On 2006-05-29, Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

It says how much a pilot wants to trust a small computer and its
software and engine actuators.

instead of a small mechanical linkage and its hardware?

Hardware failure modes are much better understood.

What's the reliability of software?

For embedded stuff, seemingly much better. Let's compare like with like:
old cars vs new cars. My first car had completely mechanical engine
components - mechanical points and condenser, vacuum advance etc. It
needed a great deal of maintenance to get any kind of reliability. It
was hard to start on cold, damp days.

In many ways, it was comparable to many aviation engines - high
maintenance and fiddly operation. Consider hot starts on even a brand
new Lycoming fuel injected engine - it needs a different procedure to a
cold start.

My current car's engine is completely electronically controlled. It
doesn't need frequent tune ups, lots of maintenance - basically, just
oil and filters. It starts just as well on a warm dry day as on a cold
damp day. It doesn't suddenly quit because something backed off and got
loose on an ignition component. It is so much more consistent than the
old completely mechanical engine as well as much more reliable. Not to
mention a great deal more fuel efficient and more powerful.

I think engine management systems for aero engines haven't come a moment
too soon rather than continuing with engines with systems from the
1940s. I'd trust an engine with electronic engine management long before
I'd trust a "traditional" aero engine. The airlines agree - all their
engines are now FADEC.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de