Micro news. After sending to HELL RusEFI I become Speeduino supporter and contributor. Very open and friendly comunity. I was suggest my help and translated to Russian
Руководство Speeduino
One of user designed boards for 4-cylinders I like
The Speeduino platform has a
lot going for it:
- An active and smart user community that is willing to help
- No apparent aversion to aircraft applications
- Open and public software and hardware.
- The stuff works
But, it ain't perfect (nothing is):
- The software is big, complex, and filled with all kinds of features we don't need in airplanes. The code development is driven by the automotive application and the needs of "tuners". The complexity introduces possible run faults that would be better to avoid.
- The software changes over time, with new features and tweaks to meet the desired of tuners, etc. For airplane use, this will require constant "re-validation" to assure the new changes don't destabilize our functionality.
- The official Speeduino hardware
might not include all the "hardening" and reliability features we would want. This might include very good filtering of power and sensor feeds, RF shielding, components meeting our temperature and reliability requirements sourced from reliable suppliers who actually populate the boards with the components they promise, etc.
- Do their term of use or other rules allow the for-profit selling of systems that are based on Speeduino? That would be good to know. "Big Speeduino" might be fine with hobbiests using their products on their own airplanes, but might object to a company using their architecture for a commercial product.
So, not perfect. But, maybe a good starting point.
One approach would be to fork off from the present Speeduino project. Use their hardware and code as a starting point, but drop everything that isn't needed (IMO, this might include sequential injection, closed loop operation*, any support for VVT, etc). Then, add in any new code we DO need (e.g. manual leaning capability*, a basic "just fly" mode that allows continued flight with a bare minimum of sensors, etc).
Likewise, with hardware.
After that, the "FlightDuino" project ("AirDuino" would be too confusing!) would pretty much become its own entity. If Speeduino would be willing to have "FlightDuino" as a separate subentity within their world, that would be great (make use of their existing infrastructure, expertise, etc. There could be developments within FlightDuino that Speeduino might want to incorporate). Otherwise, it would exist separately--its own forum, vendors, update cycle and procedures, etc.
A general comment: Nothing is free.
It is unfair to expect the Speeduino folks to devote time to any efforts that don't, in turn, support the Speeduino platform (through purchases of official Speeduino hardware, etc). They have spent a lot of time and effort to build their hardware and code, and that is worth something.
* Edited to add: For FlightDuino,
consider the option of a closed loop mode based on EGT rather than lambda. This would allow the program to do the mixture adjustments most pilots do manually to, say, fly LOP in cruise. Could be done individually for each injector so each cylinder is getting the optimum mixture. Simple to implement with software, reduces pilot workload, requires no wideband O2 sensor(s), allows use of leaded fuel, allows for wide variety of desired mixture, etc.
