Has anyone looked at the Lancair Mako??

Guest Discussion
61

I raised the question of putting the IE2 in the Mako on the Lancairtalk.net forums. Lancair responded that their current implementation of the Lyc 540 and controls include full electronic ignition and functional single lever control without all the other overhead of the IE2. However, if a customer wanted to use that engine and Lycoming would provide installation support, they would do it but it would likely be a higher cost option. I think the more interesting question is how close they come to full single lever control (which they call ā€œFADEC liteā€) and what control the pilot has in their current implementation over LOP/ROP operations. Pretty sure they use a prop governor and did away with the prop lever like Cirrus.

If you do chat with them at OSH please report back!

What did you think of the DA42 in this respect? Been considering that down the road for multi myself if I can find one for training.

62

I think that was visible if you looked closely at the pics in the recent AOPA Pilot cover story. You could see a switch for the prop if memory serves me.

63

The 42 is a fantastic airplane. Being able to pull the throttles to idle and use the fans as speed breaks is fun, and the extra weight makes it more stable than any single Iā€™ve flown. At idle in a rapid descent you could be tricked into thinking you were flying a glider with the lack of noise and the view. Iā€™m actually finishing my training in a Baron next month but only because the Diamond is booked so solid Iā€™d never be able to rent it for trips after training. The bird I was flying had as I recall somewhere around 8,000 hours on the airframe in 11 years and looking at it youā€™d never know.

Iā€™ve never flown the Diesel, but it seems to remove all of the disadvantages of a twin while retaining all of the benefits. The only problem is they havenā€™t been making them for long enough for me to find a used one and I canā€™t find a partner in Denver to buy a new one. The -VI has solved all of the teething issues and after sitting in one at OSH last year the interior quality is significantly better than the older 42s. Not as lux as a Cirrus, but holds up better over time. SR22 is still more comfortable for passengers (front passenger has to deal with a stick, rear is a little narrower) but for the person in the left seat it just canā€™t be beaten by anything I know of.

64

In a way, we are all familiar with FADEC - all our car engines have it.

They work great when the sensors and wiring are perfect. But when a sensor fails, the engine stalls or goes into limp mode (extreme low power, enough to drive at 15 mph).

For example, my wifeā€™s car (Infiniti G35) began stalling at every stop light (or stop sign). It would take several tries to get it running again. I took it for a test drive and weirdly ran perfectly for 10 minutes (never stalling at stop signs). Then exactly at 10 minutes, the car stalled at every single stop sign. Barely got it home.

Put a engine code reader on it. No codes whatsoever.

I knew it had to be a computer problem since the car ran perfectly for 10 minutes (spark plugs ok, air filter ok, fuel pump ok, battery ok). Car computers run ā€œopen loopā€ for 10 minutes, then begin controlling the fuel flow and spark using sensors. This is called ā€œclosed loopā€.

So some sensor was giving the computer the wrong data and killing the engine. But which sensor was it???

I did hours of reading internet forums and watching dozens of youtube videos. Finally, one youtube described the problem I was having. Turns out it was the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor was dirty. Used a $5 can of MAF cleaner on the 2 sensors. BAAM, it worked.

So the car FADEC is simple a dumb computer controller with a look up table. The sensor outputs a voltage, then the computer uses a table and sets the fuel flow and spark to this. Absolutely no intelligence at all.

The reason the engine stalled was the MAF sensor unreported the air flow (due to the dirt). The computer set the gas flow way low to match this low air flow, thereby causing the stall.

Read the corvette forum or any car forum. These problems are epidemic on older cars as the sensors go bad. You will be shocked at how hard it is to troubleshoot these problems.

65

I have a 1982 BMW R65LS (motorcycle). It came with a toolkit that allows you to fix most things on the side of the road, if you know what youā€™re doing. Itā€™s cool, and I like it for what it is. I also sometimes read the newspaper instead of my iPad or iPhone. Thereā€™s a place for these things, and I think the mechanic/pilot flying a supercub in Alaska will be happy with a non-FADEC airplane forever, regardless of how advanced they get.

The old stuff has advantages, just not as many as the new stuff for most people. I wouldnā€™t argue theyā€™ll stop making 100LL non-FADECs in my lifetime. I hope they make more of them (FADECs) for people that want that option though.

66

I love the FADEC on my cars. It works extraordinarily well.

But the reason it works so well is the car engine hardly ever has a problem. When it does, worst case, you call a tow truck. You normally do not have to troubleshoot a car while you are driving it - like you would in a plane. If you mess up the failure analysis (while driving a car), you typically do not crash.

Not belabor the point, but an aircraft piston engine is no where near as reliable. FADEC simply can not figure out what to do when there is an engine problem or bad sensor. It is merely a dumb lookup table. It has zero intelligence.

Think about the liability when the FADEC shuts down a perfectly good engine because a sensor failed.

Ask any Cirrus pilot that has owned a plane for a few years, if they have had a sensor misread. Pretty much all of themā€¦

I donā€™t doubt that many people will want it. Many people believe in technology without question, not fully understanding how it really works.

67

Maybe we arenā€™t that bad off in the aviation world. Car engines have been known to do really poorly in airplanes, a very hostile environment. Maybe they donā€™t do that much better in cars. Interesting data here. [:P]

I have had many engine failures in cars over the decades, none in aircraftā€¦ Knocking on wood [:O]

1731.1.jpg

Full article here

68

Not directed at you Chuck even if you are quoting data from a company trying to sell warranty insurance, but, wow, is this forum stale. New day, same old arguments. GA pilots will never understand they are the sole reason we all fly behind antiquated hardware. Why would Lyc and Conti ever innovate if we are the ones resisting change?

Itā€™s ridiculous to think this is the one and only complicated mechanical application in the last 60+ years that couldnā€™t benefit from significant instrumentation and automation improvement. ITā€™S OVER. The arguments are all moot. The data is clear. Modern diesels are far more reliable than the dinosaurs we fly behind. AVGAS motors could be just as reliable if we would embrace rather than be so afraid of change.

69

Say, has anyone looked at the Lancair Mako? [:P]

70

Arenā€™t there several serious problems with diesels?

  1. Greater weight than an AV gas engine.

  2. Less power output than an AV gas engine.

  3. Inability to restart at high altitudes (FAA requirement).

  4. Pulse output that is hard on propellers.

  5. Higher cost than an AV gas engine.

  6. Larger size than an AV gas engine.

These problems are basic physics and economics. Could this be the reason?

71

A good friend is the parts manager at a large automotive dealership. They replace about an engine a week. Cars mostly under warranty. Cars are not as defect free as most people think. The infant mortality issue is real there too.

72

Please stick to the topic. [:D]

73

So has anyone looked at the Lancair Mako? [Y] Thanks, for bringing back the thread to itā€™s intended track .

74

While your point has validity, I might take exception to ā€œsoleā€ reason. There are other ones as well. Over regulation by the FAA and lack of critical mass to afford the R&D are two other pretty big hurdles. Part 33 certification requirements are going to limit, for now anyways, what they can do with this stuff.

I for one am intrigued enough to do more research. Lycoming has two forums at OSH on this. Tuesday or Thursday at 11:45, pick your session. I will be at one of them.

125B01DD-6BD2-4134-BBD5-31B971657185.png
125B01DD-6BD2-4134-BBD5-31B971657185.png1536Ɨ2048 666 KB

75

Just got this email from Lancair yesterday. Looks like their tour is being pushed back til after Oshkosh.

Hi Peter:

Thank you for your interest in the Lancair Mako Tour. As you know, our plan is to schedule visits throughout the U.S. in an effort to show interested parties the Mako up close and personal. It was our intent to get this tour on the road before AirVenture Oshkosh, which is scheduled for Monday, July 23rd, through Sunday, July 29th, but preparations for the show have caused delays. As such we will be rescheduling the tour following the Oshkosh event. We will notify you as those dates and locations are firmed up.

In the event you will be attending AirVenture Oshkosh this year, you are welcome to visit us in our outside booth area, where we will be displaying the Mako. We would like to meet you and answer any questions you might have regarding this state of the art aircraft. According to the information you provided in your Mako inquiry, you are also considering A PA46. Members of our staff have owned and/or flown a Piper Malibu, and we offer our assistance to help guide you to the best choice for your needs and pocketbook.

With your permission, I will contact you by phone within the next week or so, to answer any questions you might have at this time.

Cordially,

Berni Breen
Southeast U.S. Sales

Lancair International

7924 Ewa Place

Diamondhead, MS 39525
228-304-1250

berni@lancair.com

76

Size, weight, and power are only accurate with the current automotive designs, not an inherent limitation of the design to my knowledge. I hadnā€™t heard of the high altitude restart problem or pulse output problems affecting the Diamonds or other Diesels, but maybe Iā€™m in the dark. Those fly up to FL180 and can climb there with one of the Diesels in baggage mode.

I think the clean sheet diesels finally nearing certification (EPS/DH) will remove all three of those issues. They are only more expensive when you look at the cost of the engine, not all-in cost which is more important (that is, dramatically lower fuel cost per hp).

Iā€™m curious about what Lancair says about the possibility of alternate engines (not just iE2 but also the new Diesels). I really am to the point where I donā€™t really enjoy messing with the mixture and wonder what this noise or that means. So many more interesting things to do and learn about.

77

Maybe the opposite too?

78

Iā€™ve been in technology (computers, software, processor design, testing) for 40 years now. I also have 3 university degrees (engineering, mba). It is my hobby as well. I love working with computers and electronics.

So I have some experience in technology. Iā€™ve seen a lot of tech that was poorly thought out and had many bugs in it. It just seems a bit naive to believe a new product wonā€™t have serious problems, high costs or support issues. In fact, this is the usual case.

79

When the iE2 was released I had a Blackberry. ā€œNewā€ in aviation-speak doesnā€™t mean what it means in the rest of the world.

80

I understand what you are saying Roger. Iā€™m with you in that there are many complicating factors, but I personally believe that the free market would have sorted these issues out if demand existed.

Would love to fly behind IE2, so please report back on your tech talk findings! Maybe even in a Mako (there is that good enough to keep this on topic?). [*-)]