Hi Duncan
No, I have my diesel hat OFF now, believe me.
The point I would like to make is that while electronic injection is
technically feasible, the cost of providing the required redundancy and
continuing airworthiness are probably not compatible with a small commercial
gasoline engine. I'm sure Rotax agree with me and that's why we haven't
seen an injected 91X yet. As a one-off with the right continuing TLC from a
suitably qualified PFA member (like you) - no problem. The problem comes
in trying to get to a commercial engine to sell to all takers, that's a
different story.
The system I am talking about is nothing to do with our diesel. It is part
of a gasoline engine project which was cancelled to allow resources to focus
on the CITEC family. It is can be a 100% mechanical system but can also
have the option of electronic trimming for full AFR control. Whether the
market size can justify the required remaining development is the big
question.
I would be interested to hear your views. Good luck with the BM conversion!
Regards........MARK WILKSCH
-----Original Message-----
From: ami mcfadyean <ami@mcfadyean.freeserve.co.uk>
<milesm@avnet.co.uk>; europa@avnet.co.uk <europa@avnet.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 06:06
Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax
912.
>OK, OK,so mechanically injected 2-stroke charged diesels are superior to
>everything else!! but the failure rate of modern automotive FI electronics
>compares favourably with the rate at which TWIN magneto failures kill and
>injure people in the US.
>Just to put things in perspective.
>
>However the reliability of the wiring is another matter. I agree that in
>this respect some car based solutions are less than ideal.
>
> Bosch, nevertheless (the manufacturer of the K and subsequent electronic
>systems) consider the latter to be more reliable. Maybe they have an axe to
>grind (and they don`t make the wiring).
>.
>
>Duncan McFadyean
>
>-----Original Message-----
From: Wilksch Airmotive <mark@wilksch.com>
><europa@avnet.co.uk>
>Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 9:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax
>912.
>
>
>>Dear Miles
>>
>>
>>I have a better way of doing it. Pure machanical with electronic
trimming.
>>
>>There is no use in messing about with car based solutions. The only one
>>which will succeed in the long run is one designed to do the right job for
>>aviation - no
>>compromises. I would love to get one up and running on a 912! My
>>solution will also work on 200,000 Lycontinentals.
>>
>>Development cost is the problem - will Nigel help us with the budget?
How
>>many orders can you get me?
>>
>>I can show you some of the components next time we meet - you will be
>>impressed!
>>
>>Regards...........MARK WILKSCH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>From: Miles McCallum <milesm@avnet.co.uk>
>>Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 11:55
>>Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax
>>912.
>>
>>
>>>Carbs.. CV carbs... I don't want carbs at all: I want fuel injection.
>Nigel
>>>has the kit (not Rotax - they won't do it) but he won't get around to it
>>>until enough people show an interest......
>>>
>>>M
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|