FADEC

[LooseNut]

How about FADEC? Any of you guys using, or planning on using it?

I just received the 2nd edition 2005 copy of "The RVator". It has a nice article about a couple of Powersport Rotary engine powered -8s. The article compares these two rotary -8s with Van's two -8s. The rotary engine is really cool and has lots of nice attributes.

But, what really caught my eye was the way that the 180hp FADEC IOF-360 performed! It out ran the 200hp IO-360-A1B6 in every way, faster in level flight, faster to climb, and used less fuel! The IOF-360 ran almost as fast as the rotaries, almost climed as fast, and burned quite a bit less fuel.

Check out the article, it has lots more details.



So, what about this FADEC thing? Whats good? Whats bad?

Cost: looking at Mattituck prices, it seems to add about $4800 over an injected model. http://www.mattituck.com

Electric: it seems Aerosance says you need two batteries; one to crank the engine, one to run the FADEC computer. http://www.fadec.com

Weight: ?

Power: the RVator article seems to show improved power. Or, is it the prop? The IOF-360 has the Hartzell blended and the IO-360 had the Hartzell standard. Could that be the real difference?

Fuel Economy: again the RVator article seems to show better fuel economy. That could mean carry less fuel for a ligher plane, better performance or more useful load. Or, carry all the fuel and get better range or reserves.

Ease of Operation: No mixture, or carb heat. Still has the prop control ... or does it? I thought I read something that maybe FADEC would also control the prop?


So why did you choose to use FADEC?
Or, why did you choose to not use FADEC?

[captain_john]

Well, when it comes to cutting items off the "to do list" and actually designing a plane that I want to fly... FADEC isn't currently on the list.

I have a lengthly list of avionics and don't want a FADEC system cluttering up things right now. This may change after I get flying, but I have a hunch that when I am flying... I will be flying!

Right now, a WORKING engine would be fine with me!

Mebbe if I win the lottery!?!

CJ

[Mahlon]

Electric:
You need some sort of back up electrical supply for the FADEC in the event of aircraft power system failure. The FADEC uses normal aircraft power unless that fails. The system can be configured with a FADEC supplied back up battery that is just used by the FADEC in the event of a ships power loss or the system can use a second customer engineered emergency bus for emergency power.

Weight: adds about 6 lbs over a fuel injected engine with mags.

Power: Fuel Economy: The FADEC will advance the timing and lean the engine automatically maximizing power and fuel economy over a standard manually leaned magneto driven engine. The prop may have helped but the engine will definitely make more power and burn less at the same power setting.

Ease of Operation: There is no mixture control but there is a prop control. There are no engine control duties complicating the pilots work load. It is like the Ronco oven on TV "set it and forget it". Dial in a power setting and just fly, the FADEC takes care of the rest of the engine management.
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."

[TT]

Why not half of FADEC? My Arrow which provided funds to buy my RV10, had LASAR. It had it all performance and economy. A FADEC system would have been nicer, but managing ignition timing is a good step without the cost, plus, it has it's own back up built in. The RV10 will have it as well.

[LooseNut]

TT, that's a good point about the LASAR.

Makes me think, is this FADEC a single ignition system (one spark plug per cylinder)? It looks that way to me. It does seem to have some redundancy in the design ... a coil for each cylinder, a processor for each cylinder. So, if something breaks, how well does a three-cylinder engine run? Will it get me home (to a nearby airport)?

Cost has got to be the biggest issue. So, how can I offset some of the cost?

Does it make sense to use a fixed pitch prop with the fancy engine? If I get a cruse prop then I’m giving up climb performance. But, I think it will still climb pretty well. If choosing between a CS prop and FADEC, which one would be better? I know there are a lot more planes with mags, mixture control, and CS than there are planes with FADEC and FP.

How about engine instrumentation? The FADEC includes a bunch of the sensors (CHT, EGT, manifold pressure, fuel pressure) and connects right up to some of the new engine displays. So if you are already planning on using one of the new electronic engine displays, then the cost of probes and sensors is offset. It’s probably not a huge amount.

It will be a while until I’m ready to buy an engine, and the FADEC seems to be outside of the budget, but still, I’m intrigued.

[Dan A]

If I had to choose between the FADEC and a CS prop I would take the prop. Also add a LASER IGN. That's what I did. You can do a fair job of tuning the engine to run efficiently by tweeking the knobs and watching the meters.
Good luck!!
Dan

[TT]

I just recently sold my Arrow to pay for my RV10, which BTW, I have fianlly received the entire QB kit.
The Arrow was a 68 180 hp. LASAR made an improvement in performance as well as economy. Cruise speed was typically, it's published top speed. Fuel consumption normal 10gph, with LASAR 8 to 9, climb noemal 850FPN, after 1000 to 1200. With condition prevailing, fuel consumption in the 7s with cruise near max speed. Spark plugs when sold 800+, and since a friend bought it, he's passed 900, and still no signs of football shaped electrodes. I've asked Ken to keep me posted. It is leaned using EGT rather that all that gobledeegook flow methods, LOP. etc. Leaning is performed by having derived stoichiometric numbers (peak) and slightly (25 to 50) ROP, regardless of altitudes. Fuel is increased to 75 to 100 ROP during climbs.
LASAR has paid for itself several times over, and keeps on going.
Not long before selling it, I experimented using mogas (93 oct). The results were predictable, fuel consumption dropped even more, but even more alarming was that the engine ran even smoother. It was already balanced. Mogas made it even smoother. Switching back to AV gas, fuel had to be added for cooling, and smoothness back to normal.
The system added 1 1/2# of weight.
Unison already had the second phase making it a full FADEC, but cost for approval, and the low number of units needed, did not justify further development.
Unlike other systems, it has redundency, it has a proven track record, and a lot of research. It fits in the same location as the old mags, and it's timing map specifically for Lycomings.
With the time I have with LASAR I could write even more about it's advantages, but the cost savings, and performance are the most outstanding. I also did find that the so called shock cooling is not even an issue with LASAR. Timing change maintains operating temperatures near normal levels.

[Mark]

We'll be using FADEC on our 7. See my web site, www.4sierratango.com for details.

Mark.

[captain_john]

Cool website, Mark!

Good choice with the Mattituck decision, too!

Check in here frequently!

CJ

[N834ST]

Thanks CJ. I usually get to the hangar on Sunday's and update in the evening.

I finally registered with this messageboard too.