Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
who's running FADEC?
- Thread starter ship
- Start date
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Call, Write Van's or read back issues of RVator
Van's has written extensively about this and has flown FADEC powered RV?s for sometime and currently has a 180HP RV-8 with FADEC. The articles in the RVator have been very specific about FADEC. The last article written that mentioned Van?s FADEC, RV-8 (Dilbert) and a fly-off against two nice Aero-sport Rotary RV-8's. I happen to have a scanned copy below: (Click to enlarge)
Personally I don't think it is worth it, I mean it is worth something in efficency but not worth the asking price. My opinion with out scientific proof is if you have a FI Lycoming, dual electronic ignition and you are a good pilot when it comes to power and mixture control, you can get similar economy. It depends how you fly. It is like one of those Hybird cars, city great, highway not so much difference. If you fly cross-country mostly you have time to set mixture and optimize power/fuel flow manually with out FADEC.
FADEC is about a $ 5,500 option at Mattituck!
(Actual price difference between a std IO-360 (180HP) with dual EI is about $5,000.) That is a lot of money. If you think you are going to make it back in fuel savings you may have to wait a long time. One thing that is a turn off to me, is FADEC makes your engine electrically dependent (Although, there are FADEC systems with mechanical self-powered reversion, they are even more expensive.) However, with the P-mag we now have a self-powered EI option.
It should be noted that in the attached article two rotary RV's went against two of Van's factory Demo planes. OF Van's factor planes one had the 180HP FADEC Lycoming (Dilbert) and the other was an angled valve IO-360 200HP (Tweety). The 180 HP out performed the 200 HP, with less fuel burn? You would think the 200 hp would go faster and climb faster, but the 200 hp was way off the pace. There was no explanation offered in the article and I never asked Van's aircraft. I suspect the 200HP was "TIRED" from thousands of demo flights and not from the 180's FADEC. The performance of the FADEC was good but nothing out of the ordinary. The 180-hp FADEC was the clear winner in the fuel economy of all the planes, however the rotaries have never been known as fuel-efficient engines. (Rotary fans please don?t write or attack Lycoming engines, making this a Lycoming vs. Auto-Engine debate. Rotaries are thirsty; that is just a fact, but there are many nice things about them. To each his own.)
The above article is interesting, but there is no way to determine how much more efficient the FADEC was over a similarly equipped RV-8 w/ a Std. IO-360 (180-hp) & c/s prop, unless you do try to duplicate the test using FADEC vs. non-FADEC powered (similar) RV's. If you have a RV-8 with an IO-360 (180hp) and c/s prop you could fly the same test independently and record the same date, however doing this would loose the side-by-side feature of Van's test, which is excellent in washing out the "BS" and atmospheric effect. The best thing would be to have someone volunteer to fly their RV-8 against Van's Dilbert. Any volunteers?
These kind of test (FADEC vs. Non-FADEC, EI brand X vs. Y vs. Z) would be another place where CAFE FOUNDATION could do test. I also want to see what difference brand?s of EI have on power and economy. EAA has decided to not fund their efforts or publish their test. Write Caf? Foundation with your support or write EAA with your opinion that this is valuable effort and would like to see it in the EAA magazine. G
Van's has written extensively about this and has flown FADEC powered RV?s for sometime and currently has a 180HP RV-8 with FADEC. The articles in the RVator have been very specific about FADEC. The last article written that mentioned Van?s FADEC, RV-8 (Dilbert) and a fly-off against two nice Aero-sport Rotary RV-8's. I happen to have a scanned copy below: (Click to enlarge)
Personally I don't think it is worth it, I mean it is worth something in efficency but not worth the asking price. My opinion with out scientific proof is if you have a FI Lycoming, dual electronic ignition and you are a good pilot when it comes to power and mixture control, you can get similar economy. It depends how you fly. It is like one of those Hybird cars, city great, highway not so much difference. If you fly cross-country mostly you have time to set mixture and optimize power/fuel flow manually with out FADEC.
FADEC is about a $ 5,500 option at Mattituck!
(Actual price difference between a std IO-360 (180HP) with dual EI is about $5,000.) That is a lot of money. If you think you are going to make it back in fuel savings you may have to wait a long time. One thing that is a turn off to me, is FADEC makes your engine electrically dependent (Although, there are FADEC systems with mechanical self-powered reversion, they are even more expensive.) However, with the P-mag we now have a self-powered EI option. It should be noted that in the attached article two rotary RV's went against two of Van's factory Demo planes. OF Van's factor planes one had the 180HP FADEC Lycoming (Dilbert) and the other was an angled valve IO-360 200HP (Tweety). The 180 HP out performed the 200 HP, with less fuel burn? You would think the 200 hp would go faster and climb faster, but the 200 hp was way off the pace. There was no explanation offered in the article and I never asked Van's aircraft. I suspect the 200HP was "TIRED" from thousands of demo flights and not from the 180's FADEC. The performance of the FADEC was good but nothing out of the ordinary. The 180-hp FADEC was the clear winner in the fuel economy of all the planes, however the rotaries have never been known as fuel-efficient engines. (Rotary fans please don?t write or attack Lycoming engines, making this a Lycoming vs. Auto-Engine debate. Rotaries are thirsty; that is just a fact, but there are many nice things about them. To each his own.)
The above article is interesting, but there is no way to determine how much more efficient the FADEC was over a similarly equipped RV-8 w/ a Std. IO-360 (180-hp) & c/s prop, unless you do try to duplicate the test using FADEC vs. non-FADEC powered (similar) RV's. If you have a RV-8 with an IO-360 (180hp) and c/s prop you could fly the same test independently and record the same date, however doing this would loose the side-by-side feature of Van's test, which is excellent in washing out the "BS" and atmospheric effect. The best thing would be to have someone volunteer to fly their RV-8 against Van's Dilbert. Any volunteers?
These kind of test (FADEC vs. Non-FADEC, EI brand X vs. Y vs. Z) would be another place where CAFE FOUNDATION could do test. I also want to see what difference brand?s of EI have on power and economy. EAA has decided to not fund their efforts or publish their test. Write Caf? Foundation with your support or write EAA with your opinion that this is valuable effort and would like to see it in the EAA magazine. G
Last edited:
mark manda
Well Known Member
Ship,
Service experience with the FADEC system has been remarkably good. There have been a couple of software up dates, along the way, changing maps, but I don't know of any in service difficulties associated to the FADEC system. I have customers with as little as 50 hours on and a few with 6-7 hundred most are somewhere in between. So far no maintenance issues and no problems.
George,
The FADEC does add some cost to the engine but all options do. It also depends on what you compare to. It is an expensive add on but I don?t think you look at it as something that has to pay itself back. What is the free up of engine management time worth? What is the benefit of knowing that you engine is always ? tuned correctly? without you doing anything worth? What is the added financial saving of less maintenance worth? What is the possible longer engine and or cylinder life, because of better engine management during operation worth? What is the benefit of added joy to the flying experience that not having to manage the engine brings worth? To me it not just about how much more power, or fuel economy the system brings it is how much modernization it brings to the engine without having to worry about if you are managing the engine correctly. Granted some want to micro manage their engine and the FADEC will not allow that and for those FADEC isn?t a good option as it does not use any input from the pilot other then throttle position and it allows no pilot control of the engine. On the other hand, for those that don?t want to micro manage and don?t have the skills or knowledge to do that job properly, FADEC is a pretty good choice for efficiency and best engine operation.
As you said looking at it out of the box, it is a 5500.00 add on to our stock TMX IO-360 mag ignition engines. Everything that you add to the engine is going to add cost. That?s just the way it is, we have to buy the parts and install them. They cost us more and they cost you more. The people who make them have to develop them and certify them and make sure they work correctly and are durable and support them. All for a very small consumer base. All that costs money and companies have to pass it on or they won?t be around to offer their products any longer. This situation is the primary reason that you don?t see a lot of innovative development of these engines. It cost a really lot of money to develop and test new products and features, if it?s done properly, and you never know how the market will react to the new product. But you do know, from the onset, that you will have to pass on a lot of developmental costs when you price your product.
Lets look at some other prices through.
IO-360-M1B Lycoming Engine New from Vans = 31,150.00
TMXIOF-360-M1B FADEC equipped engine from us, with all Lycoming parts and roller tappets etc= 32,000.00 and 28,500.00 with regular tappets and cam. Apples to Apples engine parts wise, mags and FI to FADEC accessory wise, and different folks, us or Lycoming building the engine.. 950.00 difference.
IO-360-A1B6 Lycoming new from Vans= 35,400.00
Same engine from us with FADEC and roller tappets= 36,500.00
O-360 A1A Lycoming engine from Vans= 25,250.00
FADEC version of the same engine from us=28,600.00 with roller tappets and 26,800 with regular tappets.
There is a premium, in these cases, but depending on what you compare to it may not be as much as you thought. It all comes down to if the add on is worth it for you..is carb worth more the FI? To some no and others yes. Anyway, FADEC isn?t for everyone but it is a good, proven alternative for many.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts
are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
Service experience with the FADEC system has been remarkably good. There have been a couple of software up dates, along the way, changing maps, but I don't know of any in service difficulties associated to the FADEC system. I have customers with as little as 50 hours on and a few with 6-7 hundred most are somewhere in between. So far no maintenance issues and no problems.
George,
The FADEC does add some cost to the engine but all options do. It also depends on what you compare to. It is an expensive add on but I don?t think you look at it as something that has to pay itself back. What is the free up of engine management time worth? What is the benefit of knowing that you engine is always ? tuned correctly? without you doing anything worth? What is the added financial saving of less maintenance worth? What is the possible longer engine and or cylinder life, because of better engine management during operation worth? What is the benefit of added joy to the flying experience that not having to manage the engine brings worth? To me it not just about how much more power, or fuel economy the system brings it is how much modernization it brings to the engine without having to worry about if you are managing the engine correctly. Granted some want to micro manage their engine and the FADEC will not allow that and for those FADEC isn?t a good option as it does not use any input from the pilot other then throttle position and it allows no pilot control of the engine. On the other hand, for those that don?t want to micro manage and don?t have the skills or knowledge to do that job properly, FADEC is a pretty good choice for efficiency and best engine operation.
As you said looking at it out of the box, it is a 5500.00 add on to our stock TMX IO-360 mag ignition engines. Everything that you add to the engine is going to add cost. That?s just the way it is, we have to buy the parts and install them. They cost us more and they cost you more. The people who make them have to develop them and certify them and make sure they work correctly and are durable and support them. All for a very small consumer base. All that costs money and companies have to pass it on or they won?t be around to offer their products any longer. This situation is the primary reason that you don?t see a lot of innovative development of these engines. It cost a really lot of money to develop and test new products and features, if it?s done properly, and you never know how the market will react to the new product. But you do know, from the onset, that you will have to pass on a lot of developmental costs when you price your product.
Lets look at some other prices through.
IO-360-M1B Lycoming Engine New from Vans = 31,150.00
TMXIOF-360-M1B FADEC equipped engine from us, with all Lycoming parts and roller tappets etc= 32,000.00 and 28,500.00 with regular tappets and cam. Apples to Apples engine parts wise, mags and FI to FADEC accessory wise, and different folks, us or Lycoming building the engine.. 950.00 difference.
IO-360-A1B6 Lycoming new from Vans= 35,400.00
Same engine from us with FADEC and roller tappets= 36,500.00
O-360 A1A Lycoming engine from Vans= 25,250.00
FADEC version of the same engine from us=28,600.00 with roller tappets and 26,800 with regular tappets.
There is a premium, in these cases, but depending on what you compare to it may not be as much as you thought. It all comes down to if the add on is worth it for you..is carb worth more the FI? To some no and others yes. Anyway, FADEC isn?t for everyone but it is a good, proven alternative for many.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts
are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Yes
I agree 100% except I don't find engine management difficult, so for me it would not be worth it. As far as FADEC adding engine life and lower maintenance I don't think that has been proven; although in theory it could. They are just too few and it is new technology. In the end the valve guides, piston, bearings etc will wear. Clearly a ham-handed pilot with little care in engine Ops would benefit. From the link above the equip is top notch but the installation is more involved, another factor besides money that will restrict to popularity. Overall it is fantastic technology for those who can afford it. Gmahlon_r said:
Last edited:
N834ST
Member
One other reason we adopted it was the interface to our Blue Mountain EFIS 1. The EFIS 1 reads the datastream put out by the FADEC and displays the appropriate engine gauges without me having to go through and muck about with a whole array of sensors.
I've heard of engines with FADEC making more power too. Aerosance claim 5% more power for take off in some applications (not necessarily mine.)
When the plane is done, I'd be happy to fly with someone to get a decent comparison, or lend the plane for a CAFE report.
I've heard of engines with FADEC making more power too. Aerosance claim 5% more power for take off in some applications (not necessarily mine.)
When the plane is done, I'd be happy to fly with someone to get a decent comparison, or lend the plane for a CAFE report.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Wooo
Yes, FEDEC makes more power as been proven by the Hartzell flight test of props. It is not only the power it is the stronger, even and steady power pulses, which created the additional prop limits. The prop limits are similar but more restrictive to just putting on EI, which also makes more power, but FADEC is even more steady. The steady, even power is what sets up the prop vibrations which causes this higher prop stresses. Obviously this is a limit of metal props and not the FADEC. If I had FADEC I would use a composite prop, but prefer the metal Hartzell for lower cost and potential lower operating cost (cheaper repair and overhaul). You can use the Hartzell with FADEC with the RPM/MAP limits in mind. G
Yes, you don't need separate sensors. With out FADEC you already have most of the same sensors with engine monitors (EGT, CHT, MAP, FF, RPM). However I have about $1600 EIS-monitor so FADEC is not a real cost saver, but it is a factor. What other engine monitors can use the FADEC output? I know there is one PDA based system. What does a BMA cost?N834ST said:
Yes, FEDEC makes more power as been proven by the Hartzell flight test of props. It is not only the power it is the stronger, even and steady power pulses, which created the additional prop limits. The prop limits are similar but more restrictive to just putting on EI, which also makes more power, but FADEC is even more steady. The steady, even power is what sets up the prop vibrations which causes this higher prop stresses. Obviously this is a limit of metal props and not the FADEC. If I had FADEC I would use a composite prop, but prefer the metal Hartzell for lower cost and potential lower operating cost (cheaper repair and overhaul). You can use the Hartzell with FADEC with the RPM/MAP limits in mind. G
GGGGGGGGGGship said:George, even you would have to agree that the most diligent pilot is "ham-handed" as long as there is a manual mixture control....even with top notch engine monitors it's like performing brain surgery with an ax and a flashlight.
No I don't have to agree.
jet drivers long ago lost the ability to fiddle with "mixture control" in a turbine for good reason (fewer puddles of molten metal, etc.)
I am a jet driver. True fuel controllers on a turbine engine is way too complicated to do manually. Second I can fly my RV with out thinking of engine management, despite the prop, throttle, mixture controls on the panel. I can see 350HP turbo-charge piston twin engine with gear, flaps, cowl flaps, pressurization controls, 8 levers sticking out the center stand, etc... where FADEC would be more of a benefit, but a single engine fixed gear simple plane, not so much.
the last time you could buy a car with manual engine management was in the 1920s. how often does the average person wear out pistons/valve guides/bearings in a modern car? 2000 hours = appx 100,000 miles, i.e. not even close to being worn out. heck, most cars now have 100k service intervals for major items
Apples and oranges, the affect on engine life from better fuel distribution and ignition is only a small part of the picture. You are not changing the mechanicals of the engine. Also aircraft air-cooled engines and car engines are totally different application and design, and for very good reasons.
if FADEC lives up to it's promise, we could see TBO's approaching 3000 or more hours for the venerable Lyclone designs.
It will just not happen. Fuel and ignition will not reduce wear appreciably and you make several other good points below. It is like putting a GPS and DVD player in a 55 Chevy, it is still a 55 Chevy. By the way the 55 Chevy is way cool and does not need the GPS and DVD player.
...the only problem is that it takes most of us 10-20 years to put 2000 hrs on an engine, hence we don't see the immediate benefit beyond slightly better gph.....most folks will never reach TBO thus never return the total investment in FADEC at current prices.
What kills most Lycoming is dis-use not mis-use. Piston engines in freight operations go to TBO easily because they fly every day, and they are used, abused and put away wet.
FADEC is a hard sell at $5500...but not so bad *IF* it prevents cracked cylinders or burned valves along the way to TBO
As long as you operated your Lycoming with in the recommended CHT of less than 400F, have oil temps in the 190-205F range and fly often, you will do wonderful things for your engine. As far as leaning if you lean aggressively on the ground (taxi) and do a short leaned-out run-ups before shut down, after the flight, you will do great things for your engine and plugs. Leaning in flight is not hard, but to screw up in my opinion is hard to do, with the warning about leaning below 75% power and maintaining the CHT and oil temp in mind. If you never fly, overheat, don?t change oil, taxi full rich, lean above 75% power and run near peak EGT you will have problems. FADEC can?t solve all this for you. No doubt it will do a little better job and save some work load but is it worth it. Depends. I like the control my engine. What else do I have to do. Also at 150 hours a year avg on my RV is not much. If it was for a plane used in commecial ops, flown daily, it may be worth it.
at $3000 things would be MUCH more interesting ...but aerosance doesn't seem to grasp this reality yet
Last edited:
N834ST
Member
One other benefit I can throw in...
The FADEC system delivers fuel to each cylinder in independant amounts based on each cylinder's egt's, etc, since it runs true sequential fuel injection. This means that all the cylinders will be running at their optimum, and not just one out of four or six as the case may be.
When you adjust mixture manually, you are forced to work to the worst case cylinder. All the others will be running wherever they want to run.
I've got a nice MT 3 blade on it's way to me sometime soon. Should get here some time late October.
The FADEC system delivers fuel to each cylinder in independant amounts based on each cylinder's egt's, etc, since it runs true sequential fuel injection. This means that all the cylinders will be running at their optimum, and not just one out of four or six as the case may be.
When you adjust mixture manually, you are forced to work to the worst case cylinder. All the others will be running wherever they want to run.
I've got a nice MT 3 blade on it's way to me sometime soon. Should get here some time late October.
ship
Well Known Member
george, you made my point ....weekend ham-driver engine w/hanger rot would benefit from FADEC in every way except cost/benefit.....RV flown like a freight dog would benefit in every way including cost/benefit
i agree with you on the relative benefit in cars vs light single aircraft....given steady-state operation in aircraft, manual engine management is practical if practiced properly.
cost is the only issue i can see keeping FADEC out of the Lyclone game.....which i readily admit is the prime factor for most of us...but i'm more interested in the relative merits of FADEC for this discussion.
beg to differ...better fuel distribution & ignition (and better oil) is THE picture in improved engine life for cars....as you stated it's all about managing cylinder temp & pressure....prior to modern ECU's (mid80's/early 1990's), liquid cooled car engines had virtually same life expectancy as a Lyco...for same use/disuse reasons you illustrated. There's nothing new in blocks, cranks, pistons or radiators to account for the current longevity/reliability of even the dinkiest engine from any major car mfr. Take the top end off a Honda engine and it's the same gig as 60 years ago albeit better tolerances and materials. ...even so, they would still burn valves or detonate to death without ECU;s and EFI. Liquid cooling is far less of a factor...car/aircraft engines are otherwise identical in principle technology....car engines are merely more refined......as you said, a piston freight dog will run "forever".... 100,000 miles out of a 1955/65/75/85 Chevy is TBO
cars change oil at 50 - 100 hours, too (appx 3000 - 7500 miles)
technically there's no reason why 3000 TBO is out of reach with FADEC....even though i agree 100% it's moot for 95% of GA from a practical standpoint
....weekend ham-driver engine w/hanger rot would benefit from FADEC in every way except cost/benefit.....RV flown like a freight dog would benefit in every way including cost/benefiti agree with you on the relative benefit in cars vs light single aircraft....given steady-state operation in aircraft, manual engine management is practical if practiced properly.
cost is the only issue i can see keeping FADEC out of the Lyclone game.....which i readily admit is the prime factor for most of us...but i'm more interested in the relative merits of FADEC for this discussion.
beg to differ...better fuel distribution & ignition (and better oil) is THE picture in improved engine life for cars....as you stated it's all about managing cylinder temp & pressure....prior to modern ECU's (mid80's/early 1990's), liquid cooled car engines had virtually same life expectancy as a Lyco...for same use/disuse reasons you illustrated. There's nothing new in blocks, cranks, pistons or radiators to account for the current longevity/reliability of even the dinkiest engine from any major car mfr. Take the top end off a Honda engine and it's the same gig as 60 years ago albeit better tolerances and materials. ...even so, they would still burn valves or detonate to death without ECU;s and EFI. Liquid cooling is far less of a factor...car/aircraft engines are otherwise identical in principle technology....car engines are merely more refined......as you said, a piston freight dog will run "forever".... 100,000 miles out of a 1955/65/75/85 Chevy is TBO
cars change oil at 50 - 100 hours, too (appx 3000 - 7500 miles)
technically there's no reason why 3000 TBO is out of reach with FADEC....even though i agree 100% it's moot for 95% of GA from a practical standpoint
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
mixed analogies
Liquid cooling is far less of a factor...car/aircraft engines are otherwise identical in principle technology....car engines are merely more refined......as you said, a piston freight dog will run "forever".... 100,000 miles out of a 1955/65/75/85 Chevy is TBO
cars change oil at 50 - 100 hours, too (appx 3000 - 7500 miles)
technically there's no reason why 3000 TBO is out of reach with FADEC....even though I agree 100% it's moot for 95% of GA from a practical standpoint[/QUOTE]You make so many points and some are not related or mixed analogies. Cars fell apart because the suspension, body, transmissions fell apart as much or more than the engines. Yes materials and tolerances where not as good. Improvements in oil, water-cooling are HUGE factors in engine life. Cooling in the valves and valve guides is the biggest challenge in a Lycoming, water cooling would eliminate. They have after market water cooled cylinders/heads for Lycomings called ?Cool Jugs?. Now you have to deal with radiators and pumps and hoses.
Old cars ran forever, but the dark years of the 80's was in part the car just fell apart and not really a case for better fuel distribution and timing. Most of the benefit for cars was gas mileage not life. Why do my Acuras go 220,000 miles and still feel tight. Yes design, materials are all factors. The fact is a Lycoming is still a lycoming and I just don't see 3000 hours happening. In fact with blow by (from air-cooled engine tolerance) you get oil contamination and sludge build up, so even if an engine is still running well at 2,200-2,500 hours I would consider taking it apart. I guess we can agree to disagree. I still think FADEC is nice, cool technology for those who want it and can afford it. I do see the advantage in saving engine damage from pilot error, but I don't think the bottom end of a Lycoming and cam is good for 3,000 hours. However the new roller cam may go the distance? G
Liquid cooling is far less of a factor...car/aircraft engines are otherwise identical in principle technology....car engines are merely more refined......as you said, a piston freight dog will run "forever".... 100,000 miles out of a 1955/65/75/85 Chevy is TBO
cars change oil at 50 - 100 hours, too (appx 3000 - 7500 miles)
technically there's no reason why 3000 TBO is out of reach with FADEC....even though I agree 100% it's moot for 95% of GA from a practical standpoint[/QUOTE]You make so many points and some are not related or mixed analogies. Cars fell apart because the suspension, body, transmissions fell apart as much or more than the engines. Yes materials and tolerances where not as good. Improvements in oil, water-cooling are HUGE factors in engine life. Cooling in the valves and valve guides is the biggest challenge in a Lycoming, water cooling would eliminate. They have after market water cooled cylinders/heads for Lycomings called ?Cool Jugs?. Now you have to deal with radiators and pumps and hoses.
Old cars ran forever, but the dark years of the 80's was in part the car just fell apart and not really a case for better fuel distribution and timing. Most of the benefit for cars was gas mileage not life. Why do my Acuras go 220,000 miles and still feel tight. Yes design, materials are all factors. The fact is a Lycoming is still a lycoming and I just don't see 3000 hours happening. In fact with blow by (from air-cooled engine tolerance) you get oil contamination and sludge build up, so even if an engine is still running well at 2,200-2,500 hours I would consider taking it apart. I guess we can agree to disagree. I still think FADEC is nice, cool technology for those who want it and can afford it. I do see the advantage in saving engine damage from pilot error, but I don't think the bottom end of a Lycoming and cam is good for 3,000 hours. However the new roller cam may go the distance? G
