Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:11:45 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-762664@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2)
  with ESMTP id 762560 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:47:30 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.205; envelope-from=glcasey@adelphia.net
Received: from worldwinds ([70.32.213.236]) by mta11.adelphia.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.01 201-2131-118-101-20041129) with SMTP
          id <20050228134641.BDUB5402.mta11.adelphia.net@worldwinds>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:46:41 -0500
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
X-Original-To: "lancair list" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: FADEC Rough idle explanation
X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:43:37 -0800
X-Original-Message-ID: <NEBBIBKBKLGPNKKOGMMBGENBGBAB.glcasey@adelphia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Importance: Normal

<<Why is there so much resistance to automated engine management?

-Adam Molny>>

That may be the most pertinent question.  I agree with George's comments,
but my comparison earlier was with a "normal" FADEC with and open-loop speed
density algorithm for both fuel and spark, while his was of an "optimized"
system.  Some have said that the mechanical systems are as "accurate", but I
think that is a misused word - they are consistent and uniform with
potentially even fuel distribution, but accuracy would imply that under a
given set of conditions you could pull the mixture to a fixed position and
have the correct mixture.  The mechanical systems rely on the pilot setting
the mixture using a feedback system.  I've heard the same arguments 50 years
ago about automatic chokes on cars - "I can control the choke better than
any stinkin bimetal."  The real question might be are we ready and willing
to accept an engine control system that will allow us to just turn the key
to start and then never have to intervene with engine operation after that?
It might be a worthwhile thing even though it can be demonstrated that the
mechanical system, given the correct control manipulation, is "just as
good."  Okay, I'll admit it - just as Adam implied, I took off the other day
with a lean mixture.

Gary Casey