X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com ([64.136.55.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with SMTP id 3745159 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:06:48 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.55.15; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from Penny (c-98-246-117-71.hsd1.or.comcast.net [98.246.117.71]) by smtpout03.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABFE92CWAX5ZKRS for (sender ); Sat, 4 Jul 2009 16:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: From: "Al Wick" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Corruption of EC settings Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 16:05:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0122_01C9FCC1.517612B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18005 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18005 X-ContentStamp: 20:10:3256232096 X-MAIL-INFO:297bb3a777879f3fbbcf07b337efd39f3a8ebedbda6e2ab76b832ef7dbca176a5b8bde8ba33bf34aeab7cb6b8e9e9e0b1eae17a76e5fb323fadbc70faece47d723027bd7439a2fb3134e1ff70a1f4e X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkEuuTGmDDDMvLp/O/83Z4mZADgUGmx23Tw== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.181.42.33|smtpout03.vgs.untd.com|smtpout03.vgs.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C9FCC1.517612B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >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 =96 did I miss it?=20 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 -----=20 From: George Lendich=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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.=20 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.=20 FWIW -al wick ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ernest Christley=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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=92t looked any further since prior to the final stages = of=20 > getting my EC2 working. The basic issue (besides cost) is always = that=20 > the systems are set up for automotive use, and although they may = be=20 > noise tolerant, have complexities that make them awkward for = aviation=20 > use. And there is the issue of redundancy. Tracy had good reason = for=20 > developing his own. > > Al > ------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C9FCC1.517612B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>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 =96 did I miss = it? 
It's not redundant. I'm using two for redundancy. Keeping in mind = that=20 redundancy has value only when the two devices have independent failure=20 modes....no components in common, no common failure modes. If I were = using oem=20 ECU's, which have extreme robust design (not affected by electrical = noise for=20 example), I would not bother to have redundant ECU's. I keep finding = significant=20 design oversights with custom ecu's. Poor handling of sensor errors, = sensitive=20 to noise, etc. So I use two. Fwiw.
 
-al wick
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 George=20 Lendich
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 = 3:00=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Corruption of EC=20 settings

 
George (down under)
I've installed Megasquirt, Haltech, = and now=20 Vi-Pec ECU's (not rotary installs). Most impressed with the Vi-Pec = so far.=20 The others had various issues.
 
Vi-Pec V88 is highly flexible. = No special=20 wiring for various injectors. Lot's of extra sensors and outputs = available.=20 One of the few to be able to handle unusual crank signals (not=20 applicable to rotary). Very good documentation, the others were fair = at=20 best. I have two on my plane for genuine redundancy. I'd give it = strong=20 consideration. Guess I'd describe it as sophisticated, robust, yet = friendly.=20
 
FWIW
 
-al wick
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ernest=20 Christley
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Saturday, July 04, = 2009 11:19=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Corruption=20 of EC settings

Al Gietzen wrote:
>
> = Al,
>
> Do=20 you know of any alternatives out there now that might be worth a=20 look?
>
> Bryan
>
> Preparing to commit = $$$ to=20 EC
>
> Bryan;
>
> I haven=92t looked any = further=20 since prior to the final stages of
> getting my EC2 = working. The=20 basic issue (besides cost) is always that
> the systems are = set up=20 for automotive use, and although they may be
> noise = tolerant, have=20 complexities that make them awkward for aviation
> use. And = there=20 is the issue of redundancy. Tracy had good reason for
> = developing=20 his own.
>
>=20 Al
> ------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C9FCC1.517612B0--