That Audi V6 was so impressive. The reliability and durability of a diesel combined with excellent fuel economy and Audi quality....damn, that's a strong package
Diamond Austro 3000 diesel engines are and the Theilert 1.7 and 2.0 before were FADEC. Liberty uses a 125 HP Lycoming in their XL2 that is FACEC. Continental has the CD135, CD155, and the CD300 diesel engines that are turbocharged and FADEC.
Mike, Do a video about the Raptor that is scheduled to use the Audi engine. I would love to see you chat with Peter Muller about his plans and the schedule he has for it. I think the Audi engine will use diesel and Jet A, not 100LL. Need to verify that, please. Love your channel. If you make it back to the Just Aircraft area of the country, let me know. Would love to meet you and buy you dinner. Salute!! Hugh
Raptor is a dud. Was supposed to be flying some 2 years ago. Too many unproven and untested experiments in that design, including this car engine. My prediction - it will never go beyond the prototype, even if the prototype will ever get to fly.
A regular car engine typically has a compression around 12:1 for road use, traditional Continental or Lycomings more like 8.5:1 or lower. That diesel Audi (and all Diesels in general) will be around 18:1. So if you try using 100LL or any other gasoline fuel in it, you'll get a BIG explosion and a bill for a new engine.
FADEC engines are safer, more efficient, easier to manage in the air. Anyone looking to assemble or buy a new plane should demand one. Rotary phone vs Smart phone.
@Agent J Nothing good about Rotary phones, the cable would always bunch up, audio was not that great, you were limited to a location, and your little brother could listen in on conversations on the other household phone... Give me a smart phone any day! Keeping it charged is not a problem. The only limitation really. Yes, even at 10,000 feet modern technology is reliable. Besides even if the electrical systems go away the engines still work. Magnetos!!!
@@TruckTaxiMoveIt I remember during black outs. The phone still kept on working. The phones could be dropped and they kept on working. AT&T designed them to last back then.
I fly two planes with FADEC. Both rotaxes. The 912is and the 915is. I have literally no desire to go backwards ever. I simply don't understand why I get so much pushback from people on this. I get so much heat for flying planes with FADEC and the G3X touch. I get looked down on like I'm somehow not a real pilot or something because I have no desire to fly 70 year old engines on leaded gas, carburetors, manual chokes, manual mixture and manual prop control and steam gauges. I'm sorry, the future is here. I like the massive increase in cockpit workload management that I can take on now with this tech. I will just say this, with the 915is, there is no mixture knob, no prop pitch lever and no choke. You set your power setting with the throttle, you set the prop setting to either take off, climb or cruise and the computer takes care of the rest. Now you get to focus on where you are going, the weather, or the 50 other more important things than making sure the engine is leaned out "just right" or that your prop pitch is perfect. Add a G3X and a GTN650 to this and the amount ahead of the airplane you can get to is literally absurd.
I’m with you on this, as someone who comes from the sport/race automotive scene I can’t for the life me understand why aircraft pilots like or want carb engines and disdain fadec. It literally makes no sense! Hell from a fuel economy perspective alone it makes more sense!
Rotax does not have FADEC it has electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection. FADEC is a term for turbojet engines. If you look at ROTAX Marketing they don't even say FADEC.
@@gmcjetpilot ok dude. we know, for it to be FADEC it would need to control the throttles. But that was how it was explained to me 4 years ago and honestly, the cpu's control everything but the throttles so it's kinda close.
@@kevinbutler9786 My name is not DUDE... Sir to you. Ha ha. Yes it is kind of close. So ever modern cars on the road are FADEC? Kind of. Rotax has "FADEC" by your definition but they are honest. On their literature they don't use FADEC. They call it electronic ignition and fuel injection. Yes cars and Rotax "iS" use CPU or EMCU (Engine Management Control Unit) to control fuel mixture an[d ignition timing. This is not new or exotic. So how much redundancy? FADEC is triple redundant, totally. No manual reversion, no throttle cable to any throttle body. Again cars have "throttle by wire". Still not FADEC. Not to beat this pony to death FADEC was coined with total fly by wire control of Turbo-Jet engines. A jet engine is WAY DIFFERENT than a piston engine. No ignition timing. The way fuel is introduced to jet engines is way different. Last internal vanes move, and FADEC controls all that with "Full Authority". Pilot slams thrust levers forward it would OVERTEMP the engine, FADEC will protect the engine. Pilot brings fuel to ON too early during start, normally will cause hot start. Or if you try to start with tail wind going up tail pipe may be a hung start. FADEC will play with fuel and vanes to get a good start and keep engine from over-temp. This is the advantages of FADEC for turbojet engines. Piston engines it really is just Electronic Ignition and Electronic control fuel injection. Not FADEC. Electronics have advantages to piston engines but not the same advantage of FADEC to jet engines.
Piston light aircraft were equipped with magnetos which operated independently of the aircraft electrical system. In the event of electrical failure, the engine kept running. FADEC is reliant upon the aircrafts electrical system. In the event of electrical failure, you lose the engine also (assuming there is no FADEC battery back up).
@@phlodel - I heard of a Diamond DA-42 pilot who had a dead battery in his plane. Even though the Diamond manual prohibited take offs with a depleted or low battery, he got a "jump" for the battery, started up and took off. Raising the landing gear in a DA-42 requires more electrical power than the aircraft electrical system can supply, requiring the battery to momentarily make up the shortfall. (Which is why one doesn't take off in a DA-42 with a dead/near dead battery.) As he hadn't been in the air long enough to charge the battery, the battery couldn't handle the extra load from the landing gear and it resulted in a complete lost of electrical power. This cause the loss of the FADEC and he crashed. Don't recall if he survived. This wouldn't have happened in a aircraft with magneto type ignition.
Exactly! Aircraft piston engines are at least couple of decades behind auto engines. Auto engine manufacturers invest millions in R&D and manufacturing facilities. It may be that the aviation market is too small to afford such R&D costs
@@BlueMax333 Red tape and supply and demand. The demand for aero engines isin't as big as for auto engines hence, the reason why they are hand built and cost a small fortune.
Excellent! Thanks, put the pieces together FADEC I clearly understand. Would there be any way to use FADEC for a turbine? Or for that matter a radial or rotary?
current car engines has long surpassed those old aviation piston designs in terms of output/displacement, weight, fuel consumption, pollution, durability, cost to own and maintain.
That Audi engine will not run on 100 LL. That will kill it. It uses diesel or JET (A1). And Mike did not mention the Austro diesel, Thielert/Centurion, Conti diesel, SMA Safran, D-Motor those have FADECs too.
Why is it that FADEC is a big deal with aircraft piston engines? In a modern car, you press the pedal and the electronics take care of everything. At the more affordable end, there are aero-engine conversions of auto engines. One of them is the AeroMomentum AM10, 85 hp, 63 kg. It has FADEC. cost only $7,500
Those engines have no redundancy. Single spark plug per cylinder, single injector and in most cases, single ECU. Aircraft specific engines are redundant in all these areas and I can tell you from personal experience that I have needed that redundancy in flight a couple of times already in my short flying career(about 100 hours). I won't fly a plane that doesn't have it anymore. I really want to see either aeromomentum or Viking redesign the heads of these engines to accommodate dual plugs and injectors. Viking has a dual ECU option now, I don't know about aeromomentum though. Also FADEC does more than just control the engine. It also controls the prop. And then it all works together to lower cockpit workload and make the engine run at complete efficiency and safety without you having to be a mechanical engineer.
At the risk of everyone breaking my stones, I have a question. I completely understand the logic of going with a computer controlled system. My question is, why aren't manufacturers moving from push rod engines to OHV? I'm not a air frame mechanic but an old School toy mechanic (motorcycles, etc). Those engines, depending upon bias of manufacturer, are very reliable, efficient and low maintenance! Just my thoughts, would like your thoughts on the question. Keep up the good work, I enjoy watching your videos!
I have found that the aircraft industry is decades behind the auto industry in general. Their are people working on this. I know that people like talking trash about Jan at viking engines but I like his philosophy. He's taking brand new Honda engine tech and adapting it to airplanes. The thing with airplane engines versus car engines though is redundancy. The auto manufactures just simply don't care about it. If something fails in a car engine, you pull over. In a plane you crash land. So until someone figures out how to make a head with dual plugs and injectors, it's just going to be a niche' market. There is also aeromomentum. These are both dual overhead cams with direct port injection and coil packs. But I bet its another decade before anyone comes out with a viable engine with these specs.
The issues with pushrods come as you increase engine speed. Pushrods, and their associated rockers and other hardware add weight to the valvetrain which can cause valve float as RPMs increase. Since even geared aviation engines don't rev nearly as high as car engines and driving the cam straight off the crank means no cam belt or chain to fail and a simpler oiling scheme to the heads it's not so much a matter of aviation engines being "old tech" as it is a case of horses for courses.
Well when your saying how fast a plane is for me indicated is fine. You can't hide behind any variables that way. If I want to know any more I can do the calculations from there. True is for the pilot.
FADEC engines certainly reduce pilot workload, and make things a lot easier in the cockpit... however they are extremely electrically dependant to function! Unless the builder incorporates a proper backup battery system in the aircraft... I am not so sure they would be safer!
MojoGrip I am looking into installing a ULpower UL350is into my Waiex B... and if I go this route I will install 2 Earth X batteries. Possibly one Concorde lead acid on the Firewall, and an Earth X in the baggage for a redundant backup battery. This should provide for a system that will keep the FADEC engine running, no matter what... even if the alternator fails. At least for a good while until I can find an airport. I just thought it may be good to point out that for a FADEC engine to be truly safe... that a proper and redundant electrical system must be installed in the aircraft!
Rotax use a dual output alternator and a backup battery. The ECU then constantly monitors the components and makes changes automatically if anything happens. It is always set to make sure the engine has power. Alternator (a) powers the engine, Alternator (b) powers the bus and the backup battery is the backup battery. If Alternator (a) fails, Alternator (b) kicks in and powers the motor and the bus. If Alternator (b) quits, back up battery powers the bus. If both (a) and (b) quit, the back up battery powers the engine. The system is made to give the engine priority over everything. That is how freakishly redundant the rotaxes electrical system is. I have the utmost confidence in the rotax brand of FADEC.
18 MPG is 7 km per liter. 200 knots is equal to 370 km/hour. This is insane! A liter of aviation gas will take you more than 50 kilometers. This is way too efficient! Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) is the next best thing that happened after GDI. I am a pilot. If I can afford the airplane, I'll rather fly than drive my SUV in negotiating a 500 km destination.
By the price of 1/2 of these lycoming engines I do an engine auto-converted with minimum 3 redundant systems and with all the internal components forged, congratulations for the guys that are developing new engines to try to free the customers from these monopoly of tradictionals brands that make the aviation a restricted category for lot of people.
That Audi engine Doesn’t take 100LL. It’s a diesel engine and will except jet A. Do a little more research before putting info like that in your videos. Also if your going to include car engines why not all the car conversions with fadec? Theres also all the smaller UL Power engines, the D motor, the bigger verner radial engines, even some of the bigger Hirth 2 stroke engines can be bought with fadec. More research was definitely needed for this topic.
I agree with you guys about Mike as well, he does frequently get things wrong. That said, this is the Internet and I have little faith in anything on the Internet until I research it some more (usually on the Internet...hmmm, circular argument there??). Anyway, I do wish he would do a bit more research, but def love the enthusiasm and hope he continues creating content for a long time.
When you say kts. Do you mean indicated? If so you have to say or 250kts means nothing. Very confusing and frustrating. Don't give ground speed because again that means nothing.
What happens to the FADEC if the aircraft electrical system fails? Where a non-FADEC engine will continue to run due to magnetos (self contained ignition systems) and mechanical fuel injection, oif these lose electrical power, do they shut off? It doesn't sound like these engines are any more fuel efficient or less expensive to buy. Or longer lasting. Just dressing 1940s technology. Need a new design engine with liquid cooling. But the financial numbers aren't there. No new designs for engines because new aircraft production numbers are about 10% of the 1970s. Piston twins like the Cessna 310, 340, 414, 421 will never be built again.
I just replied to someone else about this. This is how the rotax electrical sytem works in regards to redundancy. Hope this helps. Rotax use a dual output alternator and a backup battery. The ECU then constantly monitors the components and makes changes automatically if anything happens. It is always set to make sure the engine has power. Alternator (a) powers the engine, Alternator (b) powers the bus and the backup battery is the backup battery. If Alternator (a) fails, Alternator (b) kicks in and powers the motor and the bus. If Alternator (b) quits, back up battery powers the bus. If both (a) and (b) quit, the back up battery powers the engine. The system is made to give the engine priority over everything. That is how freakishly redundant the rotaxes electrical system is. I have the utmost confidence in the rotax brand of FADEC.
I love the Continental sign which says "Manufacturing Excellence Center" and has one "L" missing in the word "Excellence". If they are so careless that they can't even fix their sign, what does that say about their engines?
Brother I just had to say this to you I must have watched a hundred of your videos I literally watched some of your videos everyday I'm in plain obsessed I love aircraft I have since I was a little kid I'm a pilot I've flown Lear Jets cessnas all kinds of aircraft and I got to tell you I'm also f-18 certified now the f-18 is computer controlled there's no mixture knob okay it's controlled like a fatak engine and you can say okay well that's more reliable but yo what about when that system failing causes a crash you're comparing that to a novice pilot please don't say something like all pilots should fly behind a fadek cuz that's crap I'm a competent pilot brother I'm a certified test pilot just like you and I don't actually need that I actually prefer my own control over the pitch and mixture I get much more performance out of an aircraft than a typical pilot will because of those things because I manage those things competently I do very well and I I really like to set those things up myself because I tuned by engine sound I tuned for maximum efficiency I tuned for the best possible power with the least amount of fuel burned without a computer next to me and reprogramming the damn faded all the time I can't do that in a fadek controlled airplane! Now I do realize that they are easier and for a novice pilot you might say this is the way to go and okay a novice pilot might make errors that's like saying because you might not make a good paper airplane you shouldn't bother and we should just give you one well then you learn nothing these new pilots flying with FedEx learn nothing about engine management I learned how to control my temperature with my mixture and my pitch settings I learned how to adjust them for altitude yes it's definitely more work but it's very rewarding work that teaches you about the mechanics of flying and without it you are a lesser pilot! What I mean is it's always been the known thing that if you have more knowledge about your aircraft you are by definition a better pilot the more you know the better a pilot you tend to be putting all the work in the hands of the computer takes all the knowledge away from the pilot they no longer need to know and so they never learn it and now they're at the emergency of a computer system they don't even understand let alone have the ability to reprogram mid-flight should something happen! My problem comes in with what you said there if I have an airplane like a Cessna 150 or the 180 skylane that I trained on I have my mixture knob I have my throttle and I have my pitch angle control on the prop now assuming I have all three of those controls that gives me a lot of ability to manipulate things while I'm flying with a fadex system my ability to do that is like gone all I have left is the throttle maybe pitch control now in a pitch adjustable airplane I will say that faded can be really good for a novice pilot but there should be an option that lets me turn it off so that I can control the engine on my own now I've never flown a fat airplane I'll I know about it is from watching your videos, the only aircraft I flew were all in the eighties but the f-18 is pretty much a faded controlled system It's all digital you really don't have that much control over it you have your throttle but that's it the computer manages everything else in that aircraft which is what you're talking about in an f-18 that's not a bad thing because you're going to be climbing so fast you don't have time in the middle of a dog fight to worry about your particulars like whether the engines are overheating or whether or not they're pulling too much fuel but the but you need that monitored otherwise you might burn your fuel too hard and run out of fuel at least with that you get a warning that tells you your fuel is low you get warnings that tell you what's going on with the aircraft that's a good thing that monitoring and letting you know what's going on but unless you're in a fight or aircraft I'm not a big fan of the computer having all the control I think it lessens the likelihood that the pilot will ever learn about these things in detail from experience like I did and that was invaluable experience that I have used ever since flying a helicopter is not much different you got to have your pitch control you've got to have your RPM control you've got to have your fuel mixture control I wouldn't want a helicopter that was having a computer control all those elements because I now have no control and it's fine if you're a beginner pilot you'll make no mistakes great but if you're an experienced pilot these systems are just in the way in my honest opinion I prefer old aircraft with a modern avionics that's what I like but I guess that's just me and I don't mean to imply that you're less of a pilot for feeling that way no I get it your channel is very much geared to a beginner pilot and that's awesome you do a great job and I love that you're out there making this happen please don't think for a second that I feel any other way about it in fact I wanted to say thank you for being out there and for doing this video series I love it! But I had to say something here I don't usually comment but this is the only video you've ever put out that I had any argument with and anything you've said usually your points are awesome and if I do make a comment it's man that was so smart I'm glad you said that kind of a comment. But on this one occasion I've got to disagree with you buddy fadic is not what they should be putting in a new Cessna or in any learning aircraft if you're going to learn on the aircraft you really should be learning on an older aircraft with modern avionics that way you get the best of both worlds you can learn fadic later on a more expensive airplane and that's the other issue it not only adds to reliability issues because the computer system is controlling everything and it puts more wear and tear on the computer system but it also is way more expensive because now you have to pay for that fadec system in the aircraft! and for all those reasons I really feel like no beginner should fly a plane with FedEx if you're going to take your pilot's license please don't do it in a plane with FedEx have a little courage have a little faith in yourself and learn to fly using your pitch control using your fuel mixture to fine-tune the airplane to get the best performance out of it and when you do you will find that a fadex system is usually set up from what I've understood for fuel economy not for performance or for reliability it's never really tuned for maximum performance and if you're the kind of guy like me who likes to pull a few G's and have a little fun with their airplane you definitely do not want to fade it controlled system in addition to that they're not always usually really good at adjusting when you're in the mountains and you're going to lose power because you're running far too lean or far too rich rich is the real problem because you're running a lot of fuel in a situation where there's not a lot of oxygen to burn it leaning out the engine is usually my first go-to if the engine's not making enough power I can just lean it out but on a Theta controlled system I wouldn't even know how brother and even though I'm an experienced pilot highly rated I still hold the world record in the f-18 simulator go look me up I had the highest points ever scored I don't know if the record still stands but last time I checked a couple years ago it did so I was told and even if it's not still standing you know I had the record for over 15 years guy that I know of for sure and I got to tell you I'd be a less competent pilot in an aircraft like an f-18 I may be an excellent pilot but I knew nothing about the aircraft nothing about its systems all I knew was how to turn the damn thing on and pull in Yank on the stick to get it to do what I wanted to do it's a very responsive aircraft so I can fly it flawlessly it's got tons of power you never find it lacking a faded system could have it set for maximum reliability and fuel economy and that wouldn't be a bad thing in that situation but to take that Cessna 180 and apply that same fate system to it I'm automatically going to lose power because it's going to favor fuel economy and it's going to operate at the preset levels that the factory sets what if I'm only running a high altitude and I want to really lean an aggressively powerful mixture or at low altitude either way because the way I like to fly I run on as little fuel as I can and still get good combustion and then fine-tune with my air mixture now not everybody would want to do that because hey that's a lot of work plus you got to manage your prop pitch in there but I found from experience that the more control I have over the aircraft the better a pilot it will make you! probably just because you get used to the idea of controlling every aspect of your performance
There really NO FADEC for piston engines. FADEC comes from TURRBOJETS.... Fuel control in those turbojet engines is complicated, and they used hydro-mechanical systems. Very complicated. FADEC was for Turbo-Jets or power by wire... verses cables. In the case of piston engines fuel delivery and ignition is NOT that complicated. Also all these engines really do NOT have single throttle controlling propeller. Sure Circus does but it is mechanical linkage. Further Circus said they are not happy with the FADEC they put in their planes. DO NOT GET Electronic FUEL INJETION and ELECTRONIC confused with FADEC on turbojet engines. It is a JOKE to call it FULL AUTHORITY. FADEC does amazing things in starting Jet engines. FADEC does not exist for piston engines, except for marketing.
There is no way the Audi engine can burn 100 LL ... for you to have said this in a video is indicative that you do not understand engines .. Diesel piston engines do not and can not burn gasoline ..
FADEC not impressed. Way complicated, expensive, electric dependent, not needed and little performance or efficiency if any gains. Using throttle prop mixture is not hard. Also FADEC does not apply to PISTON engines, it is for turbojet engines. Not even ROTAX uses FADEC in their marketing for their engines with electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection. All these engines are not FULL AUTHORITY anything. Also prop is not controlled, even with the Continental. On Cirrus is uses a mechanical linkage with the throttle. Not very digital. Turbojets use FADEC to get rid of very complicated hydro-mechanical fuel controllers, improve starting, lower crew work load in all phases of flight, increase fuel economy and protect from over temperature, not possible with older fuel controllers. THAT IS FADEC.... Piston engines just have electronic IGNITION and electronic fuel injection. Jets don't have ignition like a piston engines. Carbs and mechanical fuel injection on piston engines are fairly simple and work well. FADEC is a misnomer.
That Audi V6 was so impressive. The reliability and durability of a diesel combined with excellent fuel economy and Audi quality....damn, that's a strong package
Diamond Austro 3000 diesel engines are and the Theilert 1.7 and 2.0 before were FADEC. Liberty uses a 125 HP Lycoming in their XL2 that is FACEC. Continental has the CD135, CD155, and the CD300 diesel engines that are turbocharged and FADEC.
Mike you said the Audi will use 100LL it actually will use JetA or Diesel NOT 100LL Love the work keep it up!
Mike,
Do a video about the Raptor that is scheduled to use the Audi engine. I would love to see you chat with Peter Muller about his plans and the schedule he has for it.
I think the Audi engine will use diesel and Jet A, not 100LL. Need to verify that, please.
Love your channel. If you make it back to the Just Aircraft area of the country, let me know. Would love to meet you and buy you dinner.
Salute!!
Hugh
hughw10 correct Jet A. He is having some troubles with the PSRU .
Raptor is a dud. Was supposed to be flying some 2 years ago. Too many unproven and untested experiments in that design, including this car engine. My prediction - it will never go beyond the prototype, even if the prototype will ever get to fly.
@@bvnj123 Well the prototype is flying. It's a heavy cow getting about 120 knots at 14 gph. And can only take about 1/4 fuel cause it's so heavy.
The Audi engine is just fabulous! And could you please tell me in which planes it is working or planed to be put in? Thank you!
What about the Austro engine in Diamond aircraft? FADEC, isn't it?
yes
Mojo...love your style !!!
A regular car engine typically has a compression around 12:1 for road use, traditional Continental or Lycomings more like 8.5:1 or lower. That diesel Audi (and all Diesels in general) will be around 18:1. So if you try using 100LL or any other gasoline fuel in it, you'll get a BIG explosion and a bill for a new engine.
Sweet video Mike. That FADEC is coming soon in MASS!
I love the idea of the iE2 in an rv10.
The Company kitfox is also using the rotax 915 engine and are really pushing the use of all rotax engines
FADEC engines are safer, more efficient, easier to manage in the air. Anyone looking to assemble or buy a new plane should demand one. Rotary phone vs Smart phone.
@Agent J Nothing good about Rotary phones, the cable would always bunch up, audio was not that great, you were limited to a location, and your little brother could listen in on conversations on the other household phone... Give me a smart phone any day! Keeping it charged is not a problem. The only limitation really. Yes, even at 10,000 feet modern technology is reliable. Besides even if the electrical systems go away the engines still work. Magnetos!!!
Can't hack or lose a rotary phone
@@TruckTaxiMoveIt I remember during black outs. The phone still kept on working. The phones could be dropped and they kept on working. AT&T designed them to last back then.
Excelente vídeo! Há muito tempo eu procuro vídeos informando sobre opções de motores aeronáuticos... Very nice! Thanks!
Jet A piston, nice..
I fly two planes with FADEC. Both rotaxes. The 912is and the 915is. I have literally no desire to go backwards ever. I simply don't understand why I get so much pushback from people on this. I get so much heat for flying planes with FADEC and the G3X touch. I get looked down on like I'm somehow not a real pilot or something because I have no desire to fly 70 year old engines on leaded gas, carburetors, manual chokes, manual mixture and manual prop control and steam gauges. I'm sorry, the future is here. I like the massive increase in cockpit workload management that I can take on now with this tech. I will just say this, with the 915is, there is no mixture knob, no prop pitch lever and no choke. You set your power setting with the throttle, you set the prop setting to either take off, climb or cruise and the computer takes care of the rest. Now you get to focus on where you are going, the weather, or the 50 other more important things than making sure the engine is leaned out "just right" or that your prop pitch is perfect. Add a G3X and a GTN650 to this and the amount ahead of the airplane you can get to is literally absurd.
I’m with you on this, as someone who comes from the sport/race automotive scene I can’t for the life me understand why aircraft pilots like or want carb engines and disdain fadec.
It literally makes no sense! Hell from a fuel economy perspective alone it makes more sense!
Rotax does not have FADEC it has electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection. FADEC is a term for turbojet engines. If you look at ROTAX Marketing they don't even say FADEC.
@@gmcjetpilot ok dude. we know, for it to be FADEC it would need to control the throttles. But that was how it was explained to me 4 years ago and honestly, the cpu's control everything but the throttles so it's kinda close.
@@kevinbutler9786 My name is not DUDE... Sir to you. Ha ha. Yes it is kind of close. So ever modern cars on the road are FADEC? Kind of. Rotax has "FADEC" by your definition but they are honest. On their literature they don't use FADEC. They call it electronic ignition and fuel injection. Yes cars and Rotax "iS" use CPU or EMCU (Engine Management Control Unit) to control fuel mixture an[d ignition timing. This is not new or exotic. So how much redundancy? FADEC is triple redundant, totally. No manual reversion, no throttle cable to any throttle body. Again cars have "throttle by wire". Still not FADEC. Not to beat this pony to death FADEC was coined with total fly by wire control of Turbo-Jet engines. A jet engine is WAY DIFFERENT than a piston engine. No ignition timing. The way fuel is introduced to jet engines is way different. Last internal vanes move, and FADEC controls all that with "Full Authority". Pilot slams thrust levers forward it would OVERTEMP the engine, FADEC will protect the engine. Pilot brings fuel to ON too early during start, normally will cause hot start. Or if you try to start with tail wind going up tail pipe may be a hung start. FADEC will play with fuel and vanes to get a good start and keep engine from over-temp. This is the advantages of FADEC for turbojet engines. Piston engines it really is just Electronic Ignition and Electronic control fuel injection. Not FADEC. Electronics have advantages to piston engines but not the same advantage of FADEC to jet engines.
@@gmcjetpilot Ok.
Awesome as usual. Thanks Mike.
What about the FADEC in the Liberty XL2? A Continental, I believe.
Thanks, Mike. Really interesting!
100LL.. nice and accurate reporting as always
Indeed...
Oh yeah homie diesel will work for my budget great video
Piston light aircraft were equipped with magnetos which operated independently of the aircraft electrical system. In the event of electrical failure, the engine kept running. FADEC is reliant upon the aircrafts electrical system. In the event of electrical failure, you lose the engine also (assuming there is no FADEC battery back up).
In the early days of aviation, electrical systems were unreliable.
@@phlodel - So now electrical systems have advanced to the point they are immune from failure?
@@Booboobear-eo4es No, not immune but certainly more reliable than many people.
@@phlodel - I heard of a Diamond DA-42 pilot who had a dead battery in his plane. Even though the Diamond manual prohibited take offs with a depleted or low battery, he got a "jump" for the battery, started up and took off. Raising the landing gear in a DA-42 requires more electrical power than the aircraft electrical system can supply, requiring the battery to momentarily make up the shortfall. (Which is why one doesn't take off in a DA-42 with a dead/near dead battery.) As he hadn't been in the air long enough to charge the battery, the battery couldn't handle the extra load from the landing gear and it resulted in a complete lost of electrical power. This cause the loss of the FADEC and he crashed. Don't recall if he survived. This wouldn't have happened in a aircraft with magneto type ignition.
Lightning strike could definitely cause issue.
Mike can you get me one of those diesel 100 ll. Duel fuel engines ?
Can you please do a video on what it takes the Audi engine to be made to work with Aircraft?
THAT Audi engine.
Awesome technology ☝🏼
This was an excellent vedo.
Frankly, the industry should be embarrassed that EVERY new plane doesn't come with a FADEC engine.
Exactly! Aircraft piston engines are at least couple of decades behind auto engines.
Auto engine manufacturers invest millions in R&D and manufacturing facilities.
It may be that the aviation market is too small to afford such R&D costs
@@BlueMax333 Most of it has to do with the ridiculous FAA regulation process. That's why all the innovation is in the experimental category
Job Chithalan Thank goodness for Rotax.
@@BlueMax333 Red tape and supply and demand. The demand for aero engines isin't as big as for auto engines hence, the reason why they are hand built and cost a small fortune.
What aircraft on the thumbnail?
What about Turboprops? Any in the market with FADECs?
I think the new TBM 940 has one.
Josh Edwards PBS TP-100. Sweet engine! But thirsty.
Interesting and informative.
ÓTIMO VÍDEO , BRASIL OK LYCOMING and CONTINENTAL.
Excellent! Thanks, put the pieces together FADEC I clearly understand. Would there be any way to use FADEC for a turbine?
Or for that matter a radial or rotary?
great info.
What’s that cool looking plane in the thumbnail?
current car engines has long surpassed those old aviation piston designs in terms of output/displacement, weight, fuel consumption, pollution, durability, cost to own and maintain.
What’s the airplane in the thumbnail?
Viking , Aeromomentum and Edge performance Yamahas are all FADEC as well .. every single engine in there lineups
For a high performance bird I like the idea of buying a Chevy LS with a geared PSRU. More power and more reasonable prices.
That Audi engine will not run on 100 LL. That will kill it.
It uses diesel or JET (A1).
And Mike did not mention the Austro diesel, Thielert/Centurion, Conti diesel, SMA Safran, D-Motor those have FADECs too.
Why is it that FADEC is a big deal with aircraft piston engines?
In a modern car, you press the pedal and the electronics take care of everything.
At the more affordable end, there are aero-engine conversions of auto engines.
One of them is the AeroMomentum AM10, 85 hp, 63 kg.
It has FADEC. cost only $7,500
Those engines have no redundancy. Single spark plug per cylinder, single injector and in most cases, single ECU. Aircraft specific engines are redundant in all these areas and I can tell you from personal experience that I have needed that redundancy in flight a couple of times already in my short flying career(about 100 hours). I won't fly a plane that doesn't have it anymore. I really want to see either aeromomentum or Viking redesign the heads of these engines to accommodate dual plugs and injectors. Viking has a dual ECU option now, I don't know about aeromomentum though. Also FADEC does more than just control the engine. It also controls the prop. And then it all works together to lower cockpit workload and make the engine run at complete efficiency and safety without you having to be a mechanical engineer.
For certified larger, high altitudes flying and faster planes it is time to make it compulsory to install
At the risk of everyone breaking my stones, I have a question. I completely understand the logic of going with a computer controlled system. My question is, why aren't manufacturers moving from push rod engines to OHV? I'm not a air frame mechanic but an old School toy mechanic (motorcycles, etc). Those engines, depending upon bias of manufacturer, are very reliable, efficient and low maintenance! Just my thoughts, would like your thoughts on the question. Keep up the good work, I enjoy watching your videos!
I have found that the aircraft industry is decades behind the auto industry in general. Their are people working on this. I know that people like talking trash about Jan at viking engines but I like his philosophy. He's taking brand new Honda engine tech and adapting it to airplanes. The thing with airplane engines versus car engines though is redundancy. The auto manufactures just simply don't care about it. If something fails in a car engine, you pull over. In a plane you crash land. So until someone figures out how to make a head with dual plugs and injectors, it's just going to be a niche' market. There is also aeromomentum. These are both dual overhead cams with direct port injection and coil packs. But I bet its another decade before anyone comes out with a viable engine with these specs.
The issues with pushrods come as you increase engine speed. Pushrods, and their associated rockers and other hardware add weight to the valvetrain which can cause valve float as RPMs increase.
Since even geared aviation engines don't rev nearly as high as car engines and driving the cam straight off the crank means no cam belt or chain to fail and a simpler oiling scheme to the heads it's not so much a matter of aviation engines being "old tech" as it is a case of horses for courses.
Well when your saying how fast a plane is for me indicated is fine. You can't hide behind any variables that way. If I want to know any more I can do the calculations from there. True is for the pilot.
I will take a UL520ISA with a turbo and 210 constant Horsepower up to flight level 250 please!
And it's exactly what they are planning to do!
Цифровое управление двигателем... Это очень важно!
Enjoy your work. But I question burning diesel or 100 LL. That’s not likely. Please double check
Good vídeo the prices áre no bad
100,000 subs, hell yeah!
What happens in a lightning strike ?
LANCAIR AIRCRAFT IN BRASIL.
excellent video....what about vikings engines?
Phenomenal video! It comes as a surprise that the Audi engine can take 100LL. Is this correct ?
No. It's a diesel. Diesel combustion engines don't do well on gasoline.
FADEC stands for Full Authority Digital Electronic Control.
FADEC engines certainly reduce pilot workload, and make things a lot easier in the cockpit... however they are extremely electrically dependant to function! Unless the builder incorporates a proper backup battery system in the aircraft... I am not so sure they would be safer!
Good point. Redundancy won't hurt nobody.
MojoGrip I am looking into installing a ULpower UL350is into my Waiex B... and if I go this route I will install 2 Earth X batteries. Possibly one Concorde lead acid on the Firewall, and an Earth X in the baggage for a redundant backup battery. This should provide for a system that will keep the FADEC engine running, no matter what... even if the alternator fails. At least for a good while until I can find an airport. I just thought it may be good to point out that for a FADEC engine to be truly safe... that a proper and redundant electrical system must be installed in the aircraft!
Rotax use a dual output alternator and a backup battery. The ECU then constantly monitors the components and makes changes automatically if anything happens. It is always set to make sure the engine has power. Alternator (a) powers the engine, Alternator (b) powers the bus and the backup battery is the backup battery. If Alternator (a) fails, Alternator (b) kicks in and powers the motor and the bus. If Alternator (b) quits, back up battery powers the bus. If both (a) and (b) quit, the back up battery powers the engine. The system is made to give the engine priority over everything. That is how freakishly redundant the rotaxes electrical system is. I have the utmost confidence in the rotax brand of FADEC.
18 MPG is 7 km per liter. 200 knots is equal to 370 km/hour. This is insane! A liter of aviation gas will take you more than 50 kilometers. This is way too efficient! Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) is the next best thing that happened after GDI. I am a pilot. If I can afford the airplane, I'll rather fly than drive my SUV in negotiating a 500 km destination.
Diesel?
By the price of 1/2 of these lycoming engines I do an engine auto-converted with minimum 3 redundant systems and with all the internal components forged, congratulations for the guys that are developing new engines to try to free the customers from these monopoly of tradictionals brands that make the aviation a restricted category for lot of people.
That Audi engine Doesn’t take 100LL. It’s a diesel engine and will except jet A. Do a little more research before putting info like that in your videos. Also if your going to include car engines why not all the car conversions with fadec? Theres also all the smaller UL Power engines, the D motor, the bigger verner radial engines, even some of the bigger Hirth 2 stroke engines can be bought with fadec.
More research was definitely needed for this topic.
I agree with you guys about Mike as well, he does frequently get things wrong. That said, this is the Internet and I have little faith in anything on the Internet until I research it some more (usually on the Internet...hmmm, circular argument there??). Anyway, I do wish he would do a bit more research, but def love the enthusiasm and hope he continues creating content for a long time.
#mojogrip The raptor Aircraft is using Audi Engine. It will either burn Regular automotive Diesel or JET A or JET A-1, but not AVGAS 100LL.
I'm just waiting on the dark Arrow! Ever since I learned about it from your channels. it's been on my radar. LOL
Nice
All UL engines are fadec large or small!
100LL AND Diesel??? Sounds a bit strange to my ears....
Thanks for all your vids though.
Ryan Thomas
Aaah yes. Off course I should have caught that myself.
Thanks.
When you say kts. Do you mean indicated? If so you have to say or 250kts means nothing. Very confusing and frustrating. Don't give ground speed because again that means nothing.
German engineering,
well-known brand
$22k
diesel fuel
... I've got no other questions
Sheesh what the heck is Cirrus waiting for
These engines are FADEC www.aeromomentum.com
Wasn't sure about the ending of vid??🤔
Audi V6; 100LL or diesel? NO WAY Mike. diesels compression ratio are FAR to high for gas fuels! diesel or JET A1! But we forgive you the error
So basically just like a car.
the power of Audi engine in the raptor aircraft is 300hp
Thumbs down on that last engine. The raptor install is a mess.
Austro AE300 would have been a better choice there.
Fadec is for airplanes that have a loose nut hanging on the throttle.
What happens to the FADEC if the aircraft electrical system fails? Where a non-FADEC engine will continue to run due to magnetos (self contained ignition systems) and mechanical fuel injection, oif these lose electrical power, do they shut off?
It doesn't sound like these engines are any more fuel efficient or less expensive to buy. Or longer lasting. Just dressing 1940s technology. Need a new design engine with liquid cooling.
But the financial numbers aren't there. No new designs for engines because new aircraft production numbers are about 10% of the 1970s. Piston twins like the Cessna 310, 340, 414, 421 will never be built again.
I just replied to someone else about this. This is how the rotax electrical sytem works in regards to redundancy. Hope this helps. Rotax use a dual output alternator and a backup battery. The ECU then constantly monitors the components and makes changes automatically if anything happens. It is always set to make sure the engine has power. Alternator (a) powers the engine, Alternator (b) powers the bus and the backup battery is the backup battery. If Alternator (a) fails, Alternator (b) kicks in and powers the motor and the bus. If Alternator (b) quits, back up battery powers the bus. If both (a) and (b) quit, the back up battery powers the engine. The system is made to give the engine priority over everything. That is how freakishly redundant the rotaxes electrical system is. I have the utmost confidence in the rotax brand of FADEC.
Nj
Audi all the way, bye rotax.
how about the viking engine ? 130,150 and 195
I love the Continental sign which says "Manufacturing Excellence Center" and has one "L" missing in the word "Excellence". If they are so careless that they can't even fix their sign, what does that say about their engines?
Brother I just had to say this to you I must have watched a hundred of your videos I literally watched some of your videos everyday I'm in plain obsessed I love aircraft I have since I was a little kid I'm a pilot I've flown Lear Jets cessnas all kinds of aircraft and I got to tell you I'm also f-18 certified now the f-18 is computer controlled there's no mixture knob okay it's controlled like a fatak engine and you can say okay well that's more reliable but yo what about when that system failing causes a crash you're comparing that to a novice pilot please don't say something like all pilots should fly behind a fadek cuz that's crap I'm a competent pilot brother I'm a certified test pilot just like you and I don't actually need that I actually prefer my own control over the pitch and mixture I get much more performance out of an aircraft than a typical pilot will because of those things because I manage those things competently I do very well and I I really like to set those things up myself because I tuned by engine sound I tuned for maximum efficiency I tuned for the best possible power with the least amount of fuel burned without a computer next to me and reprogramming the damn faded all the time I can't do that in a fadek controlled airplane! Now I do realize that they are easier and for a novice pilot you might say this is the way to go and okay a novice pilot might make errors that's like saying because you might not make a good paper airplane you shouldn't bother and we should just give you one well then you learn nothing these new pilots flying with FedEx learn nothing about engine management I learned how to control my temperature with my mixture and my pitch settings I learned how to adjust them for altitude yes it's definitely more work but it's very rewarding work that teaches you about the mechanics of flying and without it you are a lesser pilot! What I mean is it's always been the known thing that if you have more knowledge about your aircraft you are by definition a better pilot the more you know the better a pilot you tend to be putting all the work in the hands of the computer takes all the knowledge away from the pilot they no longer need to know and so they never learn it and now they're at the emergency of a computer system they don't even understand let alone have the ability to reprogram mid-flight should something happen! My problem comes in with what you said there if I have an airplane like a Cessna 150 or the 180 skylane that I trained on I have my mixture knob I have my throttle and I have my pitch angle control on the prop now assuming I have all three of those controls that gives me a lot of ability to manipulate things while I'm flying with a fadex system my ability to do that is like gone all I have left is the throttle maybe pitch control now in a pitch adjustable airplane I will say that faded can be really good for a novice pilot but there should be an option that lets me turn it off so that I can control the engine on my own now I've never flown a fat airplane I'll I know about it is from watching your videos, the only aircraft I flew were all in the eighties but the f-18 is pretty much a faded controlled system It's all digital you really don't have that much control over it you have your throttle but that's it the computer manages everything else in that aircraft which is what you're talking about in an f-18 that's not a bad thing because you're going to be climbing so fast you don't have time in the middle of a dog fight to worry about your particulars like whether the engines are overheating or whether or not they're pulling too much fuel but the but you need that monitored otherwise you might burn your fuel too hard and run out of fuel at least with that you get a warning that tells you your fuel is low you get warnings that tell you what's going on with the aircraft that's a good thing that monitoring and letting you know what's going on but unless you're in a fight or aircraft I'm not a big fan of the computer having all the control I think it lessens the likelihood that the pilot will ever learn about these things in detail from experience like I did and that was invaluable experience that I have used ever since flying a helicopter is not much different you got to have your pitch control you've got to have your RPM control you've got to have your fuel mixture control I wouldn't want a helicopter that was having a computer control all those elements because I now have no control and it's fine if you're a beginner pilot you'll make no mistakes great but if you're an experienced pilot these systems are just in the way in my honest opinion I prefer old aircraft with a modern avionics that's what I like but I guess that's just me and I don't mean to imply that you're less of a pilot for feeling that way no I get it your channel is very much geared to a beginner pilot and that's awesome you do a great job and I love that you're out there making this happen please don't think for a second that I feel any other way about it in fact I wanted to say thank you for being out there and for doing this video series I love it! But I had to say something here I don't usually comment but this is the only video you've ever put out that I had any argument with and anything you've said usually your points are awesome and if I do make a comment it's man that was so smart I'm glad you said that kind of a comment. But on this one occasion I've got to disagree with you buddy fadic is not what they should be putting in a new Cessna or in any learning aircraft if you're going to learn on the aircraft you really should be learning on an older aircraft with modern avionics that way you get the best of both worlds you can learn fadic later on a more expensive airplane and that's the other issue it not only adds to reliability issues because the computer system is controlling everything and it puts more wear and tear on the computer system but it also is way more expensive because now you have to pay for that fadec system in the aircraft! and for all those reasons I really feel like no beginner should fly a plane with FedEx if you're going to take your pilot's license please don't do it in a plane with FedEx have a little courage have a little faith in yourself and learn to fly using your pitch control using your fuel mixture to fine-tune the airplane to get the best performance out of it and when you do you will find that a fadex system is usually set up from what I've understood for fuel economy not for performance or for reliability it's never really tuned for maximum performance and if you're the kind of guy like me who likes to pull a few G's and have a little fun with their airplane you definitely do not want to fade it controlled system in addition to that they're not always usually really good at adjusting when you're in the mountains and you're going to lose power because you're running far too lean or far too rich rich is the real problem because you're running a lot of fuel in a situation where there's not a lot of oxygen to burn it leaning out the engine is usually my first go-to if the engine's not making enough power I can just lean it out but on a Theta controlled system I wouldn't even know how brother and even though I'm an experienced pilot highly rated I still hold the world record in the f-18 simulator go look me up I had the highest points ever scored I don't know if the record still stands but last time I checked a couple years ago it did so I was told and even if it's not still standing you know I had the record for over 15 years guy that I know of for sure and I got to tell you I'd be a less competent pilot in an aircraft like an f-18 I may be an excellent pilot but I knew nothing about the aircraft nothing about its systems all I knew was how to turn the damn thing on and pull in Yank on the stick to get it to do what I wanted to do it's a very responsive aircraft so I can fly it flawlessly it's got tons of power you never find it lacking a faded system could have it set for maximum reliability and fuel economy and that wouldn't be a bad thing in that situation but to take that Cessna 180 and apply that same fate system to it I'm automatically going to lose power because it's going to favor fuel economy and it's going to operate at the preset levels that the factory sets what if I'm only running a high altitude and I want to really lean an aggressively powerful mixture or at low altitude either way because the way I like to fly I run on as little fuel as I can and still get good combustion and then fine-tune with my air mixture now not everybody would want to do that because hey that's a lot of work plus you got to manage your prop pitch in there but I found from experience that the more control I have over the aircraft the better a pilot it will make you! probably just because you get used to the idea of controlling every aspect of your performance
The 737 Max planes used computers.
Well that worked out good.
@@ryanthomas2472 ,..That's because those planes don't have the design flaw that the Max has that Boeing is trying to fix with a software program.
There really NO FADEC for piston engines. FADEC comes from TURRBOJETS.... Fuel control in those turbojet engines is complicated, and they used hydro-mechanical systems. Very complicated. FADEC was for Turbo-Jets or power by wire... verses cables. In the case of piston engines fuel delivery and ignition is NOT that complicated. Also all these engines really do NOT have single throttle controlling propeller. Sure Circus does but it is mechanical linkage. Further Circus said they are not happy with the FADEC they put in their planes. DO NOT GET Electronic FUEL INJETION and ELECTRONIC confused with FADEC on turbojet engines. It is a JOKE to call it FULL AUTHORITY. FADEC does amazing things in starting Jet engines. FADEC does not exist for piston engines, except for marketing.
There is no way the Audi engine can burn 100 LL ... for you to have said this in a video is indicative that you do not understand engines .. Diesel piston engines do not and can not burn gasoline ..
Diesel in a plane? But I am not planning on towing a trailer. 😄
But you could if you wanted!! ;-)
Jet A is very close to diesel
FADEC not impressed. Way complicated, expensive, electric dependent, not needed and little performance or efficiency if any gains. Using throttle prop mixture is not hard. Also FADEC does not apply to PISTON engines, it is for turbojet engines. Not even ROTAX uses FADEC in their marketing for their engines with electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection. All these engines are not FULL AUTHORITY anything. Also prop is not controlled, even with the Continental. On Cirrus is uses a mechanical linkage with the throttle. Not very digital. Turbojets use FADEC to get rid of very complicated hydro-mechanical fuel controllers, improve starting, lower crew work load in all phases of flight, increase fuel economy and protect from over temperature, not possible with older fuel controllers. THAT IS FADEC.... Piston engines just have electronic IGNITION and electronic fuel injection. Jets don't have ignition like a piston engines. Carbs and mechanical fuel injection on piston engines are fairly simple and work well. FADEC is a misnomer.