|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|
|
View Poll Results: Hypothetically if you were selecting your engine right now, would you consider FADEC?
|
|
Never! I learned to fly with mags and a carb or mechanical FI, and I'll never trust anything else.
|
 
|
9 |
4.50% |
|
Nah... I've warmed up to electronic ignition, but electronic FI still gives me the heebee-jeebies.
|
 
|
18 |
9.00% |
|
Maybe some day. Sounds good, but I'd want to see more of them flying before I'd take the plunge.
|
 
|
40 |
20.00% |
|
Maybe if the price is right. Sounds good, but it needs to come down in initial cost.
|
 
|
83 |
41.50% |
|
Heck yeah, give me! I love the benefits, and I'm willing to pay for it. Cheaper in the long run.
|
 
|
46 |
23.00% |
|
Other. What did I miss?
|
 
|
4 |
2.00% |

01-12-2009, 01:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 770
|
|
Would you consider FADEC?
For many years now, the majority of modern automobile engines have had computer-controlled ignition and fuel injection. The benefits are many: easier starts, smoother running, better performance, better fuel efficiency, better reliability, and built-in self-monitoring and diagnostics. In the aerospace world, this same technology is known as FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control), and offers all the same benefits as it does in a car, plus it reduces pilot workload by eliminating that ugly red mixture knob. The drawbacks are few. Mainly, FADEC does make the engine electrically-dependent, so electrical system redundancy is required. But electrical system redundancy is becoming commonplace anyhow as glass cockpit technology becomes pervasive, so these technologies go together nicely. Also, FADEC is still more expensive than traditional ignition and fuel injection to install, but the initial cost is offset by reduced operating costs: fuel and maintenance.
There have been FADEC products for Lycoming-style engines available to us for some time, but it seems that only a few of us have adopted the technology in our RV's. I have been planning on installing a FADEC in my RV-7A, but sadly, one of the most promising FADEC systems that I've been interested in is as of recently no longer being offered to us by the manufacturer, reportedly due to lack of demand. I would think that we RV builders should be a big potential market for this technology, and yet so far we haven't embraced it. I'm very curious to know exactly why, so I present the following poll to the group:
Hypothetically, if you were selecting your engine right now and weighing your options, would you consider FADEC?
1. Never! I learned to fly with magnetos and a carburetor or mechanical fuel injection, and I'll never trust anything else.
2. Probably not. I've warmed up to the idea of electronic ignition, but electronic fuel injection in an airplane still gives me the heebee-jeebies.
3. Maybe some day. I could appreciate the benefits, but I'd want to see more of them flying before I'd take the plunge myself.
4. Maybe if the price is right. I could appreciate the benefits, but it needs to come down in initial cost for me to consider it.
5. Heck yeah, give me! I definitely appreciate the benefits, and I'm willing to pay a premium for it. I know it'll save me money in the long run.
6. Other. What did I miss?
|

01-12-2009, 02:00 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delft, the Netherlands
Posts: 216
|
|
Happy flying it
We now have about 110 flying hours behind a Fadec under all kind of conditions, quite hot temps and, like today, -10 deg C. In all this conditions we never had problems starting the engine, always good temps and virtually no oil consumption after break-in. Our engine is praised by very experienced mechanics for its smooth running. Fuel consumption is modest (33L/hr), power is more than plenty. Personally I'm very happy with the detailed datastream from the RS232 serial bus controller which is fed nicely into our VM1000C. After our initial Theething Problems we've had no trouble at all. All in all I think it was a good choice but to be honest maybe I would have enjoyed a more conventional engine as well.
We had some issues setting up the system, mainly because of the lack of a GOOD manual, but so far Mahlon Russell and Jabe Lutrell were very helpful and advised us very good. Now TCM has stopped producing for the experimental market, I hope there will remain people or companies available should we have serious problems.
Last edited by Rene Bubberman : 01-12-2009 at 02:21 PM.
|

01-12-2009, 02:07 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Roee,
Good poll.
There are a lot of people who won't run with electronic ignition, let alone FADEC. Heck, just look at the problems ALL the EI makers have had and they don't even need to certify them for our market. Can you imagine the challenges a FADEC designer would face?
If someone came out with a FADEC that would work, including a knock sensor, which I understand is the biggest hurdle due to the size of the power pulse on our slow turning, big boor engines, I would be all over it. Porsche tried this in the Mooney back in the 80's and gave up. I wonder what happened to those planes. Here?s a link.
Maybe someday we will see it.
One of the advantages of FADEC in a car is the rapid change in operating environments a car experiences. Where a plane takes off, climbs, sets power and cruises, descends, and lands. A car will change power settings many times and may climb up and down in altitude, the electronics are perfect for this. I think that is why you haven't seen a real push for aviation FADEC in anything other than helicopters.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

01-12-2009, 02:13 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 204
|
|
Personally I love electronics on my car. Used to work on fuel injection systems, Bosch, GM, Ford etc. I guess for me it comes down to nostalgia and bang for the buck. The airplane I am flying now is a Baron. I like those six levers. FADEC's cost a lot with out a lot of extra performance. I guess I would like to spend my money some place else, like a paint job or a new Garmin. I heard of a FADEC airplane that had a dead battery. The pilot got a jump start and went flying. Everything was fine until he went to put the gear up. The voltage dropped to the point that the FADEC quit and the engine died.
__________________
RV6 built and flying
Bearhawk Patrol plans purchased
Last edited by AMURRAY : 01-12-2009 at 02:21 PM.
|

01-12-2009, 02:29 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 454
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene Bubberman
Fuel consumption is modest (33L/hr), power is more than plenty.
|
33 liter = 8.717 677 727 8 gallon [US, liquid] For those that were wondering. 
__________________
George Goff RV-6A (Flying 3/7/2006 )(Houston, TX)
|

01-12-2009, 02:32 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,904
|
|
Several issues
Including the inability to manually adjust the mixture. Running lean is extremely important for fuel economy and overall efficiency.
For me the major issue would be hot starting. Lets see how it would work in 115F or 45C. I don't think it could handle it.
I love new stuff but there is really no significant advantages. The disadvantages begin with cost and complexity.
Just some thoughts.
__________________
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
www.JDair.com
RV-7 N717EE-Flying (Sold)
RV-7 N717AZ Flying, in paint
EMS Bell 407,
Eurocopter 350 A-Star Driver
|

01-12-2009, 03:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
I saw a FADEC system on a 7A. Thoughts were that it was too much weight and complexity. Problems during the flying test phase may have been partly due to the FADEC or fuel injection system. The plane later had a engine performance problem, landed off airport and was totaled. Most people here initially assumed that the FADEC was the source of the problem. Not for me.
|

01-12-2009, 04:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 97
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene Bubberman
Now TCM has stopped producing for the experimental market, I hope there will remain people or companies available should we have serious problems.
|
That might explains why the http://www.fadec.com website is gone from DNS. What's up with that decision? it seems like a bad time to be reducing market coverage, although their (ex) competition must be thrilled. Any reasons you know of?
|

01-12-2009, 04:38 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Posts: 3,547
|
|
What
are its failure modes?
What happens if an injector goes down?....Are they automotive injectors with a long history and have they been fully tested?
To me Fadec is a bit like an automatic gearbox on a car...I.e are you a driver or a passenger hoping for the best?
Personally I like playing mixture control like a tromone much to the amazement of my spam can rental flying passengers..
Frank
|

01-12-2009, 04:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 427
|
|
My professional expertise is in electronic engine control and I have worked developing many systems over the last 15 or so years. In fact I spent '06-'07 in India designing and developing (and demonstrating how to) a clean sheet engine controller for a large motorcycle manufacturer there.
I have often looked at the FADEC challenge and I'd love to give it a go one day, but the chief thing that makes me hesitate is economics... The volumes may or may not be there to amortise the development costs and that uncertainty is what tends to kill it, IMO.
It's comforting to see that a majority will consider it at the right price, but by no means is it a marketing certainty. Look at the dismal penetration of the (albeit a bit ordinary!) Aerosance products for an example of what could happen.
As far as operation, safety and reliablity, unquestionably it could be made to better than six-sigma reliability and "perfect" cold starting, altitude operation and optimum fuel consumption are a given. (BTW, LOP operations become meaningless as soon as you fiddle with the igniton angle - there is no need for a mixture knob - really!  )
The most difficult stumbling block is sourcing hardware on a commercial basis - fuel injectors, sensors and actuators that please both the FAA and the suppliers. Most automotive OEM's are dead scared of the product liability implications for the dismally low volumes of the piston engine market, so you have to find devious ways of sourcing stuff - which the FAA are not going to like!
One day it will happen, but a lot of things will have changed by then...
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:18 AM.
|