N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3706 times:
Simply put, why has FADEC seen such limited progression in general aviation? I know that Teledyne Continental offers/offered an engine with FADEC, but I do not know anything on a Lycoming engine with this capability. With all of the cost advantages, as well as safety factors, one would think that FADEC would be as big as a hit as "glass." But its not.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Cost would be a big one..........FADAC systems are VERY expensive
[Edited 2007-10-05 19:15:19]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Cost is the primary reason that FADEC and "glass" cockpits are few and far between in GA planes, especially the older members of the fleet. Put it this way, the amount that my folks have recently invested in new avionics for their 1981 C414A would buy a decent sized house in most markets. For most owners, the expense of purchasing the equipment and installing it has a greatly reduced ROI when it comes to the aircraft's resale value. Why outfit a plane with avionics that are worth more than the airframe itself is? Aside from the new build Cessnas and other models, the small airplane GA fleet is aging to the point that new avionics for an aging airframe simply makes no economic sense.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1244 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
I'd say two main reasons: cost and complexity.
Keep in mind on a GA ramp you'll find loads of 1970s and 80s singles and twins, and probably quite a few even older. Piston pilots embrace new technology much more slowly, and only when the price is right. FADEC on a piston engine offers some bennefits, but its not the step forward a glass cockpit is... thus it will be that much harder to get it into aircraft. Additionally, people like what they know and most pilots and A&Ps know the same piston engines that have been around since the Cessna 140. They work, are mostly reliable, and get the job done.
FADEC will come to GA--many of the diesel birds use it, and you can get some other new aircraft with a one-lever cockpit as well. But I think we are more likely to see it phased in as diesel's gain popularity rather than in the form of new AvGas engines.
ShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 3): FADEC will come to GA--many of the diesel birds use it,
Cessna recently announced a diesel version of the 172 that will also feature FADEC. Deliveries begin mid-2008. If I understand the press release correctly, it will be an option.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
This Diesen engine has been built for some years now. It is a derivative of a Daimler Benz A-class Diesel car engine, and only available with FADEC.
I think the main reason you don't see FADEC with piston engines so often is the fact that all these engines in fact are extremely outdated. You don't put ABS in a VW Beetle, either
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
I can understand FADEC and Glass not being in -60s, 70s, and 80s models of airplanes, but I was going for the new aircraft.
As stated, glass seems to be a big hit with new aircraft deliveries...and if people (companies) are willing to drop down $60,000 for a twin G1000 panel setup (I believe that was the additional price with the C-T182T if one went for the option), why go with a single-lever FADEC?
Unless FADEC isn't really viewed as remarkable a change as with glass.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4181 posts, RR: 30 Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 6): As stated, glass seems to be a big hit with new aircraft deliveries...and if people (companies) are willing to drop down $60,000 for a twin G1000 panel setup (I believe that was the additional price with the C-T182T if one went for the option), why go with a single-lever FADEC?
I'm just taking a wild guess here, but could it be because the price for a FADEC system is relatively expensive for the benefits that are recognized? If we're talking a single piston, power management is a relatively simple process. Not saying FADEC wouldn't be great on a single piston, but given the price perhaps there just isn't a large enough market because most pilots would rather save that kind of money and opt to manually manage power settings. As the power as well as the complexity to manage that power increases (e.g., multi-engine) then the cost differential vs. benefits become more obvious.
That's kind of where I am getting at...FADEC is nice (no mixture or prop to worry about, better fuel efficiency, longer-lasting engine), but maybe its value isn't worth the price, or at least as not as glass for GA.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 9):
That's kind of where I am getting at...FADEC is nice (no mixture or prop to worry about, better fuel efficiency, longer-lasting engine)
In fact, from the reports I've read, FADEC is not more efficient than a competent pilot who knows his engine and how to get the most out of it. If you know how to run lean of peak properly, you will in fact do better without it, and your engine will last longer as well.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Ex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 9): That's kind of where I am getting at...FADEC is nice (no mixture or prop to worry about, better fuel efficiency, longer-lasting engine), but maybe its value isn't worth the price, or at least as not as glass for GA
I have changed more FADAC boxes over the years than throttle cables.
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
