|
I see guys doubling up on water pumps (2 EWP in some cases) yet because there hasn't been a CAS failure (that we know of) they are not worried . If you want true redundancy, you must double up on the systems that have a possibility of killing you engine (and you,no matter how remote) The CAS failure could be between the ECU & the CAS due to our application. Not to be too critical, but I've seen some pretty scary (sloppy) installations. If you follow the certificated aircraft procedures as far as securing, protecting & routing wires, hoses, pipes & components you can be on your way to a safe installation.
Georges B. (in my book, redundancy is job one)
-------Original Message-------
Date: 06/06/05 10:32:38
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks
Hi Al,
I fail to see how installing another CAS will 'dramatically' reduce
risk of all ECM causes.
We have already said we have no history of failure of the CAS, how can
installing another CAS (with no history of failure), 'dramatically'
reduce the risk of failure?
And how can installing another CAS have any influence on "the risk of
all ECM causes" ?
I also have great respect for redundant systems, but I cannot see your
logic in this one. It is the 'dramatic reduction' that troubles me.
BR, Dave McC
On 06/06/2005, at 9:57 PM, al p wick wrote:
>
>
> Regarding CAS risk. It's not just crank angle sensor that is the risk
> item. Going to redundancy with the CAS will dramatically reduce risk
> of all ECM causes. Like this connector risk. I'm not always proponent
> of redundancy, but with my limited info on this item, I SUSPECT it's
> significant, positive step.
>
> -al wick
> Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
> N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
> Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design
> info:
|