X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3745212 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:07:52 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.121; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090705000713157.ZQJH24657@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 00:07:13 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 20:07:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C9FCE3.07705D70" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Acn8/B1I1i0++vq9SVG0Z5TIqfb65wAAbAPQ In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Message-Id: <20090705000713157.ZQJH24657@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C9FCE3.07705D70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I admit, Al, that unit does have a boat load of features, flexibility and capability - also agree, that true redundancy is very hard (and generally expensive ) to achieve. To achieve something similar to your two VIpec 88s from a redundancy perspective, I would have to get another EC2. However, looking at all the capability and features of your unit, I would hazard a guess that it might be a bit much for a neophyte to deal with. But, the important thing is that the unit meet your criteria for safe, worry-free flying. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Wick Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:06 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings >And the price is ? I don't know. I think it's (vi-pec V88) in the $2k range. >I read over the specs and did not see any redundancy listed for the ViPec-88 - did I miss it? It's not redundant. I'm using two for redundancy. Keeping in mind that redundancy has value only when the two devices have independent failure modes....no components in common, no common failure modes. If I were using oem ECU's, which have extreme robust design (not affected by electrical noise for example), I would not bother to have redundant ECU's. I keep finding significant design oversights with custom ecu's. Poor handling of sensor errors, sensitive to noise, etc. So I use two. Fwiw. -al wick ----- Original Message ----- From: George Lendich To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings George (down under) I've installed Megasquirt, Haltech, and now Vi-Pec ECU's (not rotary installs). Most impressed with the Vi-Pec so far. The others had various issues. Vi-Pec V88 is highly flexible. No special wiring for various injectors. Lot's of extra sensors and outputs available. One of the few to be able to handle unusual crank signals (not applicable to rotary). Very good documentation, the others were fair at best. I have two on my plane for genuine redundancy. I'd give it strong consideration. Guess I'd describe it as sophisticated, robust, yet friendly. FWIW -al wick ----- Original Message ----- From: Ernest Christley To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:19 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings Al Gietzen wrote: > > Al, > > Do you know of any alternatives out there now that might be worth a look? > > Bryan > > Preparing to commit $$$ to EC > > Bryan; > > I haven't looked any further since prior to the final stages of > getting my EC2 working. The basic issue (besides cost) is always that > the systems are set up for automotive use, and although they may be > noise tolerant, have complexities that make them awkward for aviation > use. And there is the issue of redundancy. Tracy had good reason for > developing his own. > > Al > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C9FCE3.07705D70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I admit, Al,  that unit does = have a boat load of features, flexibility and capability – also agree, = that true redundancy is very hard (and generally expensive ) to achieve.  To = achieve something similar to your two VIpec 88s from a redundancy perspective, I = would have to get another EC2.   However, looking at all the = capability and features of your unit, I would hazard a guess that it might be a bit = much for a neophyte to deal with.   

 

But, the important thing is that = the unit meet your criteria for safe,  worry-free = flying.

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Wick
Sent: Saturday, July 04, = 2009 7:06 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings

 

>And the price is ?

I don't know. I think it's (vi-pec V88) in the $2k = range.

 

>I read over the specs and did = not see any redundancy  listed for the ViPec-88 – did I miss = it? 

It's not redundant. I'm using two for redundancy. = Keeping in mind that redundancy has value = only when the two devices have independent failure modes....no components in = common, no common failure modes. If I were using oem ECU's, which have extreme = robust design (not affected by electrical noise for example), I would not bother to = have redundant ECU's. I keep finding significant design oversights with = custom ecu's. Poor handling of sensor errors, sensitive to noise, etc. So I use = two. Fwiw.

 

-al wick

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: = Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:00 PM

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings

 

 

George (down under)

I've installed Megasquirt, Haltech, and now Vi-Pec = ECU's (not rotary installs). Most impressed with the Vi-Pec so far. The others = had various issues.

 

Vi-Pec V88 is highly flexible. No special wiring = for various injectors. Lot's of extra = sensors and outputs available. One of the few to be able to handle unusual = crank signals (not applicable to rotary). Very good documentation, the others = were fair at best. I have two on my plane for genuine redundancy. I'd give it = strong consideration. Guess I'd describe it as sophisticated, robust, yet = friendly.

 

FWIW

 

-al wick

 

 

----- Original Message ----- =

Sent: = Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:19 AM

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings

 

Al Gietzen wrote:
>
> Al,
>
> Do you know of any alternatives out there now that might be worth a = look?
>
> Bryan
>
> Preparing to commit $$$ to EC
>
> Bryan;
>
> I haven’t looked any further since prior to the final stages = of
> getting my EC2 working. The basic issue (besides cost) is always = that
> the systems are set up for automotive use, and although they may be =
> noise tolerant, have complexities that make them awkward for = aviation
> use. And there is the issue of redundancy. Tracy had good reason for
> developing his own.
>
> Al
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C9FCE3.07705D70--