I don't know Ted. I'm still fairly new to this FWIW, but FADEC could be very advantageous in engine management. There are a lot of inputs that could be monitored much more efficiently, and minutely, by machine if the instrumentation is properly designed.
Don't get me wrong, there are super-duper master machinists that can outdo a computer in grinding a perfectly balanced camshaft. However, in general, the computer will outdo a person on a regular basis.
Try it, see how well it does, tell me the results.
When I first started in this field, I couldn't believe that there weren't computer controls. Five years later, I really don't believe there is an advantage from an efficiency perspective on our engines. The advantages lie elsewhere. For certain individual pilots, yes, it will see a fuel savings. But that is not true for those who take the time to learn how to operate the things properly. I'm talking about the raw capabilities of the engines.
I still drive a car with a standard transmission and very much prefer it; however, I'm certainly in the minority. The trend is clearly to the automatic. Many of the FADEC arguments v. manual controls seem to be similar.
Well put. I, too, prefer a manual transmission. Our trucks have automatics (only offered that way), but the car and the motorcycles are all manual, and we like it that way.
The FADEC is very complex; did you see how many readings it takes off the engine? If a probe goes out, it defaults to a ROP position unless they've changed it and it could cause one to make precautionary landing if LOP is needed for an operation (farther range, etc.). It will add more complexity to our engines and for the mechanics that work on them. Yet, learning all we have about LOP operations is complex and if not done properly can damage an engine.
It depends on the specific algorithms, and can be programmed a lot of different ways. I've seen a couple different iterations where that isn't necessarily what happens.
The complexity and serviceability are definitely both issues, but I view those as more surmountable. However, they aren't anything more complex than what turbine guys have had to deal with for years. There will be a learning curve, and that will be painful for us who own (and pay for) the planes, and the technicians won't like it, either. That said, in the automotive world the same thing happened. In the end, we are all better off for it some decades later (at least, I think we are). As much as I'm against increased regulation, that is what drove it in automotive, and that will end up being what drives it in GA.
The bigger problem I see is that AvGas is really not a particularly useful fuel. All the turbine guys (who not only fly more but burn more fuel flying more) use Jet-A. 100LL, or any form of AvGas (unless we could actually just pump straight 93UL from the Sunoco down the street), ends up being a nuisance. A miniature turbine that's on par cost wise with pistons or a diesel that can run on Jet-A would definitely help the sustainability of GA. The hard part is finding the money to design and develop those, especially a "cost-effective turbine." Those little Rolls Royce units are the closest I've seen in the certified world, and they're far from cheap.
It's not on my list of priorities, but I could see how a newer pilot could benefit and would prefer it. I'd probably be frustrated knowing I could do better manually; especially, when stabilized at an altitude where I could really fine tune where I wanted to be.
The reality is that when you're at takeoff or climb power, there's really not any margin for doing things any more "efficiently" without cooking the heads. If a newer pilot doesn't have to learn leaning from the beginning, he or she will probably have a much harder time learning it later. As it is, most of the CFIs out there (who have turbines on the brain and just want to get to the airlines) don't have enough knowledge to convey anything useful. I find it rather frightening just how many people out there with thousands of hours ignore blatantly obvious engine problems, and really don't know enough to even operate the engines properly. That's where FADEC has advantage, not for those of us who actually can operate the things well. Like you, I want my manual transmission and my levers.
