5 ms·

I have a somewhat off topic question about airplane companies' attitude towards engines. As a private pilot who flies Cirruses, it's always baffled me that a FA

I have a somewhat off topic question about airplane companies' attitude towards engines. As a private pilot who flies Cirruses, it's always baffled me that a FADEC is not standard equipment. For non-pilots, starting a plane requires priming the engine by injecting fuel into the lines, and fiddling with the fuel/air mixture until the engine fires. Totally different from a modern car where a computer electronically controls the injection to get the engine started almost immediately. Is the attitude in the industry still that FADECs are dangerous because of bugs/malfunctions? Or is it more of a certification issue?

Involute 13y ago
Fellow Cirrus owner here. My assumption has always been the deterrents are cost (both development and production; many fewer engines to amortize over) and reliability (if you lose all electrical power in a FADEC system, the engine dies; not so with magnetos).
- Serow225 13y ago
  For FADECs on single engine piston planes, in addition to being powered by either alternator automatically, there's usually a dedicated FADEC emergency battery good enough for 1+ hours of engine runtime.
  - Involute 13y ago
    Of course. I stand by my original statement, however.
    - Serow225 13y ago
      Understood :) As a fun note, i just remembered that the emergency FADEC power on the turbine engines is provided by a tiny hydro generator powered by the fuel flow itself, so it can run in case of total electrical failure. The throttle position sensors are energized by the same emergency circuit so they continue to work too :)
Serow225 13y ago
Well the new jet has dual FADECs, so you can solve your problem by buying one of them :) I think that for the piston plane market, it's more of a cost/value ratio issue - would you (and customers in general) be willing to pay an extra $50-100k for a FADEC-equipped plane that costs $500k for the whole rest of the plane, just to have the convenience of eliminating manual mixture control? Also some pilots don't want to give up having the ability to control engine temp, power, fuel burn rate, etc manually using the mixture. I know that FADEC-equipped engines have been tested, and will probably be available in the future, it's more of a question of marketing and costs (certification etc) than anything technical.

Involute 13y ago

Fellow Cirrus owner here. My assumption has always been the deterrents are cost (both development and production; many fewer engines to amortize over) and reliability (if you lose all electrical power in a FADEC system, the engine dies; not so with magnetos).

Serow225 13y ago
For FADECs on single engine piston planes, in addition to being powered by either alternator automatically, there's usually a dedicated FADEC emergency battery good enough for 1+ hours of engine runtime.
- Involute 13y ago
  Of course. I stand by my original statement, however.
  - Serow225 13y ago
    Understood :) As a fun note, i just remembered that the emergency FADEC power on the turbine engines is provided by a tiny hydro generator powered by the fuel flow itself, so it can run in case of total electrical failure. The throttle position sensors are energized by the same emergency circuit so they continue to work too :)

Serow225 13y ago

Well the new jet has dual FADECs, so you can solve your problem by buying one of them :) I think that for the piston plane market, it's more of a cost/value ratio issue - would you (and customers in general) be willing to pay an extra $50-100k for a FADEC-equipped plane that costs $500k for the whole rest of the plane, just to have the convenience of eliminating manual mixture control? Also some pilots don't want to give up having the ability to control engine temp, power, fuel burn rate, etc manually using the mixture. I know that FADEC-equipped engines have been tested, and will probably be available in the future, it's more of a question of marketing and costs (certification etc) than anything technical.