Electronic ignition has failed to sell as a retrofit because it does no more mpg. Same with FADEC.
That is unless you fly circuits all the time, which most owners don’t. And schools don’t care because they build in the fuel burn whatever it is.
I also don’t think GA activity would be boosted if planes halved in price. The factors limiting activity are more related to utility value, airport availability, lack of a social scene in GA, ELP, cultural differences across countries, etc. In Europe we see no significant non certified activity outside nice days in a nice summer, whereas if cheaper flying was so relevant, the skies would be packed with ULs, homebuilts, etc. Just look at FR24 for signs of longer range stuff.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
and the hope the darn thing will light up despite having been shut down only minutes ago, which, as every IO360 user knows, is VERY unlikely…
Interesting,. We have two aircraft with IO360-L2A engines (C172R, C172S) and they start on first attempt, every time.
Peter wrote:
Electronic ignition has failed to sell as a retrofit because it does no more mpg. Same with FADEC
Electronic ignition creates more mpg, but only at low manifold pressure. I think the issue is mostly that aircraft owners don’t care enough about a small annual fuel savings to spend the money.
FADEC can probably save fuel consistently for many pilots but here the long term maintenance and reliability issues with the sensors involved are a very real thing that few want to buy into with a machine that lasts for many decades.
Yes, the variable ignition timing helps. But in cruise this isn’t worth anything. I guess it should help when probing the operating ceiling.
It is very hard to sell a new product – into any market – which doesn’t deliver a real tangible improvement.
Airborne_Again wrote:
We have two aircraft with IO360-L2A engines (C172R, C172S) and they start on first attempt, every time.
Nice to hear. Maybe it is specific to the Mooney installations but there are lots of articles written about hotstarting those engines in the E, F and J…
http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/HOT%20STARTS.htm
as an example only..
And I may be burnt by my recent very expensive experience with the O360…. which took almost 6 months to figure out why it would only start every once in a while.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, the low volumes have to do with the exorbitant prices, the exorbitant prices are a result of low volume and the overhead costs of certification and product liability. It is a self propelling wheel of misfortune which needs a decisive break in order to get prices back to a level which get you a new airplane for less than the price of a house or more
The exact same thing is happening for non-certified aircraft, be it (US) LSA, European microlight or kits. Complexity and refinement increases, and along come (much) higher prices. Obviously there is some other mechanism involved than certification cost and liability. One factor is that it is much better economics producing one expensive aircraft than several cheaper. The higher in price you get, the more willing the buyer is to pay even more for “quality” and extras. It’s like the Mercedes slogan “Das beste oder nichts”. If you have a set production facility and skilled people, you want to maximize the return, and this is done by selling as expensive as possible, aim for the top. Then there must be a market for it, and obviously it is, partly because everybody aim to produce less units for more profit, rather than lots of unit for less profit. In the end it’s just the industry adapting to the market and aiming where it will get most bang for the buck so to speak.
Sonex started out by producing kits with the aim that “everybody” should afford to fly with their own aircraft. They have succeeded with that. But what has happened is that the market wants other engines, they want Rotax and ULPower. The market wants large glass displays, they want as much prefabricated as possible. So even though you certainly can build yourself a fully functional aircraft for 10-15 k, what they make money on is making highly prefabed kits and “quick builds” and selling ULPower engines and MGL glass for a profit.
There must be a market for cheaper planes also, but a small company with limited production capacity would be much better off aiming for top rather than the bottom. The market is still too small for an “industrial revolution” with automated mass production like that of the car industry.
Things are changing though. Purchasing a 4 seat C-172 at what? 4-500k just to train students basic flight, VFR style, is of course complete insanity. This is what Vashon aim at. Instead of purchasing a C-172, you can purchase a R7 at less than 100k. It’s perfect as a trainer, simple and robust and all glass, but it’s also perfect as a private aircraft for one or two. It will be interesting to follow them and see how they are doing the next years, but I’m getting more and more positive. This will also sell well in Europe, both as LSA and/or microlight, but they have to replace the Chinese steam engine with a 912iS to do so 
Silvaire wrote:
FADEC can probably save fuel consistently for many pilots
The main benefit with FADEC is the engine is never abused. It is always kept inside the operational envelope, and always runs optimally for any given power setting. This translates to much less maintenance on average. OK, you have to replace a probe every now and then, but this is done in minutes, and is really nothing compared to changing a piston or whatever else needed changing. This benefit is not easily visible though if you fly 50-100h per year, it’s more over a lifetime kind of thing. But purchasing a new aircraft and you have the choice between a 912UL and a 912iS, it’s easy to pick the right choice.
This translates to much less maintenance on average
Can you present any evidence for that? The FADEC engines have mostly occupied a market niche where they were sold with a particular airframe as the only option. The Rotax engines have occupied a market niche for which the lower power output is appropriate; Rotax could have pushed out a bigger engine but decided not to for whatever reason.
There is a huge difference between the engine and the airframe market.
For airframes, there is an abundance of good designs to choose from, so innovation is alive and kicking, but is boxed in the “homebuilt” corner, making them inaccessible to (a) people who want to fly, not build aircraft and (b) people who want to fly with no artificial limitations (IFR, international; dependent on country).
For engines, there is little new stuff around, and while in some instance car engines get adapted in “homebuilts” and “experimentals”, there is little in the 200-350HP category but the old stuff.
That is because airframes are much simpler than engines. They are basically shaped metal and a few cables and pushrods; tolerances are comparatively high compared to what is going on in an engine, and the demand on the material is not even in the same league. Yes, getting the shapes right is not really easy as such, but a lot easier than the engine.
So I would argue that certification requirements hold back airframe designs much more than engine designs.
I don’t have a lot of experience yet, but as to Rotax 912ULS vs 912iS I’m also not sure that the FADEC will provide much savings on maintenance. I don’t think you can abuse the 912ULS, as they have altitude compensating carbs, so running the wrong mixture is not possible. What I hear is that any Rotax hardly ever needs major components (like cylinders) changed. The main advantage of the iS seems to be fuel consumption, 20-30%? However, what is 20-30% of 17 liter/hr of Mogas going to save you?
In my particular case all Rotaxes on the island on are non-FADEC and the guy who services them all knows a lot about carbs and nada about FADEC.. So that would be another reason to stick to the ULS. I’ve had my share of ECU (=FADEC) warnings on the Diamond which mostly turned out to be just a need for a re-set because of some sensor momentarily exceeding some limit. I would not like to go back to these days, but maybe Rotaxes are more fire-proof in that sense, don’t know.
Rotax indeed seems to stick to lower power engines, 915 Turbo, 135 HP being the biggest one. Of course the turbo gives you some nice speed at altitude option..
20-30% compared to an O-200 operated full rich, definitely. But a leaned O-200 will do the same compared to an O-200 operated full rich, too. It is a choice within the PPL flight training business to chuck away the fuel, as a tradeoff for not having to train engine management.
I work with someone who is quite close to the DA40/42 scene maintenance-wise and while nowadays they are great planes (for both training and private use) I don’t see any clear advantage either way with FADEC. It is merely a necessary thing for diesels, it appears.
