Posted for W Atkinson <Walter@advancedpilot.com>:

 Matt:
 
 No need for a flame suit! <g>
 
 About twenty years or so TCM had a fuel system like you are describing.  It
worked exactly as they wanted it to work.  It was complex.  It
 worked.  At the rpms, powers, and FFs we are running, it became so close to a
constant flow system that TCM decided that it wasn't worth the added
complexity for such a minimal gain.  I think TCM had it right 20+ years ago.
 
 I, like you, use my airplane for serious travel.  Dispatchability is a big
issue with me.  That's one reason I like to think that the best and most
elegant solution will be the simplest.
 
 Since the gains from adjusting the spark are very large and the gains from
further fine-tuning the fuel injection are at best, marginal, that is the
approach that I think is most likely to yield the most gain for the most
reliability and best dispatchability--and cost.  It is an important concept to
appreciate that oftentimes the enemy of good is an attempt at better!  <vbg>
 
 Now, all of that said, the pilot public seems to be all wrapped up in making
airplanes like cars--to what end, I'm not sure.  That may SELL a system that
is actually inferior.  As an example, the engine monitor manufacturers know
that the DIF function on the monitors is frequently misunderstood and not very
helpful.  Pilot's think it's a big deal and it's a selling point, so they keep
it---all-the-while knowing that it's non-contributory to anything useful in
injected engines and is a source of confusion.
 
 IMO, so goes sequential fuel injection in aircraft engines.  It doesn't help
in any meaningful way, but , by gum, if the pilots think it's a big deal,
we'll make it -- even at the expense of reliability, weight, cost,
maintenance, and common sense.
 
 Ain't  Amureca great?  <VBG>
 
 Walter