Jujupilote wrote:
- certify and implement Auto-lean systems, if not electronic ignitions. It would reduce any plane’s emissions and bill by maybe 20% ?
Absolutely. 30 years at least overdue.
Jujupilote wrote:
- deploy UL fuel to all small fields. For most french fields like LFEH, anything bigger than an O-360 is as rare as a pink elephant. Avgas could be an exception at IFR regional airports.
UL91 is available on many Swiss airfields and that is a very good thing, as many airplanes can use it. It also should become available at larger airports. Not only is it better ecologically, it is also cheaper and does less damage to engines which are prone to fouling. If I could, I would only use UL91.
Jujupilote wrote:
- coordinate airspace for all traffic (VFR/IFR) to allow the straightest tracks possible, thus the shortest flights.
In many cases, particularly VFR, routes are already massively shorter than comparable mileage by car. But yes, particularly the CFMU madness should be thrown out of the window. IFR in Europe with all their contingents and planning is often totally crazy. If at all, there should be a limit of overhead allowed in any CFMU mandated routings, say 5% or 5 miles per 100 NM distance. Many CFMU routes defy any normal navigation airmanship and are simply red tape.
Malibuflyer wrote:
I seriously doubt that an Auto lean system will get another 20% out of my Conti when I fly it (manually) LOP. As Peter wrote: The key is leaning at all, not Autolean.
The primary advantage of autolean is exactly that: All those people who never lean because they have been taught wrongly would finally get a system which allows the engine to operate most efficiently.
But that does not necessarily mean the end of manual leaning for those who want it. Autolean is not something new. Many rotary engines had it, e.g. the AN2’s 1000 hp engine and it works quite well. The procedure there is to keep it in Autolean in climb and then lean manually once in cruise.
Today however, with all the possibilities we have, it should be possible to create a FADEC system for our engines which can take care of the optimum mixture and different power regimes while taking care of engine parameters and their exceedance much better than any human can but which is also capable of falling back to full manual control in case of failure or sensor trouble. The problem is to certify it at any cost which makes this worthwhile.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
it should be possible to create a FADEC system for our engines … but which is also capable of falling back to full manual control in case of failure or sensor trouble.
This is actually an interesting idea but need to think about it a lot more. That “should be possible” is actually quite a difficult engineering task. Just for mixture control you would need to construct electrically actuated valves that have a manual override (in both directions). Possible but not that simple. If one starts to have real FADEC capabilities like power dependent ignition timings, etc. it gets really messy. It’s perhaps worth an own thread…
Overall the question is always if the added complexity of such fail safe mechanisms in the end avoid more failures or creates more failures. You can always mitigate know failure modes by adding another fail safe level – but at the cost of exponential growth of complexity. You quickly end up like the man in Peter Bichesls earthrounder in “Die Erde ist rund” (guess you know this short story as Swiss …)
Malibuflyer wrote:
Just for mixture control you would need to construct electrically actuated valves that have a manual override (in both directions).
Why not simply put a servo on the mixture lever, like you put a servo on the pitch trim? You could have a switch that automatically disconnects power to the servo whenever the mixture is at full rich.
Of interest to everyone; So far this year we’ve had 3 negative months in the CET series. Rolling CET for the past 12 months is 10.1C. A May mean of 11.0C or lower will take us sub-10C.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
In Layman’s terms, it’s very dubious as I think COVID (through the reduction in air travel/overall pollution) has had some effect on temperatures, especially in the UK through the last year.
Malibuflyer wrote:
This is actually an interesting idea but need to think about it a lot more. That “should be possible” is actually quite a difficult engineering task.
The automotive industry has been going with automated mixture for decades. Last time I saw a choke was a while ago… At least that should be possible.
For the FADEC clearly the big hurdle is certification and yes, the failure modes.
Malibuflyer wrote:
You quickly end up like the man in Peter Bichesls earthrounder in “Die Erde ist rund” (guess you know this short story as Swiss …)
I do and I’ve actually met the man a couple of years back. He’s quite famous here, many remember him as the guy who wrote speeches for Willy Ritschard. He is at least honest enough to call himself a socialist, but a very pleasant guy.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Why not simply put a servo on the mixture lever, like you put a servo on the pitch trim? You could have a switch that automatically disconnects power to the servo whenever the mixture is at full rich.
Sure – but need to change the mixture mechanic from a lever to a wheel like handle (as with pitch trim) as with a lever this is harder to realize – and then the question is, if this is precise enough for mixture. But possible.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The automotive industry has been going with automated mixture for decades. Last time I saw a choke was a while ago… At least that should be possible.
I’m not aware of any car that has a manual override for the automated mixture.
It needs other sensors though e.g oxygen sensor in the exhaust.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Sure – but need to change the mixture mechanic from a lever to a wheel like handle (as with pitch trim) as with a lever this is harder to realize – and then the question is, if this is precise enough for mixture. But possible.
With a mixture control of the vernier lever type, it really should not be difficult. The servo just has to rotate the lever. Gives better precision, too. Of course not all aircraft has that kind of mixture control.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Today however, with all the possibilities we have, it should be possible to create a FADEC system for our engines which can take care of the optimum mixture and different power regimes while taking care of engine parameters and their exceedance much better than any human can but which is also capable of falling back to full manual control in case of failure or sensor trouble. The problem is to certify it at any cost which makes this worthwhile.
It’s already being done. The Rotax 912s in the Tecnam P2006T have automatic mixture control, there is no mixture lever (or other control) in the cockpit. They do, however, have chokes which are engaged for cold starting on the ground. Once the engines are running, you only control throttle and prop. Btw, the throttle quadrant does have six levers, but two of these are carb heat, per POH only to be used if actual carb ice is suspected, not during a low power descent as in more traditional installations.
