---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 09/21/07: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:19 AM - Re: Re: dimmer question (Ken) 2. 07:50 AM - Keep alive power requirements (lee.logan@gulfstream.com) 3. 08:54 AM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.) 4. 08:55 AM - Component Enclosure Opinions wanted (mikef) 5. 10:24 AM - Re: Keep alive power requirements (Gilles Thesee) 6. 12:01 PM - Re: Keep alive power requirements (Glaeser, Dennis A) 7. 02:55 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Peter Harris) 8. 03:21 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Peter Harris) 9. 03:47 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Ernest Christley) 10. 04:20 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Peter Harris) 11. 04:45 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS... (BobsV35B@aol.com) 12. 06:51 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (David M.) 13. 07:55 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference??? (Werner Schneider) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:19:20 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: dimmer question A further thought though Jerry is that if you ever want to add extra dimmers or resistance to match the intensities of the various lights, it might be handy to already have all the wires come back to the dimmer depending on your layout. Ken glaesers wrote: > >Electrically, it makes no difference, as long as the one wire is capable of >carrying the current for all 3 lights. > >Dennis Glaeser > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Subject: dimmer question >From: Jerry Ricciotti >Date: Thu Sep 20 - 7:33 AM > >Greetings > I am wiring an RV-8 and have two dimmer controls one of which is for >back up instruments and a snake/map light. The wire from the back up >alt,airspeed and mag compass need to be extended to reach the dimmer >control and I want to know if I can connect them all together to one >20awg wire that goes to the dimmer control or should they be extended >separately to the dimmer control? (or does it make no difference) > >Jerry > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:50:21 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Keep alive power requirements From: lee.logan@gulfstream.com I used the search feature but if there is anything on the list already about this specifically, I missed it. Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive" power source? I have not provided such power from my battery and now realize I may have to go back and do a little re-wiring. Here's my list: Garmin GNC300XL GPS Garmin GTX 327 Transponder Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot I know this is a longish list, but I'm without my manuals at the moment and was hoping to be able to work this out fairly quickly. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide... Lee... ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:54:53 AM PST US From: "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Peter, Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they write their own code. I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how well developed some of these products are when the development process seems to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish) Background information. There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated" products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them. From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of 1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone." Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time. Putting the cart before the horse My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing. "Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they were recalls. How this relates to avionics It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in stone." Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion. For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions." Summary As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:12 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Component Enclosure Opinions wanted From: "mikef" Hi, I am upgrading my tube/rag type aircraft electrical system to a Z-19. In doing this I will need to mount components inside of some kind of enclosure near the engine (vibration). There is no other room inside the aircraft for such. Components include: main/eng battery contactors, main bat/eng bat/main power fuse block bus, ground block, power diodes, OV module, Low voltage module). The component weight comes to about 6 pounds including wire inside the enclosure. My choices are narrowed down so far to two types: 1. Nema Fiberglass with see-through latch cover pros: sturdy, easy to preflight, existing mounting holes, water/oil resistent cons: heavy (4 lb) 2. Aluminum Chassis box pros: light (40 oz), easy to preflight with clear lexan cover cons: .050 thickness aluminum, will have to add sealant to get more waterproof-ness, mounting a little trickier. Clear lexan cover not standard and removal with screwdriver, Concern that it will not be sturdy enough. Your opinions and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135652#135652 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:24:52 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Keep alive power requirements lee.logan@gulfstream.com a crit : > which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive" > power source? > > Garmin GNC300XL GPS > Garmin GTX 327 Transponder > Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF > PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom > AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator > JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor > Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot > Lee, I may be wrong, but I don't see anything in your list needing a keep alive connection. In my experience a keep alive on the main battery is a sure way to run the battery down when the airplane sits in the hangar for any length of time. So if one is really needed (clock, etc.), why not resort to a small backup battery, or an internal one ? Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:01:07 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Keep alive power requirements From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" No keep alive for any of that stuff - I have the same list except for the engine monitor (mine's a GRT). Unless the unit has a live clock, like some EFIS's, it won't need any juice. Dennis Glaeser ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- I used the search feature but if there is anything on the list already about this specifically, I missed it. Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive" power source? I have not provided such power from my battery and now realize I may have to go back and do a little re-wiring. Here's my list: Garmin GNC300XL GPS Garmin GTX 327 Transponder Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot I know this is a longish list, but I'm without my manuals at the moment and was hoping to be able to work this out fairly quickly. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide... Lee... ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:55:50 PM PST US From: "Peter Harris" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Larry, I chose the Haltech ECU only because I was offered help from Helmut Frensch (*retired chief applications engineer for Mitsubishi SA) who had already pioneered the application and Helmut sent me the fuel maps he was running in his J3300/Jabiru airframe. The latest Haltech software is Windows friendly. Because I have a different prop and air frame (Quickie Q-200) and later realized a different MAP pick up and also a different throttle body I had to extensively modify the maps. In most cases I think there will always be a need for final tuning and fortunately this can be done mostly on the ground in the hangar. I cannot see the laptop screen out doors. My setup allows manual control of mixture if required for final leaning off to cruise, or to cool a high EGT in climb . A potentiometer overrides the fuel map. The Haltech F10 ECU is for fuel only and Helmut decided based on discussions with Jabiru engineers that there was very little if any advantage in electronic control of the ignition by ECU except for slow idle and maybe easier start. But there are advantages in replacing one of the magnetos with a simple electronic ignition module of fixed timing triggered from the flywheel. However this F10 fuel ECU has dozens of redundant features and is far more complex than we need. Helmut's system requires only a trigger (HE or magnetic), an air temp probe and a vacuum sensor. We are batch firing into a throttle body, not multipoint delivery. The guiding principle in this design is KIS. Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls, simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant. I have not surveyed the automotive ECU market because of the reasons outlined above but I think all of the automotive ECU have become way over sophisticated for the aircraft application and you are paying a lot of dollars for development and features that you will never use. Larry you make some good points about the bells and whistles race. I am not familiar with the Tru-Track and will take a look at it. I recommend you take a look at the EC2 and the Megasquirt also. Peter _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Peter, Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they write their own code. I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how well developed some of these products are when the development process seems to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish) Background information. There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated" products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them. >From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of 1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone." Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time. Putting the cart before the horse My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing. "Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they were recalls. How this relates to avionics It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in stone." Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion. For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions." Summary As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:21:45 PM PST US From: "Peter Harris" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Larry, Apologies I see that we are talking about two different animals. The Tru-Trak EFIS = Electronic Flight Instrumentation. My comments refer to Electronic Fuel Injection. Peter _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Harris Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 7:55 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Larry, I chose the Haltech ECU only because I was offered help from Helmut Frensch (*retired chief applications engineer for Mitsubishi SA) who had already pioneered the application and Helmut sent me the fuel maps he was running in his J3300/Jabiru airframe. The latest Haltech software is Windows friendly. Because I have a different prop and air frame (Quickie Q-200) and later realized a different MAP pick up and also a different throttle body I had to extensively modify the maps. In most cases I think there will always be a need for final tuning and fortunately this can be done mostly on the ground in the hangar. I cannot see the laptop screen out doors. My setup allows manual control of mixture if required for final leaning off to cruise, or to cool a high EGT in climb . A potentiometer overrides the fuel map. The Haltech F10 ECU is for fuel only and Helmut decided based on discussions with Jabiru engineers that there was very little if any advantage in electronic control of the ignition by ECU except for slow idle and maybe easier start. But there are advantages in replacing one of the magnetos with a simple electronic ignition module of fixed timing triggered from the flywheel. However this F10 fuel ECU has dozens of redundant features and is far more complex than we need. Helmut's system requires only a trigger (HE or magnetic), an air temp probe and a vacuum sensor. We are batch firing into a throttle body, not multipoint delivery. The guiding principle in this design is KIS. Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls, simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant. I have not surveyed the automotive ECU market because of the reasons outlined above but I think all of the automotive ECU have become way over sophisticated for the aircraft application and you are paying a lot of dollars for development and features that you will never use. Larry you make some good points about the bells and whistles race. I am not familiar with the Tru-Track and will take a look at it. I recommend you take a look at the EC2 and the Megasquirt also. Peter _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Peter, Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they write their own code. I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how well developed some of these products are when the development process seems to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish) Background information. There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated" products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them. >From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of 1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone." Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time. Putting the cart before the horse My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing. "Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they were recalls. How this relates to avionics It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in stone." Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion. For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions." Summary As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 03:47:12 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Peter Harris wrote: > Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience > for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls, > simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few > less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose > built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be > OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant. > > Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a software engineer. The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that meters fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting the engine on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine running as long as I have fuel. The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set advance. If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per chamber by the other. I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:51 PM PST US From: "Peter Harris" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Ernest, Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams. A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea. Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 8:46 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Peter Harris wrote: > Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience > for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls, > simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few > less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose > built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be > OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant. > > Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a software engineer. The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that meters fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting the engine on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine running as long as I have fuel. The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set advance. If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per chamber by the other. I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:45 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS... Good Evening Peter, Once upon a time in a land far, far, away, I knew a fella that fitted a "T" fitting in the outlet of his left fuel tank on a Cessna 170. From that fitting he ran a one eighth inch hunk of brass tubing to a small needle valve mounted on the instrument panel. From that valve to the throat of the stock Marvel Schebler carburetor he ran another hunk of brass tubing. Not sure about the size of the tubing and fitting used here. That was inserted into a stock fitting that was screwed into the side of the throat of the carburetor. My recollection fails me here, but I believe he had bored a hole just above the throttle valve plate to accommodate the fuel fitting. Not sure though. In any case, he could turn the fuel valve to off, turn on the needle valve, adjust the throttle plate and get a rather nice smooth running engine. He had added that extra fuel source after having had a stock gascolator get plugged with crud such that no fuel was available to the engine from either fuel cell. Strictly illegal, but pretty neat! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 9/21/2007 6:23:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, peterjfharris@bigpond.com writes: Ernest, Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams. A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea. Peter ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:40 PM PST US From: "David M." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? Just curious, but why is it so important to have 2 plugs per cylinder? The Lycosaurs and etc only have 2 per cylinder because of the jug size. One plug alone in those engines is not enough to light the fuel evenly regardless of swirl pattern so that's why they went to 2 per. My wife's brand new motorcycle has 2 plugs per for the same reason: jug size. :) David M. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:45 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? > > > Peter Harris wrote: >> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning >> experience >> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot >> controls, >> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few >> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose >> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also >> be >> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant. >> >> > > Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the > Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is > that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a > software engineer. > > The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel > injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that meters > fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting the engine > on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine running as long as > I have fuel. > > The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that > are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm > going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the > Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set advance. > If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per chamber by the > other. > > I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft. > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:56 PM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference??? Hello Peter > There is no way > that Windows anything will ever be compatible with a real time safety > critical system (because it wasn't designed from the outset for that > task). Windows with all the overhead I would agree, however the Kernel of it is used in several certificated Avionics products, look once at the MX-20 when it is booting, it has a Windows 3.51 Kernel which is stable and secure, just all the fancy tools on top make things complicated and sometimes unstable. However I agree I would and will not trust an EFIS on top of a standard windows operating system. Werner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.