George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ZK0wf.23428$uy3.5082@trnddc08...
David Lesher wrote:

I keep hoping that someone somehow will figure out a way to move
some of the massive tecnology improvements we use (and ignore) daily
in our cars into the fleet; but I sure don't know what that route
is...

The technology got into cars because the government mandated fuel economy
and emission improvements. It shouldn't be hard to figure out what it will
take to get it into aircraft.
In any case, there are exactly two things "wrong" with aircraft engines. The
spark timing is fixed and the mixture control is in the hands of the pilot.
And you can't do anything about the first problem until you fix the second.


Yeah. I heard an ad on the radio about a shop that had the gear to read
the computer chips for diagnosis in cars. That set me thinking about the
diagnosis technique frequently used with aircraft; replace parts until
something works. It seems to me that it wouldn't be hard to get the FAA to
sign off on at least a diagnostic chip.

Right. Now a mechanic just replaces parts until the fault codes go away...

It's nearly impossible to narrow things down to just one part, so even with
diagnostic codes to point the way, mechanics still tend to replace the easy
stuff first.
For example if you get a "oxygen sensor not switching" code, 9 times out of
10, the mechanic will replace the sensor. Then, only when that doesn't solve
the problem, will they will actually start to look for the cause of the
mixture problem (vacuum leak, etc.). Of course, there are those who will
just replace the sensor again. And again. And again... After a few tries,
they then complain that there is something wrong with the diagnostic
software.

FWIW, I write algorithms that do air fuel control and diagnostics at one of
the larger automobile manufacturers.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.