From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Extending range
To: lml
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:38:09 -0500
Message-ID: <web-546090@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <MMEELOPNFCJLIMPNNKMOKEOGDGAA.hapgoodm94@alum.darden.edu>
References: <MMEELOPNFCJLIMPNNKMOKEOGDGAA.hapgoodm94@alum.darden.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Matt Hapgood" <hapgoodm94@alum.darden.edu>:

  To Walter and Jabe,
  
  I don't know diddly about the Aerosance FADEC unit.  What I do know is that
  I have over 300 hours on my own FADEC system, and though it is not perfect I
  am quite happy with it.  I can choose LOP or ROP, depending on which of the
  two redundant ECU's I utilize to control the EFI.  For timing it uses a
  timing curve very similar to the ElectroAir electronic ignition units.  At
  anything over 85% power I run ROP.  My temperatures never exceed 375 on hot
  climbs.  It's an easy to use, no-mixture system.
  
  Drawbacks:
  1.  Electrically it is very complex.  Troubleshooting would be nightmare.
  That is offset by the fact the sensors are available from any GM part store.
  2.  I get slightly uncomfortable in crappy IMC - I worry greatly about
  static problems.  So far the computers have not glitched even once, though
  my AOA and Sandel have.
  3.  My CHT's are TOO cool in cruise - around 275.
  
  So, would I recommend a FADEC?  Yes, with reservations.  The simplicity of
  no mixture, easy starts, and cool engine and better power (via advanced
  timing at altitude) is a wonderful thing.  Concerns would be parts and
  complexity, not limited "operational flexibility".
  
  Matt