[Diy_efi] fuel injection for an airplane engine

[Garfield Willis]

On Tue, 28 May 2002 00:46:16 +0100, "William Shurvinton"
<shurvinton at orange.net> wrote:

>Read it and then decide who dropped in midway through the thread. I'll =
let
>you off as it's monday and my wish to learn outweighs any need to get
>niggly:-). I just want to set the original reference right.

Get niggly all you want; just don't get wiggly like the above. This post
from Ron you did NOT reference or quote in any way in your reply. You
quoted and then replied to Bruce's posted reply back to Brian.

Nothin 'right' about what you've said above. Just another Plecan suckup
with the same lack of personal integrity.

Gar

Here IS your post that I'm referring to. Please do in your nigglymost
fashion OBSERVE who and what you quoted in your reply.

On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:19:18 +0100, "William Shurvinton"
<shurvinton at orange.net> wrote:

>I have been resisting on this topic, mainly due to a lack of knowledge =
about
>what is needed for a 'safe' aircraft, but here goes, feet first
>
>The issue is being able to do a thorough FMEA on the system and to =
gather
>requirements for what is needed.
>
>The FMEA bit usually drive redundant systems (heading into an area where=
 I
>am getting dangerous, although my high availability analysis is limited =
to
>telecomms which is not considered life critical). For example, if you =
have 4
>cylinders then 2 ECUs can be used, each driving 2 cylinders, so if one =
fails
>you are still in the air. Dual pumps, dual sensors etc, are all possible
>depending on what is needed.
>
>Where is gets interesting is the requirements. Aircraft, if i have it
>correctly have about 3 operating modes
>
>1. Idle on the ground
>2. Take off and climb (max welly)
>3. Cruise (max BSFC)
>
>All of which in a fairly narrow operating RPM range. A stock ECU is well=
 OTT
>for this. The simpler the better. Where it gets hazy for me is the =
mixture
>knob which most aviation FI systems still seem to have. Is this because
>pilots don't trust ECUs or is it because more inputs are needed than the=
 ECU
>is aware of to make these decisions. Possibly a bit of both.
>
>Anyway, if having a mixture control is considered a good thing it would
>point to a very simple ECU design, not dissimilar to the old Bosch
>LE-jetronic with minimum HW to handle the 3 operating modes. From what I
>know of the GM ECMs you could strip that down to a minimum map, but =
without
>exorcising all the redundant code it might be iffy. Ideally you want
>something based on one of the newer MCU with a TPU chip (or an external =
chip
>doing the same) such that once running steady state you could put a nail
>through the CPU and it would keep going until told otherwise.
>
>Interesting area.
>
>Bill
>----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce <nacelp at bright.net>
>To: <Diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
>Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 7:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] fuel injection for an airplane engine
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian Michalk" <michalk at awpi.com>
>> > The SDS has the simpler of the two with batch firing, plus they are =
not
>> > afraid of aircraft.
>>
>> And, this is is from what?,
>> The litagation from the families of those that depart this world.   =
While
>> you might take responsibility, which is fine, too often the families =
take
>> the lose as more then the risk taker figures, and then sue the
>manufacturer.
>>   Designing a Aero EFI sounds interesting, using a car based system
>sounds,
>> like a problem waiting to happen in my book.   Two totally different
>design
>> specs..  You need more then a limp home mode for aero use in an =
aircraft,
>> IMO.
>>   What might be slick in a car, maybe fatal in the air.
>> Bruce



_______________________________________________
Diy_efi mailing list
Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi