|
Mark,
Actually, the computer-controlled ignition and fuel
injection systems WERE originally developed to meet a "certification
process", but not one based on safety or reliability (directly). They were
developed primarily to meet emissions and mileage certifications. Once the
auto makers got the basics down (like keeping the engines running at 14.7:1 air
to fuel ratio in cruise to ensure maximum burn and operation of the catalytic
converter), and CPU speeds increased and better sensors were developed, the
engine control system developers realized they could give their engines
different "personalities" at each end of the performance spectrum, hence
innovations like staged injectors and other cool stuff.
The "reliability" factor has only been directly
addressed for about the last 10 years, with these same controllers (or, more
accurately, their 32-bit decendents) performing on-board diagnostic
functions.
Gary Fitzgerald
LNC2 extra-slow build
~70%
engine: TBD
St. Charles, MO
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:40
PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Part 23 vs Guaranteed
Safety
I believe if those managing the FAA were truly concerned
about safety and reliability, General Aviation aircraft would long
ago have exited the production line with engines sporting safe and
reliable (compared to magnetos) computer-controlled ignition systems, as well
as computer-controlled fuel injection systems. ...
21st century of internal combustion engine technology -- a
place automobile manufacturers not saddled with a "certification process" have
lived for nearly three decades. Which begs the question, do you think Lycoming waited this long to join the likes
of Chevrolet and Honda in the spirit of safety and reliability?
Mark
|