Does anyone have a FADEC engine?

This may belong on one of the engine threads, but does anyone have a FADEC controlled engine? I've read a little about some of the systems out there (like aerosance's kit) but the only production airplane that I know that has them "out of the box" is the DA 42 TwinStar. After learning to fly in a 172 I have sworn that I will minimize the amount of work I have to do as a pilot and have less knobs if I can, I think a FADEC engine could be the answer to my prayers (if I have the $$$)

PS, I don't want this to turn into a "real men fly airplanes with all the knobs, buttons, levers, steam gauges and other things you can imagine" debate. As an engineer, I find beauty in simplicity and replacing 3 knobs with 1 would be wonderful.

Any thoughts?

AeroSance FADEC

Hi,

Simple answer:
Yes there are RVs flying with AeroSance FADEC ignition / fuel metering, No it doesn't remove the pitch / RPM control - just the red mixture knob is gone.

Slightly longer:
Yes there are a number of RVs flying and more being built with the FADEC system, Mattituck have been invovled with AeroSance for a while and actively involved with the testing / trials. Ken Barto (6A), David Schaefer (6A), Mark Taylor (7) are some of the better known 'identities' with FADEC RVs and Aart / Rene (7), Myself (7A) and others are well into the final stages.

The primary challenge as far as my experience goes has been the firewall layout and planning, with the prop gov, dual batteries and two ECUs (the main firewall forward ignition 'blocks') everything gets pretty tight for space.

After going down the road - my current feelings are it is 'the right engineering solution' for a compromise between 'traditional' lycoming engine and a new auto-conversion - best of both worlds and it will get progresively more economic as the price of AvGas continues to rise (particually for non USA flyers). Of course the proof will only come once I'm flying!

There is a specific Yahoo group (AeroSance_FADEC) if you are interested, it is low volume and has more people / aircraft (including non-RVs).

Just a few thoughts,

Carl

We have provided FADECs for several Lycoming, Continental and Franklin engines plus hundreds of automotive conversions over the last 10 years. Once properly programmed, the system does make engine management easier on the pilot.

Twin batteries and/or twin alternators are recommended.

More on FADEC

Thanks for the responses.

Do any of the after market FADEC systems have rpm control too?

Also, how is the state of some of the certified Lycontinental engines that I've heard have been in development for years and are still probably years away from seeing the light of day?

Why not hire a pilot to fly for you?

Blastr42 said:

Thanks for the responses.

Do any of the after market FADEC systems have rpm control too?

Also, how is the state of some of the certified Lycontinental engines that I've heard have been in development for years and are still probably years away from seeing the light of day?

Click to expand...

No, I called and asked.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LANCAIR'S THAT DON'T HAVE A PROP CONTROL?

Well they have a mechanical linkage with the throttle. Basically with full throttle you have full rpm. As you pull the throttle back the RPM goes back with some pre programed cam. You could do that without a FADEC if you want. It basically just limits your RPM control with either FULL or NOT FULL.

AeroSance did try it. They had a servo controlled prop governor. They found it was not worth it.

I don't mean to bust your chops but WHY? Is it really too much to have a BLUE KNOB? I mean automatic trans cars are great so you can drive, drink you coffee and talk on the cel phone (I am kidding I hate that), but in a plane how much work is the PROP.


So you touch it three or four times in one flight. Total time to adjust, 15-20 seconds of the flight? Usually you do it by ear, second nature by feel with out thinking of it, if you did not know. Its like shifting a car, you don't really think about it or stare at the shift stick and clutch pedal. But unlike a car you only go "though the gears" once on a flight.

I am not trying to talk down to you. You may be a 20,000 ATP with all kinds of complex piston experience, but for others reading, with about 3-5 hours of training and after about 20 hours of experience you will be very comfortable with the blue knob. It was a mystery to me before I learned, and I had to think about it. Now its second nature.

People tend to make things complicated in their head. Constant Speed props are very easy to use if you just know your basics. Of course if you are in crusie and you want to go BACK to climb and than cruise again, you might want or need to adjust the blue knob twice, but frankly you can just leave it in one spot and fly it like a fixed pitch prop plane. I'm not recommending that; it's like driving your car in 2nd gear all day.

However the point is the elimination of the blue knob is not really a big deal. SAME WITH THE MIXTURE. You touch it about 2 or 3 times in a flight.

I just DON'T get it. I know the idea of having a single knob like a jet is cool, but its kind of mystery to me on a personal piston light plane. For a large complex pressurized piston twin with BIG ENGINES, that are earning a living as a charter, corporate or freight plane, yep FADEC and auto-prop-rpm-mixture could be worth while. It's just my opinion that its really not value added for a RV, specially when cost, weight and complexity of installation are factored in.

FADEC gives more savings on a LARGE 6 cylinder than a little 4 banger; its a bit like a gold plated toilet seat, nice but does not help the main mission that much, verses cost. A plane flying 100 hours a year is not a good candidate for a FADEC.


THERE ARE CERTIFIED FADEC'S AND THERE IS A LIST OF THEM ON AeroSance's wen site.

PS: Vans Aircraft FLYS a FADEC in one or two of their factory RV demonstrator / prototypes. An article was written in the RVator a few years ago about their FADEC. That would be more info for you. Call Van on Monday and ask them, they will tell you their opinion.

Fixed pitch

Why not go with a fixed pitch prop? No more "work" than on the 172, but it will fly a lot better. Craig Catto makes props that would make most reasonable people question the need for a constant-speed prop on a plane with the power to weight ratio like the Vans. Also, easier on the budget you mentioned.

Blastr42 said:

Thanks for the responses.

Do any of the after market FADEC systems have rpm control too?

Also, how is the state of some of the certified Lycontinental engines that I've heard have been in development for years and are still probably years away from seeing the light of day?

Click to expand...

Interesting that the FW190 had linked throttle, mixture, supercharger and prop control with mechanical systems and 60 years later we don't see widespread use of this even with FADECs! Of course, nobody is shooting at you in an RV.

Prop control not a big deal since the governor keeps this at whatever rpm you select.

Count the gallons, not the knobs!

My primary reason for using Fadec is NOT a lower knob-count BUT better motor management, smoother run, less wear, a little bit more power per gallon and a slightly less fuel burn.
Besides that, installing Fadec is slightly more complicated (see: http://websites.expercraft.com/PHVII/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=7844 and beyond) but gives the advantage of providing you with a serial enginedata signal which can be fed directly in most engine monitors and Efisses.
Not yet flying so I'm still curious if everything works out as advertised but the first impressions look promising.

failure modes......

From AVweb (electronic newspaper) 4/26/07

"Both engines of a DA42 Twinstar quit shortly after takeoff in Germany last month, and now Diamond is saying it was caused by an engine problem while Thielert says it was an airframe issue, Flight International reported this week. The accident airplane's battery had drained overnight and the pilots had apparently started both engines using an external power unit, which is contrary to the published operating procedure that requires one engine to be started by the onboard battery alone. Both Thielert Centurion 1.7 engines stopped when the pilot retracted the gear, which took all available electrical power to accomplish. This caused a very brief interruption in electrical voltage to the two engine control units, and in turn the diesel engines simultaneously quit on climbout. The crew made a belly landing in a field adjacent to the airport. The European Aviation Safety Agency has ordered the companies to work it out and come up with a solution to prevent the problem from occurring again."

Call me old-fashioned.

I saw one FADEC system (maybe aerosonce...maybe not) in a 7A here. Looked like too much weight, cost, complexity to manage an engine. The owner had issues during the test flight period which may have been resolved but his aircraft was recently destroyed (or significantly damaged) when the engine lost power in flight. Was it the FADEC? No idea.

Personally if I had extra money to throw at something I would get a really big screen EFIS. A Constant speed prop and one electronic ignition will serve you well to minimize fuel consumption. Plus knowing how to lean the mixture.

If you gave me a FADEC system I would not install it.

Hummmm that's why its bad to Jump Start

L.Adamson said:

From AVweb (electronic newspaper) 4/26/07

"Both engines of a DA42 Twinstar quit shortly after takeoff in Germany last month, ........................The accident airplane's battery had drained overnight and the pilots had apparently started both engines using an external power unit, which is contrary to the published operating procedure that requires one engine to be started by the on board battery alone.

Click to expand...

This is why JUMPING a plane is bad bad bad. I always say if your battery is dead, take the hour or two and charge it. People debate about putting big jump plug receptacles in so they can jump a dead plane. I am all for a cigar lighter jack to charge the battery with the cowl on, but not JUMP START.

Also some think Jump starting is the reason for early death of alternator or battery or both. Even some alternator manufacturer recommendations warn that jump starting a dead battery can kill the alternator.

A FADEC will reduce fuel burn in the taxi, runup and climb phases somewhat but does little or no better than a savvy pilot using the red knob in cruise. The certified systems are heavy, complicated and expensive and some have had serious issues with hot starting because of injector placement in the heads. For most people operating Lycoming and Continental engines, certified FADECs don't make a lot of sense IMO.

The Diamond incident was caused by stupid pilots and perhaps poor system design. If they don't have redundant batteries or the computers will not operate down below 7 volts, they should.

rv6ejguy said:

A FADEC will reduce fuel burn in the taxi, runup and climb phases somewhat but does little or no better than a savvy pilot using the red knob in cruise. The certified systems are heavy ....

Click to expand...

To do a proper comparison one needs to compare the salient factors - so what's the weight and cost penalty for a "savvy pilot?"

(Ducks and runs....)

FADEC-equipped aircraft loss of power

I do not know if the FADEC was a factor since I have not chatted with the pilot but no doubt it is a possible culprit..along with other possibilities. Perhaps the examination will provide a likely cause.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070423X00448&key=1

My comment about stupid pilots was simply about their disregard for specific warnings in the POH perhaps through ignorance or maybe they thought they knew better. Manufacturers don't put warnings like this in their manuals usually unless there are good reasons. While the reason may not be obvious, following the book rarely lands you in trouble like this.

Probably something to be learned here about many electronic devices- they often don't work when voltage falls below 9 volts or so.

I think costs for the certified FADECs starts at close to 6K plus installation and weight penalties I've seen quoted range from 10-15 lbs. If these don't deter you, you can enjoy the benefits they offer. For non certified stuff, prices start at about $2500 DIY and you have to program them.

F-T-T

Farm Tractor Technology

There's something to be said for magnetos and carburetors (or mechanical fuel injection) which is based on 100 year old technology.

When you have an EDE (Electrically Dependant Engine), you better make sure you have plenty of those little electron thingies and volt'ers.

7 volts, 9 volt, does not matter. If you are down there you are in trouble.

I know many RV's with EDE's with pretty clever electrical systems that would have avoided this low battery related accident. May be some RV'ers should go work for the airplane companies.

The difference between a FADEC which will operate down to 6.5 volts instead of 9.5 is huge in an emergency electrical situation. There is a good chance that this Diamond incident wouldn't have been one in fact if it could function down there. Can't think of anything more important than to keep the prop turning for a couple of extra minutes- unless you are over Lake Superior.

I see the base PowerLink system starts at over $7K for a 4 banger plus options and installation. Just not gonna see too many spring for this on an RV.

Fuel for the FADEC Fire!

Ah ha! Time for me to chime in here!

I've been flying my RV-7 with FADEC now for 85 hours, and I'm delighted with it. I got mine for the same reasons as Rene, easy engine instrumentation, better engine management as each cylinder's fuel is metered individually according to that cylinder's parameters in real time, timing that is automatically adjusted based on pilots demands and engine performance requirements, smoother running, longer engine life and lower fuel burn. My TBO is 2000 hours, and there are claims of FADEC engines going well beyond that, although I'm not priveledged to any proof of that.

For those that reckon a savvy pilot can equal a FADEC system, without affecting engine life, I offer you this:- On our trip to Sun N Fun with Mike, he in his RV-4 O-320 and me in the 7 both at 10500ft cruising side by side at about 160kts TAS. Mike's burning 9.8 GPH. I'm on 6.8GPH 58% power, despite being a bigger plane with a bigger engine. I will confess to me having a CS prop too so that will sway the numbers a bit, but that's 30% less fuel in this instance. Aerosance say up to 25% in their docs, so maybe the CS prop vs FP prop is the rest of the difference?

Now, I know that it will be many hours until my FADEC system will pay for itself in fuel savings alone. That's not really what I bought it for, although it is a nice thought. Having more hours to TBO is a nice bonus too, if I even own the plane then! If I do 200 hours a year (which this year, I'm on track for at the rate I'm going), it's still going to be 10 years!

Can anyone out there throw out some fuel burn numbers with some reasonable cruise speeds? It would be nice to see what we all have out there.

There we go... A little fuel for the fire! Pardon the pun.

Some of our customers with O-200s have reported fuel flow reductions as high as 25% also at the same TAS over the horrible OE carb/manifold setup. On Lycomings about 10-15% so far but we only have a half dozen of those flying with SDS.

I agree with your statement that for the whole mission from cranking to shut down, no pilot with manual mixture control and fixed mag timing can match what a properly tuned FADEC can do for fuel burn.

Once you've flown a FADEC engine, I think most would see the light- except for the cost part.

Thanks for posting your real world numbers.

I hope that the fuel-flow numbers are coming from well-calibrated systems. 9.8 gph from an O-320 at 10,500', probably at least 11,500' dalt in April, is way too high! Typical 75% power FF at 0.42 SFC is about is 8.5 gph. If he was at the rated 2700 rpm and getting full dynamic recovery at 160 kt TAS in his induction system, he would have had about 74% power. If he was at less than 2700 rpm, the FF would have decreased proportionately.

elippse said:

I hope that the fuel-flow numbers are coming from well-calibrated systems. 9.8 gph from an O-320 at 10,500', probably at least 11,500' dalt in April, is way too high! Typical 75% power FF at 0.42 SFC is about is 8.5 gph. If he was at the rated 2700 rpm and getting full dynamic recovery at 160 kt TAS in his induction system, he would have had about 74% power. If he was at less than 2700 rpm, the FF would have decreased proportionately.

Click to expand...

Agree, bogus numbers, my 0320, carb, Ei @12,000 DA WOT 75rop= 8.2gph
Tom
RV3

FADEC efficiency?

Is this worth 6K?
Check out this: http://www.rvproject.com/20060419.html

I'd like to have a fly off with Dan's old school mechanical FI against N834ST.

I'll bet it's not as bad as you EFI guys think.

Don

One of our clients with an O-320 (150 hp) powered Glastar reports 6.5GPH at 75% (WOT at about 8000) running 50 degrees LOP. If accurate, I believe this is better than any O-320 with a carb by a considerable amount.

Good to see more numbers... This is what I was hoping for so I can get a real world comparison instead of what the documentation states. I've seen Dan's page before, so it would be interesting indeed. Would be nice to know the D Alt for his numbers too. On our trip, I can't remember what D Alt was. I'd be happy to do some runs similar to Dan's at a known D Alt and see what we get.

To answer Don's question, "Is this worth 6k?"... Certainly not on it's own. Like I stated previously, that's not the sole reason I bought it for my plane. I listed a whole bunch of other valid reasons in my previous post.

Next chance I get I'll go out and do some runs and take some pics of the instrumentation. It'll be good to get the real skinny out there for all to see.

One of our clients with an O-320 (150 hp) powered Glastar reports 6.5GPH at 75%

Very hard to believe this. 75% is not burning 6.5GPH. It would be closer to 9.3 gallons per hour. With that fuel burn he is closer to 55%GPH

Norman CYYJ said:

One of our clients with an O-320 (150 hp) powered Glastar reports 6.5GPH at 75%

Very hard to believe this. 75% is not burning 6.5GPH. It would be closer to 9.3 gallons per hour. With that fuel burn he is closer to 55%GPH

Click to expand...

I just state what he forwarded to me. WOT on a naturally aspirated engine at around 8000 feet MSL will result in around 75% power. Most carbed O-360s are burning somewhere around 9.1-10 GPH 50-75 ROP at this power setting.

As I said before, several clients with our FADECs on their small Contis have reported 20-25% reductions in fuel flow at the same TAS. This merely shows how poor these carb setups are and that they must have very poor mixture distribution.

OK, here's how to determine HP from fuel flow. 100LL typically weighs 5.85 lb/gal. If your specific fuel consumption, pounds/HP-HR is an incredible 0.39 lb/HP-HR, which one Continental can do, then you will get 5.85/0.39 or 15 HP/gal/HR. If you are running at a more typical lean SFC of 0.43, then you get 13.6 HP/gal/HR. Lycoming curve #13380 for the O-320B,D shows 11.8 HP/gal/HR above 75% for an SFC of 0.5, and 14.8 HP/gal/HR below 75% for an SFC of 0.425, both at minimum fuel flow. So at 6.5 gph, that would be 96HP or 64% power. If he's getting 75% of 150HP at 6.5gph, then the resulting SFC is a phenomenal 0.338! Nice work if you can get it! I tend to be more than a little skeptical of someone's fuel-flow calibration when I see numbers like this reported! But then there's always pixie dust! By the way, I don't know where this idea came from that at 8000' you can only get 75% power at WOT. Power is related to charge density. Standard density at 8000' is 78.6% of sea level. Throw in a little 0.9" dynamic pressure in the induction system from 180 mph TAS, which will increase the charge density, and you are more likely at 81% power! 75% density is at 9500'.

elippse said:

OK, here's how to determine HP from fuel flow. 100LL typically weighs 5.85 lb/gal. If your specific fuel consumption, pounds/HP-HR is an incredible 0.39 lb/HP-HR, which one Continental can do, then you will get 5.85/0.39 or 15 HP/gal/HR. If you are running at a more typical lean SFC of 0.43, then you get 13.6 HP/gal/HR. Lycoming curve #13380 for the O-320B,D shows 11.8 HP/gal/HR above 75% for an SFC of 0.5, and 14.8 HP/gal/HR below 75% for an SFC of 0.425, both at minimum fuel flow. So at 6.5 gph, that would be 96HP or 64% power. If he's getting 75% of 150HP at 6.5gph, then the resulting SFC is a phenomenal 0.338! Nice work if you can get it! I tend to be more than a little skeptical of someone's fuel-flow calibration when I see numbers like this reported! But then there's always pixie dust! By the way, I don't know where this idea came from that at 8000' you can only get 75% power at WOT. Power is related to charge density. Standard density at 8000' is 78.6% of sea level. Throw in a little 0.9" dynamic pressure in the induction system from 180 mph TAS, which will increase the charge density, and you are more likely at 81% power! 75% density is at 9500'.

Click to expand...

As I said, I just reported what my client reported seeing. I'm well versed in SFCs, hp and engines having been in this field for 30 years. If you want to split hairs on effects on hp, let's not forget humidity and exhaust backpressure changes with altitude. Fact is we don't know what hp the engine is producing unless it goes on a dyno in an altitude chamber. We cannot assume that a 150hp Lycoming even pumps out 150hp due to variations in engines and exhaust/ induction systems.

I agree that an SFC of .34 is unlikely with this engine. My guess is that this engine is producing less than 112.5hp under these conditions. In fact, this is almost certain LOP because power will generally fall off around 6-9% from best power AFRs. This would give us 102-105 hp on our theoretical engine. Avgas weighs 6.02 lbs./US gallon at 15C. This would give us a mean SFC of around .378 which is within the realm of reason- very similar to what an IO-550 Conti will do LOP.

Phillips 66, "Terminal Specifications Aviation Gasoline", stock #21223, 100LL, Section E, Sheet 8, date 1/15/93, shows the 100LL Gravity API 0f 72 to 64, corresponding to 5.788 to 6.025 lb/gal at 60F, 15.6C. That averages to 5.91 lb/gal, which would give an SFC of 0.34 for his stated 75% of 150HP, 6.5 gal/HR, most unlikely! Again, whether we use 5.8 or 6.03 lb/gal, these reported values show an unreasonable value of SFC, which proves my point that unless someone has a highly calibrated fuel flow instrument, and can show that it is such, most of these numbers should be viewed with lots of skepticism, as should be most reported IAS-TAS numbers.

You are not reading what I wrote here. I said LOP the engine will not produce likely produce exactly 75% power under these conditions. We don't know what hp this engine is making. Most of us just use 6 lbs./Gal. for ease of calculation.

With the carb at the same TAS, this fellow was burning around 7.8 gal./hr. manually leaned to about 70-90F ROP which was just above where it got rough. Now he is burning 6.5 using the same instrumentation. Irregardless of what power the engine is making, FF vs. TAS has substantially improved. In two other cases on Conti O-200s, FF dropped from just under 6 gal./hr. to 4.5-4.7 after the fuel injection replaced the carb.

From my extensive experience in this field, EFI does a better job than a carb in almost every instance when it comes to equalizing AFRs between all cylinders. It is not unusual to see EGT spreads of 180F on some carbed O-360s. With EFI/ FADEC we often see 15-30F at all power settings.

rv6ejguy said:

<snip>... Irregardless of what power the engine is making, FF vs. TAS has substantially improved. In two other cases on Conti O-200s, FF dropped from just under 6 gal./hr. to 4.5-4.7 after the fuel injection replaced the carb.

From my extensive experience in this field, EFI does a better job than a carb in almost every instance when it comes to equalizing AFRs between all cylinders. It is not unusual to see EGT spreads of 180F on some carbed O-360s. With EFI/ FADEC we often see 15-30F at all power settings.

Click to expand...

Ross -

what is your guess as to how much of the improvement is due to EFI and how much to FADEC? Another way to ask what are expected results if you have EFI and no FADEC?

thanks

John

I use the terms EFI and FADEC somewhat interchangeably. We sell both EFI only and EMSs doing both fuel and spark control (FADEC if you will). On most engines, the fuel injection part seems to offer larger fuel economy increases than the ignition part. We know this because we can set up ignition timing to simulate fixed magneto timing and observe the results. One O-200 that we did almost 13 years ago now had just the EFI (no spark control) and he got exceptional results even with the mags in place. The big reason for the gains are mainly that the OE carb and manifold setups are so poor.

Interestingly, small bore engines like the Rotax 912 (dual plug) and the Subaru with a single central plug show little or no power gain or fuel flow gains with advanced timing at typical cruise manifold pressures. This is also the case with most modern automotive based engines that we have tested. Our system allows both fuel and spark parameters to be altered instantly in flight so we can measure results under the same conditions. I have occasionally seen engines which performed best with somewhat atypical ignition timing on the dyno though so there are exceptions to this rule.

Initial reports (which I have not witnessed) on Conti and Lyco engines show small gains here of around 4-5% with advanced spark timing at manifold pressures in the 22-24 inch range. We will have more data on this in the next couple of years. One O-320 is currently being fitted with EI only and the other with full FADEC. When these get to the flight testing stage, I'll report the results.

We have also seen gains in outright hp in some cases because we fit larger throttle bodies (no venturi required) which offer less restriction than the OE carb. 0.5-1.5 inches drop across carbs in not uncommon. The more even fuel distribution also means that all cylinders can be optimal AFRs for best power, offering small gains compared to carbed engines where cylinder to cylinder AFRs may be way out to lunch.

In the car world, carbs and single point fuel injection have been resigned to the scrap pile (over 20 years ago) in favour of multipoint fuel injection and electronic engine control in the quest to gain more economy and power than ever before. They have poured billions of development dollars into the research to get where they are now and continue to do so as the customer demands more still.

I wonder why?

I agree with the comment regarding fuel flow calibration. That's a tough one to really nail down too!