What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

SDS EM-6 EFI ECU

rv6ejguy

Well Known Member
We've got 10 new features planned for the new EM-6 which will commence hardware development sometime in April it looks like now. We have 3 other optional ideas to explore as well and we've explored and discarded 2 other ideas already.

While we won't be able to make the design process on the EM-6 as open and interactive as on the CPI2 ignition system due to other players in the field, we are very interested in having customer input on features they'd like to see in the new ECU. We often find that great ideas come from outside.

I won't be able to confirm much of what will be new for sometime but we'll listen to your feedback for the next 30-60 days or so before we freeze the wish list and get down to full scale hardware and software development.

We hope to release the EM-6 in the late 4th quarter of 2020 but that depends on how many new features are incorporated and how long they take to develop and properly test. We see one possible avenue, if adopted, may extend the development time past this date.

Development time available is also impacted by our order backlogs for EM-5, CPI/ CPI2 and our other aviation and automotive products. This varies considerably with the time of year. We have to take good care of our customers and keep money flowing in the door to finance the new R&D projects.

As I mentioned previously in another SDS thread, we have the well proven EM-5 EFI/EI systems currently available and all FULL AVIATION system buyers (complete EFI kits) in 2018-20 will be eligible to receive a free EM-6 ECU when they are available. This way, there is no delay in getting your project flying but you can enjoy the additional features of the new ECU when it's released.
 
Last edited:
I probably won't be ready to buy for at least another year, but...

Some form of closed-loop mode (with a toggle switch to enable?) and selectable AFR would be really neat.

RPM and MP defining an array of fuel and timing values instead of independent lists would maybe give a way to automatically go lean at certain conditions?


Basically, I'd just be looking for a way to avoid having to deal with mixture at all. Not having actually used your system yet I can't really think of anything else.
 
ideas

Hi Ross,

just spitballing here but.. how about eliminating the need to manually select injectors AorB and the associated relays for this IF an ECU goes out?

maybe better said... a full up autonomous running system if an ECU goes south.

Thanks for requesting the input from the field!
 
I second dual systems with no external relays, and no required pilot intervention to maintain power after a system failure.

Human pilots will never correctly diagnose a power loss and flip the right switches 100% of the time, in particular at low altitude.
 
EM-5 switches

20ixp8w.jpg


For those not sure about this conversation, the areas circled in red are the necessary switches for an EM-5 setup.

My electrical system is very similar to a Nuckells Z-14. ECU 1 runs 4 sparkplugs ECU 2 runs the other 4. In order to lose all ignition I’m having a really really bad day, As such I don’t have an inflight ignition emergency checklist. The plan is put it on the ground ASAP.

The switch in question on this thread is on the far right, “INJ”. The fuel injectors can only be run by one ECU at a time.

Engine runs rough:
1) Swap fuel tanks - assumes starvation or single tank contamination.
2) Flip the three yellow switches - assumes bad fuel pump or bad INJ power, I don’t really care which one at this point.
3) Engine runs good, yay! engine still bad, look outside and land.

I could eliminate this procedure with two changes:
1) Automatic fuel pressure sensing and redundant pump engagement.
2) Automatic fuel INJ switching as suggested in this thread.

If the above enhancements are included, I would really like it to trigger the red Error Message LED and send a notification to the controller screen.

NOTE: Error message LED and Controller screen not shown in the picture above. Also not shown are the two coil switches only used for preflight.
 
Last edited:
Nice clean layout Marvin.

With regards to auto switching of fuel pumps and injectors. We've considered this before and it comes back to a lot more hardware in between the controller and device. To have a true backup, you need to isolate the dead or shorted component or it's useless. This almost always involves relays which adds more wiring and connections.

If we take the case of the CPI2 where we went down this path, it more than doubled the size of the PCB and component count to do the OV and auto switchover and tripled the development time. You start to question if this is really more reliable than having the pilot flip a switch, especially when historically, these events are exceedingly rare.

I'm not saying we won't investigate these ideas but we'll be taking a harder look on benefits vs. complexity weighting after the CPI2 experience. One of the reasons why we've had such good reliability on our hardware for a couple of decades is that it was simple. The first word in SDS. Components which aren't there can't fail.

Is it wise to add many layers of complexity for events which almost never happen?
 
"Simple" for who? The builder/supplier or the operator/pilot?

"Is it wise to add many layers of complexity for events which almost never happen?"

It depends on your prespective.
 
Thanks Ross

Nice clean layout Marvin.

With regards to auto switching of fuel pumps and injectors. We've considered this before and it comes back to a lot more hardware in between the controller and device. To have a true backup, you need to isolate the dead or shorted component or it's useless. This almost always involves relays which adds more wiring and connections.

If we take the case of the CPI2 where we went down this path, it more than doubled the size of the PCB and component count to do the OV and auto switchover and tripled the development time. You start to question if this is really more reliable than having the pilot flip a switch, especially when historically, these events are exceedingly rare.

I'm not saying we won't investigate these ideas but we'll be taking a harder look on benefits vs. complexity weighting after the CPI2 experience. One of the reasons why we've had such good reliability on our hardware for a couple of decades is that it was simple. The first word in SDS. Components which aren't there can't fail.

Is it wise to add many layers of complexity for events which almost never happen?

I?m actually good with the memory item of ?flip the three yellow switches?. Mostly, I was just interested in explaining the conversation to people less familar with the SDS product.
 
...For those not sure about this conversation, the areas circled in red are the necessary switches for an EM-5 setup...

Your panel looks fantastic, but for clarity the switches you have shown are personal choice - not "required". For example, I do not power my ECU's independantly, nor do I have a separate switch for the fuel pumps. I have a single "Engine On/Off" switch, and the Pri/Sec. The engine switch powers both ECU's, the coils, and a single fuel pump. Just like a car. My second fuel pump is in my old "boost pump" location on the throttle, and it is used exactly as we have been trained for generations: takeoff, landing, and "as required". There are many ways to skin this cat and personal choice is going to dictate what we are comfortable with.
 
I?m actually good with the memory item of ?flip the three yellow switches?. Mostly, I was just interested in explaining the conversation to people less familar with the SDS product.

My RV is set up similarly. All critical backup switches are marked in yellow and my training reflex is to lower the nose and flick these all up if the engine dies at low altitude. I follow this with the fuel selector. If it doesn't come back, I'm looking for the best landing spot.
 
"Simple" for who? The builder/supplier or the operator/pilot?

"Is it wise to add many layers of complexity for events which almost never happen?"

It depends on your prespective.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as it appears from the outside- making things all automatic. We get into much more complex software detecting faults and making the call on when to switch to backups. Can we cover every eventuality when it comes to failures? You may also get into the Airbus dilemma- "what is IT (the computer) doing now?"

We simply don't have the resources of a Garmin or Boeing and if we take 2-3 years to create and test all the hardware and software, quite frankly it would be so expensive and late to market, it simply wouldn't be worth it. Flawless automation is often expensive.

What most people would like is a low cost, perfectly automated system- now. The realities of the market and business won't allow those to happen. In the end, the market is a couple hundred ECUs a year and we have to make money to keep the doors open.
 
Last edited:
I probably won't be ready to buy for at least another year, but...

Some form of closed-loop mode (with a toggle switch to enable?) and selectable AFR would be really neat.

RPM and MP defining an array of fuel and timing values instead of independent lists would maybe give a way to automatically go lean at certain conditions?


Basically, I'd just be looking for a way to avoid having to deal with mixture at all. Not having actually used your system yet I can't really think of anything else.

We did something along these lines back in 2007 and it was flight tested in an RV10. Worked well.
 
Detonation sensors for alternative/multiple fuel capability,
Provisions for a propeller regulating servo,
Lamda Sensor for exact mixture control in cruise,
Authority over starter relay for automatic startup sequence (priming, mixture according oil temperature and OAT)
Warmup and cool down monitoring and display

Would be nice

Best regards
Patrick
 
The Lycoming does not lend itself well to knock sensors due to the individual cylinder layout, high mechanical noise and lack of suitable mounting places for the sensors.

Propeller control would add a lot of cost and at least one more year of development time and validation testing to make happen. Many prefer to leave the prop control manual. I don't see that one in the cards for us.

Lambda feedback of some sort is on the list.

Once properly programmed, starting is usually within 3 blades so we probably won't add complexity there.

Depending on the new display layout, we could incorporate some indications of warmup enrichment although not sure of the general usefulness of this. The ECU just takes care of this behind the scenes.

Appreciate the input. If we get a number of similar suggestions, we'll take a look at those ideas.
 
Detonation sensors for alternative/multiple fuel capability,
Provisions for a propeller regulating servo,
Lamda Sensor for exact mixture control in cruise,
Authority over starter relay for automatic startup sequence (priming, mixture according oil temperature and OAT)
Warmup and cool down monitoring and display

Would be nice

Best regards
Patrick

Does not exist, on planet earth. Automotive, aviation, anywhere. Way beyond FADEC. It does not exist.
 
The more automatic SDS becomes, the more it becomes like an ECu from a car, which works great on a car. Cutting power back to idle because of a suspected minor fault doesn't work very well on an airplane. SDS doesn't use auto ECU's because the failure modes that work on a car, don't work on an airplane. "Limp home" mode on a car means "crash" for an airplane.

"Closed Loop" for an O2 sensor works great on a car going 70 mph down a highway. At that point, the car engine is putting out 20-50 hp, which is 10-20% of available engine power. When you go much above that level, the engine goes open loop. An airplane engine runs 50-75% Power most of the time. A car engine is running Open Loop at that setting, as is an airplane.

Different environment.
 
The biggest issue with closed loop operation in aircraft is the leaded fuel interacting with the O2 sensor. We can target a different AFR than automotive does but we need to be able to detect sensor failures and jump back into open loop for safety if that happens.
 
Ross, I'm sure you're cooking up some great stuff for the ECU update. I'd also like to see an updated install and operation manual. I'm working on my schematic and there are quite a few blanks to fill in and flipping between three different documents. I know that's not as easy as it appears to write the manual, but I think it'd help.
 
Ross, I'm sure you're cooking up some great stuff for the ECU update. I'd also like to see an updated install and operation manual. I'm working on my schematic and there are quite a few blanks to fill in and flipping between three different documents. I know that's not as easy as it appears to write the manual, but I think it'd help.

I agree. I believe the documentation can be improved a lot. My partner prefers to have photos for wire hookups whereas I think lots of folks prefer a schematic on the same page so we'll have both as we update more.

Not to make excuses, but we've been so busy for so long now, the manual improvements have suffered a bit while we build, design and ship stuff.

We try to make as much wiring for you as possible so you're mainly just connecting a few power and ground wires plus crimping connectors onto the FWF cables. Certainly when you take a dual system out of the box, I'm sure a lot of people think- wow, lot of wires here.

You're right, writing documentation for the user who's never seen the hardware before is one of the hardest aspects of the whole project.
 
The more automatic SDS becomes, the more it becomes like an ECu from a car, which works great on a car. Cutting power back to idle because of a suspected minor fault doesn't work very well on an airplane. SDS doesn't use auto ECU's because the failure modes that work on a car, don't work on an airplane. "Limp home" mode on a car means "crash" for an airplane.

The FADECs/ECUs i worked with over the last 20 years (CFM, RR, PW, IAE) were working pretty stable and helped a lot against mishandling of the engine. The backup modes for a minor failure (sensor fault or similar) do not neccessarily cause a thrust reduction to idle. If a modern intelligent ignition and fuel management helps to keep the pre WWII technology lycoming and continentals within their healthy envelopes, it may also save us from mechanical failures later on.
 
Propeller control would add a lot of cost and at least one more year of development time and validation testing to make happen. Many prefer to leave the prop control manual. I don't see that one in the cards for us.

Dear Ross, thank you for quick the reply!
An automatic prop control would need at least manifold pressure and rpm inputs, which are available by the EFI. It would be nice to make them accessible via a port, interface or bus. So a third party company could develope a prop control device which might be programmable or just follows an adapted MP-RPM squared or similar.
One could use it or not.

best regards

Patrick
 
Last edited:
We can currently output serial sensor and cpu data from the EM-5 and this will be expanded more on the EM-6.

Someone could use this data to run a prop controller. We don't have the time, money or ability to test for that aspect but we could share the info if someone was serious about designing such a prop controller.

 
Last edited:
The FADECs/ECUs i worked with over the last 20 years (CFM, RR, PW, IAE) were working pretty stable and helped a lot against mishandling of the engine. The backup modes for a minor failure (sensor fault or similar) do not neccessarily cause a thrust reduction to idle. If a modern intelligent ignition and fuel management helps to keep the pre WWII technology lycoming and continentals within their healthy envelopes, it may also save us from mechanical failures later on.

I think he was referring to the fact that many OEM auto ECUs command low power or complete engine shutdown to save the engine in the event of certain sensor failures or out of range engine parameters.
 
Your panel looks fantastic, but for clarity the switches you have shown are personal choice - not "required". For example, I do not power my ECU's independantly, nor do I have a separate switch for the fuel pumps. I have a single "Engine On/Off" switch, and the Pri/Sec. The engine switch powers both ECU's, the coils, and a single fuel pump. Just like a car. My second fuel pump is in my old "boost pump" location on the throttle, and it is used exactly as we have been trained for generations: takeoff, landing, and "as required". There are many ways to skin this cat and personal choice is going to dictate what we are comfortable with.

I've been thinking a lot about switch configurations for the EFI system in my RV-14A. A few years ago I had the opportunity to spend a dozen hours flying an RV-12, and it really struck me how simple the airplane was to operate. There's no mixture or prop levers, no fuel selector, and the boost pump and nav lights came on with the master switch. For takeoff and landing it was just throttle and flaps!

So back to the EFI switching scheme, I'm thinking about having just two switches. The left switch would be DPDT with one circuit controlling power to ECU A, Coilpack1, and Pump1 and the second circuit controlling injector selection (injectors would be using ECU A when this switch is On and switch to ECU B when Off). The right switch would be SPST controlling power to ECU B, Coilpack2, and Pump2.

This really reduces the proliferation of switches related to the ignition/EFI from seven down to two. You can do a standard 'mag check' on run-up where you turn off one side of the system and verify that the engine runs on the other. If you have an engine problem in flight, you switch tanks and turn Off the left switch (because this moves injectors from ECU A to B). A bit unconventional perhaps but very simple and the left switch would be clearly marked (yellow) for this function.

Downsides would include running both fuel pumps all the time (don't know if this would substantially reduce reliability of the pumps, it would mean pulling another 4.5 A continuously but I'm planning dual alternators so not really worried about the electrical load). Also the left switch becomes a single point failure for the engine since it controls power to one side of the system AND switches injectors between ECUs...but I think it would be a very unlikely failure mode where one circuit of the DPDT switch fails open (loss of power to ECU A/coilpack1/Pump1) and the other circuit fails to actuate when you flip the switch off to move the injectors to ECU B. And if this failure mode is even possible, it would most likely happen when actuating the switch at the beginning or end of the flight, and not during flight when you would not normally be touching the switch.

One other downside to ganging everything together is troubleshooting...if something isn't working, it's a bit less obvious who the culprit is. The fuel pumps could be ruled out by looking at fuel pressure, so it would mainly be a question of ECU vs coil pack.

Has anybody used a switching scheme like this?
 
Last edited:
I want to thank the people who've commented and sent us ideas for the EM-6. We've got plenty to work on for sure and we've compiled "The List" now.

Spent a lot of evening hours evaluating displays lately and we'll be ordering some samples soon to see which way we want to head there.

Looking forward to the new design challenge in the coming months.
 
Panel Planning

Evaluation work is slowly starting to proceed on the EM-6 now.

We've had a number of requests about what type of display we'll use on the EM-6. Can't really say much at this time but I'd plan to allow 5 X 4 inches of front panel real estate for it.
 
Last edited:
We've had a number of requests about what type of display we'll use on the EM-6. Can't really say much at this time but I'd plan to allow 5 X 4 inches of front panel real estate for it.

Ross, the RV-14 I'm building has a larger panel than most of the RVs (other than the -10) and 5x4 is going to be hard to find space for in my panel layout with dual G3X displays, an IFR stack in the middle, and G5 on one side. I'd much prefer a footprint that will mount in a 3 1/8" hole like the EM-5 control head. Ok if the bezel is in front of the panel and extends a bit beyond the hole, but 5x4 is going to tough to fit.

Might be a good idea to make sure those dimensions will work for the majority of your customers before committing...

Thanks,
 
It's a case of not being able to please everyone unfortunately. Some want a 2.25 inch display but it becomes too small to use and display anything usefully.

We may continue to offer the current 3 1/8 round programmer for those with limited panel space as well as the newer, larger one. Not as flashy but perfectly functional.

We don't have plans to develop two new displays of different sizes however which would be too expensive and time consuming.

The 5 X 4 is not set in stone yet but looks like we're headed that way at this time. We'd have liked to integrate with the popular EFIS' but one manufacturer questions the amount of units they would sell configured to control SDS and whether they could justify the engineering time to expend in that direction. I understand that. If we can't do it with both of the big 2, it won't fly.
 
Last edited:
Fuel pump duty cycle question

Ross, The question was raised above if continuous use of both pumps should be any consideration on an EFI system. Your experience with cars and planes would be appreciated. The proposed simple system above has merit if two pumps running 100% is a non issue.
 
I've had this question a few times lately.

Depending on the pumps and regulator used, we usually see a 1-9 psi pressure rise at idle with both pumps running. This is a function of flow rate, return volume, base pressure setting and regulator orifice area.

Fuel flow changes as the square of the pressure so when we're talking 40-50 psi base pressures, a rise of 9 psi will richen the AFRs somewhat at idle but have less effect at WOT/ high power settings where the return flow is considerably less. A 2 psi change would not be very significant. Return flow is roughly 99% at idle (engine burning 1% of the total pump flow).

The standard pumps we use in most Lycoming installations output around 50 gal./hr ea. X 2= 100GPH.

The drawbacks to using both pumps continuously would be extra heating of the fuel, some loss in metering accuracy over the whole range of power settings as the regulator may not be capable of accurately maintaining the differential pressure over MAP, using double the current as one and possibly not knowing if one pump fails.

Be sure to shed the load from the other pump if you have an alternator go down though as the pumps are big current hogs (4.5-5.5 amps at usual pressures)

Main advantage of using both would be the engine would keep running if one failed with no pilot intervention.

Our experience with these pumps is that they are extremely reliable if mounted as we recommend. I personally put over 5000 hours on one of these in our shop car over 18 years. We've also sold hundreds of them and never had a legitimate warranty claim yet (2 failed in a few hours when mounted improperly with inlet ports facing upwards vertically). Put proper filtration on them too. We supply a large 40 micron inlet filter on the 2018 kits now.

It's well down my list of things to worry about in my aircraft so I use one at a time- pump 1 on odd days, pump 2 on even days. If you prefer to run them both at the same time, I see no big issues with that, just be aware of the things I listed above.
 
Panel Space

It's a case of not being able to please everyone unfortunately. Some want a 2.25 inch display but it becomes too small to use and display anything usefully.

We may continue to offer the current 3 1/8 round programmer for those with limited panel space as well as the newer, larger one. Not as flashy but perfectly functional.

We don't have plans to develop two new displays of different sizes however which would be too expensive and time consuming.

The 5 X 4 is not set in stone yet but looks like we're headed that way at this time. We'd have liked to integrate with the popular EFIS' but one manufacturer questions the amount of units they would sell configured to control SDS and whether they could justify the engineering time to expend in that direction. I understand that. If we can't do it with both of the big 2, it won't fly.

In my RV-8, panel space is a premium. I?d prefer a 3 1/8? instrument or even better, something that would interface with my G3X. The current programmer suits my space requirement but no offense, it?s has a face only a mother could love.
 
EM-5 Controller

I was able to mount my EM-5 controller without using any panel space. A simple vinyl overlay will allow for any color scheme to match your interior. With that said I have already found a good spot in my -14 for the newly planned 5x4” EM-6 screen and a black bezel with touch screen buttons (or gray buttons) would avoid my creating a new overlay.
2jc96yo.jpg


117bjwm.jpg
 
Last edited:
In my RV-8, panel space is a premium. I?d prefer a 3 1/8? instrument or even better, something that would interface with my G3X. The current programmer suits my space requirement but no offense, it?s has a face only a mother could love.

Unless the big G wants to play ball and initial talks were not so positive, the EFIS thing won't happen, much as we'd all like.
 
I was able to mount my EM-5 controller without using any panel space. A simple vinyl overlay will allow for any color scheme to match your interior. With that said I have already found a good spot in my -14 for the newly planned 5x4? EM-6 screen and a black bezel with touch screen buttons (or gray buttons) would avoid my creating a new overlay.
2jc96yo.jpg


117bjwm.jpg

That looks great. How did you go about getting that done? Did you have to lay the graphics out in cad or something and take it to a graphics shop?
 
Unless the big G wants to play ball and initial talks were not so positive, the EFIS thing won't happen, much as we'd all like.

That?s a shame. I?m guessing they might miss out on a few sales if Dynon were to play ball and they don?t. That would of been enough to steer me to Dynon rather than Garmin if the option were available when I was shopping for avionics this summer. I guess they would have to determine the cost of engineering vs the estimated lost sales.

How about a display like the G5 unit they sell?
 
That’s a shame. I’m guessing they might miss out on a few sales if Dynon were to play ball and they don’t. That would of been enough to steer me to Dynon rather than Garmin if the option were available when I was shopping for avionics this summer. I guess they would have to determine the cost of engineering vs the estimated lost sales.

How about a display like the G5 unit they sell?

Dynon showed more interest but like I said, we won't do it unless both are on board as it leaves around 40% of the market with no good solution. We don't have the time or resources to develop multiple display solutions and I'd have to say, doing the EFIS thing would give us an unknown development timetable as we are at their mercy which I don't fancy too much. Hard to head down a path of uncertainty you have little control over.

Something like this might come well down the road as it's certainly the nicest overall solution, but it would take a long time to co-develop with these two companies, if they were willing

The display we're evaluating now is similar to the G5 but larger. It's hard to find a quality, sunlight readable, large temperature range, wide viewing angles, vibration proven MFD at a price and size that fits this market. We won't use cheap displays with questionable support or future availability concerns. I believe this display can be mounted in Portrait mode which would make it around the same width as a G5.
 
Last edited:
Self sticking vinyl overlay

That looks great. How did you go about getting that done? Did you have to lay the graphics out in cad or something and take it to a graphics shop?
I dropped off my controller at a local graphics shop and went to work for the week. When I came back it was done! (That was the easiest part of building:))

There was a minimum order because his printer was 3’ wide, so I had him print a few of them and some other stickers I wanted. You can pick any color under the rainbow. I doubt SDS will ever be able to find a color the entire market agrees upon so I just did my own, besides this way I have extras if they get damaged or fade. It is exterior grade vinyl.
 
Last edited:
With the new display and ECU, do you anticipate having the same controls (ie Mixture knob, ECU selector switch, LOP switch) input? I'm planning my panel and would like to plan ahead.
 
With the new display and ECU, do you anticipate having the same controls (ie Mixture knob, ECU selector switch, LOP switch) input? I'm planning my panel and would like to plan ahead.

Tim,

Like on the new CPI2, we'd try to eliminate all external select switches and the mixture knob, having these functions controlled at the display.
 
We've done a lot more investigation into displays now, trying to listen to the feedback from people to keep it small. We're evaluating displays which will have a mounting footprint of approx. 3.25 inches wide and about 3.5 inch high (rectangular). This is about as small as practical for the functions to be properly usable.
 
Ross,

I suspect your done our about to be done with upgrades on the list....but...

I would like to see an output to trigger a warning light when preset limits are violated.

I.E. out of range volts, our out of range temps, or out of range AFR....

May be even a way to hold one of the existing buttons down for a LONG press to display error details.......or flash an error code momentarily for that particular out of range issue.....

Charlie Rosenzweig
 
Ross,

I suspect your done our about to be done with upgrades on the list....but...

I would like to see an output to trigger a warning light when preset limits are violated.

I.E. out of range volts, our out of range temps, or out of range AFR....

May be even a way to hold one of the existing buttons down for a LONG press to display error details.......or flash an error code momentarily for that particular out of range issue.....

Charlie Rosenzweig

There has been a check engine light output available for many years on the EM-5 which flashes when any out of range condition happens- low voltage, high or low, temps, MAP. There has also been AFR lean warning and auto richen for many years if you have a wideband hooked up to pin 24 and the window enabled.
 
Some basic decisions have been made on CPU and display hardware for the EM-6 after working with an evaluation board version of the CPU for the last couple weeks. This CPU choice will involve learning its ins and outs but will ultimately speed development of other aspects of the ECU and its new features.

We have a reasonably defined development path now to follow on the new design, so can finally start ordering some of the bits mid week to begin work.

Excited to have gotten many of the big decisions out of the way after evaluating the pros and cons of several choices. We didn't choose the easiest path but feel this is the best path to allow future growth of the product.
 
Barry got a new eval board last week for the exact CPU we plan to use which has breakouts for all the pins- really nice. He's been studying the architecture and playing with it a bit when he needs a break from the CPI2.

He's itching to get at this full time as it's new and interesting. I have to keep him on the CPI2 for a bit longer though and get it completed before he gets unleashed to start writing code for the new features using this micro.
 
Display

We're getting a few questions about programmer size to allow for from people planning their panels and using an EM-6 down the road.

While we haven't decided all the details on the display layout yet, we have picked the basic display now. The original size we wanted was simply not available in quantities of under 1000.

All I can say at this point is to plan for a square footprint of 3.5 X 3.5 inches which is about the same size as the present programmer behind the round cutout.

It may be closer to 3 inches tall if we decide not to use any external keys independent of the display but the width should be under or at 3.5.
 
Last edited:
Ross - any update on the form factor for the controller on the EM-6?

We've settled on the TFT display for some time but recently had some discussions about other possible interfaces such as iPad or Android tablets communicating through Bluetooth. Bluetooth has its own issues sometimes though.

Some people prefer a cabled, panel mount solution, others a wireless, more portable one.

The drawback to third party solutions is you're at their mercy if their software updates cause something not to work down the road and the wide variety of software and devices in use. We don't fancy that scenario much from a time and support angle. We are leaning back to our own, cabled design as a result.

There is some other technology we could use in the future to eliminate the panel interface entirely for many people but that hinges on how new fuel availability plays out and the timeline. I see us needing an interim human interface solution before that bigger leap takes place although the tech to do it will already be in the new ECU anyway.

As far as exact size and layout of the panel controller goes, nothing but preliminary layout has been considered at this point. The CPI2 project takes most of our energies at the moment.
 
Back
Top