I asked if the stick interfered with using your right hand and they said the voice recognition on g3x was convenient to use and that they still have the side stick option. Since it is home built you can add anything you want they said.
Iām really at a loss as to why all manufacturers arenāt going to this. The iE2 has been around for awhile and no one seems interested. Cirrus seems to have passed on it and Iām not sure continental even offers a FADEC. Its bizzare to me weāre still stuck in the 50s with our engines. Recently Iāve been flying an SR20 G6 with the ānewā 390 and I have to learn how to lean it for taxi to get it to idle smoothly in 2018 (density alt can be well over 8k here on the ground). Nuts.
Completely agree. I donāt see the need in 2018 to worry about a mixture knob. FADEC is already available and it should be standard and not optional for aircraft engines.
Interesting difference of opinion on this subject. No right or wrong answer, personal tastes I guess.
Count me amoung the opposite, I would never want a FADEC equipped piston airplane. Too many limitations if a computer does it for you.
I want the flexibility to make decisions to run it differently than only best power or best economy. Best power is a poor place to run the engine if you value long engine life. Best economy gives up too much speed in some configurations.
FADEC will run best power or best economy depending on throttle position and other factors. This misconception may be the reason they canāt sell any. I donāt see a situation where youād look at the FADEC chosen mixture at a given power setting and temperature condition and ever want to change it.
I just donāt see how person periodically reading a GEM and manually adjusting a lever is going to compete with a computer and a sensor suite for fuel efficiency, power, or longevity. And thatās with a good pilot who knows how to set mixture correctly. I know if I was buying a used aircraft with a FADEC Iād have more confidence in the condition of the engine.
In a decade or two deisels may make this moot anyways. It seems all of them with the exception of Deltahawk are FADEC, and I donāt think that engine has a mixture control either.
I donāt care for the complexity of FADEC aircraft engines produced so far. Too many sensors, wires and plugs. If any errors are detected by the EI system during boot up, you donāt get a ācheck engineā light, you get grounded. Where aviation engines are concerned, simpler is better IMO.
I do like the combination of one electronic ignition and one mag though. Easier starting, potentially better reliability and dis-similar failure modes.
John,
This is a discussion better had over a beverage in the bar, butā¦ letās restrict the conversation to CMI engines because that is mostly what we have to run in a Cirrus (of course with the exception of the SR20L which is not very common yet). Letās also leave out the turbo models because they act differently since they are always at the same altitude (MP wise).
CMI says Best Power (BP) is 75 degrees ROP and that Best Economy (BE) is 50 degrees LOP. In the failed CMI FADEC system it had a push button that gave you only those two digital hard choices.
In my airplane at 8000 feet I will get right at 180 KTAS BP and mid 160ās BE. Instead at that altitude I will run high power LOP, a few tenths GPH more and cruise at 172 KTAS. I will be burning about 3.5 GPH less than BP at the cost of about 2 to 3 minutes more time in cruise per hour. CHTās cool, in the summer around 300 degrees. I cannot do that with FADEC as they implemented it. IF they put a variable model in the FADEC I would then be supportive. Until then it is less able than I to get the performance I want.
BP and BE in a normally aspirated plane is a fixed number according to CMI. Yet available air, due to atmospheric thinning, varies in a very linear manner when adjusted for non standard temps and pressures. That means power production, and therefore pressure and heat, vary and mixture can go into the range in between BP and BE at some point. This can dramatically affect performance to the pilots advantage. To not vary the mixture as the air thins simply defies physical reality and leaves a valuable option unavailable.
I would never debate that computers cannot monitor things like engine performance better than humans. The problem is that they donāt offer the middle ground. It WILL be BP or BE.
To add to that, BP at low altitudes is a recipe for high CHTās. CMI and Cirrus may be comfortable with 420 degreees CHT, but people who know these engines are not. I will tell you this, run your engine at 420 as a consistent SOP and letās just see how long your cylinders last.
Roger - just to clarify that you are arguing preference of non-FADEC control over current existing FADEC implementations (which are very basic and limited in functionality) vs. the concept of full authority digital engine controls. Were there a modern, automotive grade, multi-factorial, 3-D mapped option out there it could really be much better optimized than one coarse human controlled mixture knob. The real issue is there is not enough demand for someone to spend the money to develop a fully modern FADEC system (or even one with the capabilities of the 1990s automotive versions).
At the end of the day, even the most luddite among us wouldnāt really want to add a mixture knob to our cars. Note I say this as someone whose favorite car is a 22 year old air cooled, flat six, rear engined, manual transmission with no stability control or fancy gizmos.
Rudy,
Mostly so.
I see a good FADEC system as superior. I would not use good in the same sentence as the current ones I am familiar with.
Further, as long as the manufacturer insists on their Luddite BP/BE models be used then even a better system would have poor models to execute. I would pass on those too.
One reason new cars are so reliable is their engine control systems. Those I would love. The attitude of aviation manufacturers is not conducive with taking FADEC to the level it could. Just look at the current state of them.
A good pilot that knows engines can do far better manually but only by not following manufacturer guidance.
This is one of my favorite ātaste great - less fillingā aviation conversations and Roger is correct that it is best had in a bar ā¦ but unfortunately, we are not (all) in one at the moment.
I agree with Roger that I prefer the current solution for the CMI engines in our Cirrus versus what CMI came up with a decade ago for their FADEC engine. Indeed, Rogerās reaction to it (and well stated arguments about power management) were the reason that, at the time, most pilots felt the same way and as a result, Cirrus passed on that engine because the BP/BE hard-wired implementation was too limiting for their customers.
I donāt believe thatās how the current diesel (e.g. Diamond Austro engine) or Lycoming IE2 FADEC-type engines work, however. Especially in the Lycoming, where LOP is a dirty word to those guys apparently, the engine manages and optimizes mixture and timing for a selected power level (as I understand it), allowing the pilot to fine tune fuel flow, power and speed via the throttle. Iām not sure for the Lyc 540 AE2A engine that there would be much of a difference between pilot operation and the computer.
In my Rotax 914, which has a ground-adjustable, fixed-pitch prop but uses altitude-compensating Bing carburetors, it makes the plane a single-lever, simple operation where your fuel economy is a function of selected RPM as a practical matter. Very easy and reliable too. The new Rotax 915 is fuel injected and adds a prop governor, allowing single lever operation over power, mixture and prop. So the basic technology has improved since the original CMI 550 FADEC.
The CMI engines are different than the Lycs. as we know. I would expect Piper will offer the IE2 as an option at some point, especially once Tecnam gets their P2012 aircraft fully certified with their IE2 variant (540 C1A, I believe) at 375 HP. But I would expect Cirrus would offer a FADEC diesel option before they offer a CMI avgas FADEC option ā¦ which is not saying a whole lot in terms of timing to be honest.
If we had an IE2-type control system in our CMI engines, however, that would be a different story. And pilot attitudes are different than they were 10 years ago, along with improvements in the technology. More than one Cirrus sales person has told me that the most-requested things for the next Cirrus SR generations are diesel and FADECā¦ along with more power/more speed ā¦ 
Personally, I think the integrated engine diagnostics are a safety positive - if my engine tells me ādonāt fly me, pal, because we have XXX wrong in hereā I am definitely going to listen. Right now, I have to do some guesswork and may make a bad decision. Just my preference.
Cheers
Good post.
Part of the problem is what they have to do to certify an engine. Once certified the manufacturer has to proliferate those methods. Cirrus and CMI must do so, no question.
They must prove 12% detonation margins from any approved mixture. Problem is this is tested at 460 CHT, 240 degree Oil and 103 degree ambient air.
I donāt know about you, but I donāt tend to cruise at those numbers. Heck, I donāt do anything at those numbers.
While I can see why they must build a system that operates to those standards, after all they are the certified numbers, with a manual system I get to make decisions that an automated one wonāt let me.
In the absense Of some sort of common sense in the numbers I choose to do something else. Engines run properly routinely beat TBO. This is not magic, it is science.
I admit it is more work. But I also do not think it is hard to learn or to do. I calculate my high power LOP strategy has saved in fuel consumption alone nearly the cost of an overhaul. And the engine is healthy as it approaches TBO.
The highest time engine I know of made 3517 hours running LOP. And it was bearings, not cylinders, that did it in.
I think that is the problem; the certification limits are based on human manual operation. A FADEC would be much more careful operating the engine. Still hoping for a viable FADEC piston, but I do agree that a binary choice of best power or best economy leave much to be desired.
But I fear something as simple as a loose EGT probe would ground you with a FADEC system whereas today it does not need to.
It might, it might not - I donāt think we know enough to say about how that works in the IE2. I know that in the Rotax engines, it would not ground you but you might get indications of an issue on your dials. More data needed, really. And if these engines are options (rather than a full switch), then you can make a personal decision about your preferences. I think we will see something along these lines in the next couple of years.
āif these engines are options (rather than a full switch), then you can make a personal decision about your preferencesā
I agree. Let the consumer decide. I really think more will want it than not. The days of most pilots wanting to understand and deal with this are waning quickly.
I believe that a loose probe would ground you or cause the engine to only run very rich of peak to be safe, but the hope is that with good engineering the probe would fail at a very very low rate, perhaps wishful thinking. Sadly, drones may take over the world prior to light aircraft having truly bulletproof engines.
āI think that is the problem; the certification limits are based on human manual operation.ā
I think you are right. Also a relic of poor instrumentation. Until the last 15 years a pilot was lucky to have one probe each for EGT and CHT.
Iām not familiar with the Continental design, but the iE2 does much more than a binary choice. For example, it will adjust the fuel flow and fuel/air mixture for each cylinder independently, at each rpm and air density and each power setting. It also does this for different fuel types, and has an acoustic knock sensor on every cylinder. Thatās just not possible with a red handle, no matter how skilled the pilot.
Iāve found in many conversations I have had or read about on the forums about the iE2 involve someone who doesnāt actually know much about it who is rather passionately describing why they would never buy one.
Sorry for the thread drift, this probably deserves itās own. I would love to see a Mako with an iE2. If anyone in Denver wants to split one let me know!
I am not thoroughly familiar with the iE2, so peace - you may be right on some parts of it. I have looked at it a bit so it is not totally foreign. We should be able to have a data based conversation about either without becoming frustrated with one another still.
All engine controllers do what you describe basically. They use electronically adjustable fuel injectors along with O2 sensors to determine the mixture and adjust fuel and ignition accordingly. By cylinder. Nothing new here. The CMI version did that too. Along with knock sensors and electronic ignition too. And 30 pounds of wires.
Here is the 64000 dollar question. To what operating ranges does it operate too? I know Lycoming very well. They are phobic about LOP. So I highly doubt if it does anything below peak, which interestingly they do permit. So they will, I bet, limit how you run it. It is a certified engine, they will set it up to run their certified models. And that is my point you seem to have not picked up on.
While I believe in a promised land of electronic comtrols they will have to do more than wrap a red bow around their old philosophies to win over guys like me.This old it adjusts on the fly isnāt nearly as important in aviation. We tend to set power and run long periods unchanged. After climb of course.
I wasnāt intending to call anyone out in particular, only that often strong opinions are formed based on habits and folklore in aviation circles, which I think is exactly what is happening with piston FADEC. I hope at least the first part is not controversial.
The iE2 runs lean of peak. Lycoming has conquered the engineering challenge, which seems to have been the easy part.
Iām not sure who wrote this, but this is another take along the same lines about piston FADEC that rings true to me: