> Ducking the opinion part, interestingly for a production aircraft in
> the U.S., it ain't that easy, even if FAA-approved electronic boxes.
> There's an Advisory Circular which says you prove the failure
> probability, with specified statistical math to use, of a fatality in
> IFR caused by dual/complete failure. Or...slap a mechanical horizon
> gyro somewhere on that pretty panel, and refer to the section on the
> much simpler math. When I read something like that, I envision that
> error MsgBox... "Windows...is shutting down." :-)
For us, experimental builders this does not apply, and as a matter of
fact, here an experimental will never be approved for IFR. Solves the
problem for the authorities. But in real life VFR conditions change into
IFR despite law, regulations, approvals and forecasts. There our
non-approved but reasonably reliably EFIS comes into play.
And before Jeremy starts to complain about windows bashing: It is only
because windows in the most used operating system that it has the most
crashes. But it is true, that although modern electronics hardware is a
factor 10.000 more reliable then mechanical parts, systems seem unreliable
in the eyes of the public, because their computers keep crashing and
having virusses. Thinking about it: in cars almost everything is
controlled by computers, from your safety-bags to brakes, gearbox and
engine. But car manufacturers don't even advertise that. Is that also a
windows syndrome?
Back to the habit of building a reliably experimental: I guess that having
2 generators with 2 regulators and 2 batteries, and an essential bus
switcheable between them is not a bad idea. It is not really redundant
either, because the Rotax standard generator is a bit on the small side to
feed all the whistles and bells.
Regards,
Jos Okhuijsen
|