That is kind of the point of all of this.and explain how the ECU can tell what mixture I need
Not sure what you are trying to say here so lets map it out with a real world scenario:...From an engineers point of view we don't care what you 'think' you need/want. We are replacing you with a system that 'actually' knows what is needed...
Maybe that is the root of our 'disagreement". To me the condition stated is NOT balls to the wall because there is still some power left in the system (the other ball) that is not being used. That is by the pilot's choice and it matters not if that choice is carried out by levers and knobs or a cpu and software.clearly stated the operating condition; it is *already* 'ball (meaning throttle; no 's',or plural, adding mixture & prop) to the wall'.
It is standard practice on the Pratts to enrichen and re-lean every hour or 1,000 foot of altitude change. It is good to start at a baseline periodically with them.The thing with closed loop is that you don't know if O2 sensor data is valid without another one to compare to continuously. If you start erroneously trimming lean on some fragile engines, you'll melt the pistons. Need more code to compare sensors and then more still to decide how far to go before disregarding and jumping back into open loop.
Using EGT for closed loop is possible but don't forget that EGT cools on either side of stoichiometric so you need to know if you're ROP or LOP. You have to start from the rich side to be safe and trim leaner, register peak EGT in each cylinder and then trim to the desired temperature. Not all cylinders will peak at the same time. A lot of complexity for simple engines which spend most of their time at constant power.
There are lots of things you can do, but should you? Is there real benefit in the end for the user or are you adding complexity and impacting reliability with these features?
I think this is one of those time where trying to hash this out via keyboard, when an in person meet with hand waving and napkins would have things resolved in less time than it takes to order another beer.But with the cpu << snip>>
If it is using a narrowband O2 sensor then it is probably operating very near stoichiometric mixture. I don't think that's going to work in airplanes, it results in max power about 10% less than would otherwise be available at WOT with a richer mixture.Exist self tuning chinese FAI EFI which completelly autotune by narrowband O2 and cylinder themperature without any user interaction.
They resolve this problemvapor lock would be an issue
Modern cars go rich/lean based on throttle position as a primary system logic. Naturally aspirated airplanes are typically flown at WOT in cruise to achieve the highest MP possible so throttle position is not a valid logic signal for the ECU to "know" what the pilot wants. In this case, the pilot has set the throttle full open to minimize pumping losses - that's the only message the pilot is sending to the CPU. And in many cases (high TAS, high altitude), maximum RPM on the prop will actually REDUCE airspeed - so the blue knob is also a poor logic source. So we are left with power being influenced directly by mixture, and that manifests as a discrete ROP/LOP selection.Maybe that is the root of our 'disagreement". To me the condition stated is NOT balls to the wall because there is still some power left in the system (the other ball) that is not being used. That is by the pilot's choice and it matters not if that choice is carried out by levers and knobs or a cpu and software.