 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tompkinsl(at)integra.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as on |
 |
|
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.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter H
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as on |
|
|
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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
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)
[b]Background information.[/b]
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.
[b]Putting the cart before the horse[/b]
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.
[b]How this relates to avionics[/b]
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."
[b]Summary[/b]
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.
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
01234
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter H
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as on |
|
|
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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Harris
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 7:55 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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)
[b]Background information.[/b]
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.
[b]Putting the cart before the horse[/b]
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.
[b]How this relates to avionics[/b]
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."
[b]Summary[/b]
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.
[/b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com[/b]01234567890
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as on |
|
|
Larry,
I know that GRT uses Windows CE and I believe Advanced does also, but I also have heard that both are moving to different systems in their latest offerings (don’t know what). I guess the point is that both of these systems provide some excellent functionality and are reasonably reliable, but I would use a “steam” powered back-up if my life depended on it.
Peter
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
