Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pros and cons of non-certified aircraft

LeSving wrote:

The main benefit with FADEC is the engine is never abused.

I have experience with FADEC operated jet engines as well as a turboprop and you hit the nail on the proverbial head.

FADEC means the engine never will exceed any temperature limits, will not overspeed, will not (in the case of pistons) run over rich or over lean. Ram the throttle either way, FADEC will sort out that no limits are exceeded.

FADEC will also automatize the starting process. Especcially in Jet engines that used to be a huge problem. And it also is in many piston engines. Remembering my time in the Caravelle, starting was a two man issue, one holding the starter button, the other reading the gauges and then, at a predetermined condition, put the fuel on, watch over light up, EGT temps, e.t.c and then do the same for the other engine. Engine startup on an Airbus is Engine master control switch on and wait.

Our engines require a heck of a lot of pilots time and attention to run properly. As it is 2nd nature to most of us, we don’t realize. But there is hardly and phase of the flight where you are not fiddling with all in all up to 10 engine controls, whole books are being written about leaning techniques, and so on. That is not up to date at all. With a Fadec engine, you have ONE lever and you have a starter switch or button and that is it.

If you consider that your engine consequently ALWAYS will run properly enriched or leaned, that all you worry about is how many percent power you need and the FADEc will do the rest, that your turbo will not die if you accidently slam the throttle lever forward in a go around e.t.c. , the engine can be started no matter what the conditions are outside as FADEC will figure out the correct parameters, then FADEC is a lot to think about.

I remember listening to a discussion where some engine savvy guys were discussing this and the consent was that full electronic ignition together with FADEC would save up to 50% maintenance cost and reduce fuel flow over all by between 30-40%. Would I go for it? You bet.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Cobalt wrote:

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).

To be honest. There is the Cirrus, Da-42/62, a few TPs and a whole bunch of small jets. They all are designed from the ground to be “international private tourers”, some are even made for regular intercontinental flights. They are all innovative in one way or the other. The only problem is cost. Way out of reach of the average pilot with an average income. In essence, the main problems for “IFR international touring fans” is they don’t have the money it takes to get themselves proper equipment. For those with money, no problem, lots of innovation, lots of incredible cool stuff. Besides, a nice used SR-22 or a Da-42 isn’t entirely out of reach for a person with a bit more than average income, or 2-3 pilots funding together. If getting from A to B flying IFR is the only thing that matters, is it really that important what kind of aircraft you fly, or where you fly? There is something about dream and reality that doesn’t fully add up here, IMO.

For us VFR only bunch, it doesn’t matter what kind of aircraft we actually fly. VFR is VFR, an autopilot is an autopilot, glass is glass, SD is SD, a knot is a knot etc etc. It’s more a matter of taste and how we like to fly. We aren’t restricted by any of the (mostly self inflicted) nuisances if the “IFR touring fans”, which basically is nothing more than lack of money. If I fly a microlight, a Da-40, a homebuilt or some old Annex II, it’s all the same, no matter where I go, or what I do. We can chose freely, and those who for the most part are in touch with reality, chose what gives most bang for the buck. Depending on what kind of bang you want. Besides, personally I know only two persons who fly IFR privately in a certified aircraft. They both have Cirruses. But I know several who fly IFR in RVs, Glasairs and Lancairs. So, go figure.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

If getting from A to B flying IFR is the only thing that matters, is it really that important what kind of aircraft you fly, or where you fly?

Yes, because nobody flies the mission profile you describe, in a SEP. In a turboprop, potentially some do. In a jet, definitely.

There is something about dream and reality that doesn’t fully add up here, IMO.

Yes, and it is not knowing what it is like to have a plane which can fly both this (and that’s without getting permits from half a dozen countries first, and being illegally IFR over half of them) and a 1hr scenic flight down the coast with some people who have not been up in a plane before and who find it totally awesome.

FADEC means the engine never will exceed any temperature limits, will not overspeed, will not (in the case of pistons) run over rich or over lean. Ram the throttle either way, FADEC will sort out that no limits are exceeded.
FADEC will also automatize the starting process.

That is of course all true, but on the scale of what are the biggest fish to fry in GA, these things don’t really feature, and accordingly there is little interest in developing FADEC for the traditional aero engines.

Incidentally, and this is not related to certified or not, I don’t see how FADEC could prevent cylinder cracks due to rapid cooling – other than to keep feeding in the fuel after the throttle has been closed, and that would be highly dangerous, because when one closes the throttle it is usually for a very good reason. The reason FADEC engines don’t have issues with thermal management is because they are water cooled, not because they are FADEC. And air cooled engine (e.g. an IO540) with FADEC would end up flying the same climb profile as a manually operated one – probably controlling the mixture to fly a constant-EGT profile which is the optimal way to reach the operating ceiling, and upon levelling off it would be leaned to peak EGT, or slightly LOP, which is, ahem, exactly what one does manually anyway. This is not hard; the hard thing would be to extract money from potential customers.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Regarding post #1, the blog on their RV build is here. Jwoolard is still “out there”; whether he is still flying anything I have no idea.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’m still here and still happily flying, and building! Just very busy on other projects as well at the moment.

J

EGEO

Peter wrote:

Yes, because nobody flies the mission profile you describe

I didn’t describe any mission profile, it was a hypothetical question. My post was a response to cobolt’s post. The DA42 is as “new tech” as can be. New engine technology running on Jet fuel, 100% composite airframe, all glass, all the newest gadgets. Nothing in the experimental market surpasses this aircraft. It’s state of the art, and it’s a twin. The only problem with it is the price tag.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

ere is the Cirrus, Da-42/62, a few TPs and a whole bunch of small jets. They all are designed from the ground to be “international private tourers”, some are even made for regular intercontinental flights. They are all innovative in one way or the other. The only problem is cost.

Exactly. And that is why not many people buy them as compared to the 1960ties and 70ties where a fully equipped Bonanza or Mooney were available for prices a lot more people can afford. A new Cirrus is close to 1 Million now, a Mooney Acclaim Ultra will set you back 800k or so and the same goes for outrageously priced “new” Arrows or even C172.

The Diamond bunch are about the only real innovation around, as they are new from all sides and quite popular too. But they are European. I would claim that in the current climate a development like the DA42 as well as the Thielert Diesel would never have been possible in the US, they all would have run out of Money long before they hit the streets. It is weird that this should be like this. But also in Europe, failed developments are much more than actual success stories, primarily also because they depend on US engines and avionics. Looking at the Panthera for starters, who could have been a game changer, they failed because Lycoming let them down with their IO390 and the subsequent engine was unsuitable. Had they gone Diesel, I think they would be flying now.

The other stuff is avionics. There today exists a quasi monopoly, even though the market entry of Avidyne and now the certification of certain dynon products has helped a bit. But in fact, the only real solution for new planes today is the G1000 and its derivates, so they can charge the price of a small house for those and get away with it.

If however we rely on people who are multi millionaires to save the SEP market, we might as well concede that it is dead. Most people with that kind of money wonˆt go this way but take a share in Netjets or similar. In any event, the development has gone in this direction for a while and the obvious answer appears to be that Americans have said good bye to certified GA and now only buy non certified, which basically means that certification has bancrupted itself. Europe has forestalled that by imposing restrictions which make these planes mostly useless unless as you say the only ambition is to fly within one country and VFR, but has gone the way of Ultralights or Permit airplanes for some cathegories.

The rest of the people are flying 50 year old relics which they have to bring up to date with mods exceeding hull value. Well, I am sorry but my confidence in the future of Ga under such conditions is about zero.

In any case it does not really concern me anymore as my flying days are most certainly over for the time being, but seeing the developments is simply sad. I would have hoped my daughter would have the chance to fly one day but the way it looks she can be lucky if she can drive her own car by the time she becomes old enough and will not have to rely on a self driving trashcan. Maybe it’s good that I am now getting to an age where I know that I won’t have to endure most of the stuff which comes our way.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Maybe it’s good that I am now getting to an age where I know that I won’t have to endure most of the stuff which comes our way.

Yes the halcyon days are all but over. Peculiar that as technology developed, our freedoms and ability to enjoy the developments were/are being curbed. Take air travel itself, which now has to rank as one of the most unappealing ways to travel available to us. It used to be the greatest of adventures. One would have thought the opposite would have been true with advanced technology improving the overall experience.

I have a friend whom I introduced to the joy of flight. He changes his Cirrus GTX, or whatever, every five months. Just like a PCP deal on a car. Whats next he says. It certainly will not be an iconic Mooney or Beech, it will be another upgraded Cirrus with the latest very expensive gadget. Question is who is right or wrong? Should we even care? Like the High Street, the GA market has changed a great deal. For a few of us, not for the better.
Last Edited by BeechBaby at 19 Jun 08:06
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

Mooney_Driver wrote:

the only real solution for new planes today is the G1000 and its derivates, so they can charge the price of a small house for those and get away with it.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with certification. It’s the market demand. People are willing to pay for it. The G1000 is also available non-certified as the G900X or whatever it’s called. They sell maybe one or two per year, I don’t know. For IFR in experimentals, people chose one of those GTN boxes, and typically the much cheaper G3X or Dynon or some other stuff.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I would have hoped my daughter would have the chance to fly one day but the way it looks she can be lucky if she can drive her own car by the time she becomes old enough and will not have to rely on a self driving trashcan

That’s where you are wrong. My son got his microlight license recently, and he still hasn’t got his drivers license. There has never ever been as easy and cheap to get a license, your own aircraft and fly as much as you want. A good used Kitfox cost 10-15 k and uses 15 l/h, a license to fly it: 30-40k (or less depending), yearly maintenance 1k. This is reality. But, another aspect of this reality is a brand new Da-42 at what 1M+ ? PPL at 15k, IR at 15k, yearly maintenance 10k+.

That Kitfox is as good as any old C-172 to fly around in. Much better actually, as you can land almost anywhere. If you restrict yourself to VFR, and look at the reality for what it is, a whole new world opens up. OK, you get tired of that slow and tiny Kitfox after a few years. 15 more hours of instruction, and you got the LAPL. You can fly just about all EASA SEP’s + any experimental. You decided to get/build an RV-7, learn some acro. Then you got the travel bug, a few more instruction hours and you have the PPL + EIR, and mount a GTN in the RV, fly all around Europe. Still at maintenance cost of 1-2k and using 30l/h.

However, what usually happens is you get the PPL (way too much restrictions of LAPL and microlight you are told by “people who know”, and has “been in the game”, and who speaks out load with huge “gravitas” and many “followers” on international forums ), You rent a C-172 at €150-200 per hour doing local flights. You fly the minimum token hours for some years, having fun bringing family and friends along at first, while dreaming of that Cirrus or Diamond twin. Slowly but surely you discover the reality of cost and bureaucratic nuisances of EASA and the club you rent at. It all starts to get to your nerves. You understand that there is no reality in getting that Da-42 and ratings needed to use it fully, and keep all of it maintained and current – unless winning in lottery. You end up throwing in the towel, the money and time are better spent elsewhere. This is reality, it is what happens to 70-80% of PPL pilots, unless they wonder off to more serious flight academies and become professional pilots (flying IFR from A to B, don’t caring about the actual destinations or the type of aircraft).

Later on, a lot of these “fallen” PPL pilots discover microlights. They think: WOW, I can fly this exactly as I fly the rented C-172. None of the bureaucracy, non of the hassles, and at a fraction of the cost. No problem affording my own aircraft either, and load and loads to chose from in a highly liquid and active market of new and used. Or they discover experimentals, homebuilding, bush flying or whatever else. Maybe after lots of diversion you end up with that R-7 with the GTN. Usually though you discover all the other stuff you can do while still flying VFR, maybe take the EIR or that other “light” IR (don’t remember the name) just for fun, or just in case or whatever.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

a license to fly it: 30-40k (or less depending)

If you are referring to kEUR, that seems to be at least twice the cost of a PPL in a Swedish club.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top