
> thousand)
> > >event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> >
> > >Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the
> injectors spray
> for
> > >a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which
> SHOULD(is
> > >supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
> > > - BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors
> and get
> less
> > >fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a
> given bit of
> > >time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered"
> mixture,which
> > >tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other
> things that
> can
> > >be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
> > > - That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
> > >auto-conversion engine.
> >
> > Understand . . . and your machine is indeed an "experimental"
> > airplane . . . it might even be considered a "research"
> > tool. Allow me to offer some background to which my
> > antennas are tuned . . .
> >
> > In a time when the latest buzzword is "FADEC" we're moving
> > forward with clumsy but effective evolution of aircraft power
> > management that reduces pilot workload and potential for
> > pilot error.
> >
> > You've identified a real hazard associated with the operation
> > of your chosen powerplant. I recall a couple of decades ago,
> > we identified another system generated hazard to aircraft: It
> > seems that Ni-Cad batteries in turbine engine aircraft had
> > a bad habit of catching fire. Rather than mandate redesign
> > of ship's voltage regulators to automatically mitigate the
> > risk, we (the FAA . . . and industry dutifully followed
> > in lockstep) decided to put a battery temperature readout
> > on the panel with companion warning lights and a page
> > of new information in the POH telling pilots how to
> > deal PERSONALLY with this new risk.
> >
> > My question for you is, "are you moving in a positive
> > direction?" What combination of features offered by
> > this powerplant transcend a perceived need to personally
> > intervene to forestall disaster?
> >
> > If you are DEPENDING on a panel readout as warning of
> > impending failure, what mechanisms are or will be in
> > place to make sure the warning system is accurate and
> > reliable? If it fails, how will you know it failed and
> > what options are available to you for comfortable
> > completion of flight with engine and skin intact?
> >
> > Suppose I were standing in front of my compatriots at RAC
> > trying to sell your system onto a production (not
> > experimental, not research) aircraft. They're going
> > to beat me soundly about the head and shoulders until
> > I convince them and the FAA that the proposed system
> > BENEFITS far outweigh the costs, risks, and increases
> > in pilot responsibility and workload.
> >
> > Are there other options with favorable track records
> > that are more pilot-friendly than the configuration
> > currently under consideration? Are there ways to
> > reliably control and/or monitor the effects and
> > automatically reduce the risk? Keep sight of a need
> > for a monitor/control system that is MUCH more
> > reliable than the system prone to hazard?
> >
> > Of course, the way you plan to use the airplane should
> > influence your decisions. If research is your interest
> > and joy, by all means drive ahead. But how much
> > "researching" do you want to do while you and
> > the wife are on your way to Santa Fe?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|