On Jun 19, 3:13*pm, Michael wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, es330td wrote:
Go try selling the FAA on the idea of eliminating EGT, CHT, MP, Oil
Temp, Oil Pressure, and Tach in favor of a computer, and they will
simply throw FAR's at you. *EGT (really TIT) required for every
turbocharged engine. *MP required for engines with controllable
props. *CHT required for engines with cowl flaps. *Oil Temp and
Pressure and Tach always required. *By regulation. *That's all there
is to it. *You're not going to replace that with a %Power gauge and
idiot lights, but really you should be able to. *Then the idiot light
could tell you to land and check the engine.

If this is true, then this is a real problem. What is there reason?

If one where computerize the sensor-monitor pair, meaning, instead of
paying $100 each for separate cockpit mechanical monitors, replace all
of them with software winodws on a conventional PC connected to
sensors via cables, would this be considered by FAA? What is
likelihood of rejection outright?

Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your
computer-controlled engine is failing. *Like idiot lights. *And those
engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days.

Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a
light airplane. *Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons
it's not terribly practical. *But fully electronic engine controls and
full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine.

I agree.

I should also add that, by "electronic", I mean "computer", meaning
that, in fact, there are very little electronics to speak of. The
sensors and actutors will certainly have electronic aspect, but the
idea is to get away from all kinds of hardware, both mechanical and
electronic, and into the software realm as quickly as possible.

The material cost of software is $0.

-Le Chaud Lapin-