swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,982
- Jun 25, 2013
It depends, but typical is probably 350 to 400 meters per second. Greater tip speeds permit greater stage pressure ratios
If recips were made nowadays
- Thread starter PWR4360-59B
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It depends, but typical is probably 350 to 400 meters per second. Greater tip speeds permit greater stage pressure ratios
And it's tip speed relative to the airflow that's important, not relative to the rest of the engine, which should be a bit higher, but not supersonic
Shortround6
Major General
two things about jet engine parts rotating inside the engine.
1. The shock waves and resulting noise, if they go supersonic, are pretty much limited to inside the engine or muffled by the casing and cowling/fuselage.
2. The Speed of Sound varies considerably with the pressure and temperature of the air. At high pressure it is much higher (in fps) than in open air. And the speed of sound at 30,000ft is lower than the speed of sound at sea level. Many WW II reciprocating engine superchargers had tip speeds 100-200fps faster than the speed of sound in open air at sea level. Had they exceeded the speed of sound inside the supercharger by very much the shock waves would have disrupted the airflow through the supercharger.
Please note that most, or almost all (leaving myself an out) jet engines in supersonic aircraft have ducts that are shaped/configured to reduce the incoming airflow to subsonic, even if still high, speeds. There may be a few exceptions like the SR-71?
1. The shock waves and resulting noise, if they go supersonic, are pretty much limited to inside the engine or muffled by the casing and cowling/fuselage.
2. The Speed of Sound varies considerably with the pressure and temperature of the air. At high pressure it is much higher (in fps) than in open air. And the speed of sound at 30,000ft is lower than the speed of sound at sea level. Many WW II reciprocating engine superchargers had tip speeds 100-200fps faster than the speed of sound in open air at sea level. Had they exceeded the speed of sound inside the supercharger by very much the shock waves would have disrupted the airflow through the supercharger.
Please note that most, or almost all (leaving myself an out) jet engines in supersonic aircraft have ducts that are shaped/configured to reduce the incoming airflow to subsonic, even if still high, speeds. There may be a few exceptions like the SR-71?
The SR-71 is a dual-cycle engine - changes operation from a turbo-jet to a ram-jet at high speeds.
- Thread starter
- #105
PWR4360-59B
Senior Airman
- 379
- May 27, 2008
So a 1 meter diameter rotor, at 12k rpms would have a tip speed of 628 meters per second. Bit faster than speed of sound.
Centrifugal forces are crazy in turbine / jet engines.
An interesting article.
http://www.energy.kth.se/compedu/webcompedu/WebHelp/media\Lecture_notes\Papers\Srinivasan_97-GT-533.pdf
Centrifugal forces are crazy in turbine / jet engines.
An interesting article.
http://www.energy.kth.se/compedu/webcompedu/WebHelp/media\Lecture_notes\Papers\Srinivasan_97-GT-533.pdf
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
No, the cone is designed to slow the air down to subsonic speeds.
Pratt & Whitney J58 - Wikipedia
The SR71's engines did not operate as a ramjet.
- Thread starter
- #107
PWR4360-59B
Senior Airman
- 379
- May 27, 2008
Doing a search comes up with many super sonic propeller experimental planes.
I'm always amazed that folks will say it can't be done, with out any effort to think maybe it can be done.
Shortround6
Major General
There are usually reasons that some experimental airplanes (or engines/propulsion systems) stay experimental.
If they offered any worthwhile improvement over current technology they would be adopted and move from experimental to mainstream.
Like many other advances in aerodynamics or propulsion.
If they are not adopted we have to basic reasons.
1. There was a conspiracy to suppress the genius idea for some reason (big oil, the illuminati, The international globe makers guild, etc)
2. It didn't work as advertised. Either didn't work very well at all or offered little or no improvement over what else was available at the time.
You can make a supersonic propeller.
Now does it offer better propulsive efficiency than modern non supersonic propellers or turbo fans?
Is it quieter than it's competitors?
Is it cheaper or lower in maintenance enough to overcome #1 if it isn't quite as efficient?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,982
- Jun 25, 2013
Sometimes exper
XFV-12 was supposed to work, and had in small-scale testing. Then, they built the test aircraft, and found it didn't.
XFV-12 was supposed to work, and had in small-scale testing. Then, they built the test aircraft, and found it didn't.
Shortround6
Major General
Large reciprocating engines can certainly save fuel in the airline industry by reducing people's desire to fly in planes powered by them and vacationing closer to home. Fewer flights means more fuel saved 
Longer fights with more noise/vibration in the plane and more noise near the airport are not what customers (or airlines) want.
The high performance fuel that allowed the R-3350 and R-4360 to make the power they did is not coming back.
Trying to make the same power at lower boost levels to suit available fuel means either higher rpm or larger displacement engines (bigger cylinders or more of them) or both.
Modern material might mean somewhat lighter engines (Titanium connecting rods and Titanium crankcases? )Modern fuel injection may help, modern ignition systems may also help. Modern sparkplug technology may help with less frequent sparkplug changes but aircraft plugs are not the same as car spark plugs.
but start to be competitive you need 5-6000hp engines for a 4 engine plane for long distance.
last big western turboprop airliner.
four 5730hp engines.
cruising at 320 kt T.A.S . (25,000ft) , 13,500 r.p.m. ; 2,780 s.h.p. ; 3,033 e.h.p. ; 0.398 Ib/e.h.p./hr . From Flight magazine 1958 article.
The EHP is a bit of an exaggeration as that is counting exhaust thrust. However it helps explain why the big reciprocating engines faded away for new aircraft.
It also shows that the target for a new reciprocating engine would be much harder to hit.
That was late 1950s turboprop and weighed about 2400lbs (less than 2/3rds what a R-4360 or turbo compound R-3350 did).
A new PW 150A turbo prop makes a bit over 5000hp and weighs under 1600lbs.
They also have a considerable amount of reserve power ( engine is flat rated to 37 degrees C, not the old 15 degrees C) and is allowed to use the 5 minute rating for 10 minutes in the event of an engine failure on take-off with no engine life penalty.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS PW150 series issue 01_20141119_1.0.pdf
This is what a new reciprocating engine in the airliner market would have to match or beat.
You would have to reduce the weight of the old reciprocating engine by a factor of 4 while keeping the same power and vastly reducing the maintenance requirements and vastly increasing the overhaul life.
Longer fights with more noise/vibration in the plane and more noise near the airport are not what customers (or airlines) want.
The high performance fuel that allowed the R-3350 and R-4360 to make the power they did is not coming back.
Trying to make the same power at lower boost levels to suit available fuel means either higher rpm or larger displacement engines (bigger cylinders or more of them) or both.
Modern material might mean somewhat lighter engines (Titanium connecting rods and Titanium crankcases? )Modern fuel injection may help, modern ignition systems may also help. Modern sparkplug technology may help with less frequent sparkplug changes but aircraft plugs are not the same as car spark plugs.
but start to be competitive you need 5-6000hp engines for a 4 engine plane for long distance.
last big western turboprop airliner.
four 5730hp engines.
cruising at 320 kt T.A.S . (25,000ft) , 13,500 r.p.m. ; 2,780 s.h.p. ; 3,033 e.h.p. ; 0.398 Ib/e.h.p./hr . From Flight magazine 1958 article.
The EHP is a bit of an exaggeration as that is counting exhaust thrust. However it helps explain why the big reciprocating engines faded away for new aircraft.
It also shows that the target for a new reciprocating engine would be much harder to hit.
That was late 1950s turboprop and weighed about 2400lbs (less than 2/3rds what a R-4360 or turbo compound R-3350 did).
A new PW 150A turbo prop makes a bit over 5000hp and weighs under 1600lbs.
They also have a considerable amount of reserve power ( engine is flat rated to 37 degrees C, not the old 15 degrees C) and is allowed to use the 5 minute rating for 10 minutes in the event of an engine failure on take-off with no engine life penalty.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS PW150 series issue 01_20141119_1.0.pdf
This is what a new reciprocating engine in the airliner market would have to match or beat.
You would have to reduce the weight of the old reciprocating engine by a factor of 4 while keeping the same power and vastly reducing the maintenance requirements and vastly increasing the overhaul life.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,982
- Jun 25, 2013
Large reciprocating engines can certainly save fuel in the airline industry by reducing people's desire to fly in planes powered by them and vacationing closer to home. Fewer flights means more fuel saved
Longer fights with more noise/vibration in the plane and more noise near the airport are not what customers (or airlines) want.
The high performance fuel that allowed the R-3350 and R-4360 to make the power they did is not coming back.
Trying to make the same power at lower boost levels to suit available fuel means either higher rpm or larger displacement engines (bigger cylinders or more of them) or both.
Modern material might mean somewhat lighter engines (Titanium connecting rods and Titanium crankcases? )Modern fuel injection may help, modern ignition systems may also help. Modern sparkplug technology may help with less frequent sparkplug changes but aircraft plugs are not the same as car spark plugs.
but start to be competitive you need 5-6000hp engines for a 4 engine plane for long distance.
last big western turboprop airliner.
View attachment 506028
four 5730hp engines.
cruising at 320 kt T.A.S . (25,000ft) , 13,500 r.p.m. ; 2,780 s.h.p. ; 3,033 e.h.p. ; 0.398 Ib/e.h.p./hr . From Flight magazine 1958 article.
The EHP is a bit of an exaggeration as that is counting exhaust thrust. However it helps explain why the big reciprocating engines faded away for new aircraft.
It also shows that the target for a new reciprocating engine would be much harder to hit.
That was late 1950s turboprop and weighed about 2400lbs (less than 2/3rds what a R-4360 or turbo compound R-3350 did).
A new PW 150A turbo prop makes a bit over 5000hp and weighs under 1600lbs.
They also have a considerable amount of reserve power ( engine is flat rated to 37 degrees C, not the old 15 degrees C) and is allowed to use the 5 minute rating for 10 minutes in the event of an engine failure on take-off with no engine life penalty.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS PW150 series issue 01_20141119_1.0.pdf
This is what a new reciprocating engine in the airliner market would have to match or beat.
View attachment 506029
You would have to reduce the weight of the old reciprocating engine by a factor of 4 while keeping the same power and vastly reducing the maintenance requirements and vastly increasing the overhaul life.
And their reliability. ETOPS would be very challenging.
- Thread starter
- #112
PWR4360-59B
Senior Airman
- 379
- May 27, 2008
The continental diesels seem to be very reliable, even more so than any gas engine for aircraft use. With them there is no worry about the 100LL or av gas problems, they burn jet fuel. The the fuel issue is mute. Its called proper engineering. Never can continuous combustion compete with intermittent combustion in fuel consumption, constant flow will always be more than timed spurts of flow. I would personally like to know what a turbine would do with NOS added to the mix?
I am thinking it would cause combustion chamber cracking and the same with the hot section.
I am thinking it would cause combustion chamber cracking and the same with the hot section.
Shortround6
Major General
Oh boy,
http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/pdf/Datenblaetter/DS_CMG_2_CD-155.pdf
155hp max power and 97hp best economy power from a 294lb engine (weight does NOT include coolant or radiator)
WOW! I am impressed!
Of course the Continental Io-360 (360 cu in air cooled) can make 195hp max from 305lbs dry
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/u...gines/Gasoline_engines/300AvGas-SpecSheet.pdf
and the Lycoming O-320 series can make 150-160hp from 280-307lbs dry weight
Both gas engines have been around for decades. Some of the Lycoming O-320s have an overhaul life of 2000 hours.
Both engines can be made in models with slightly reduced compession to suit less than 100LL fuel.
I also like this tidbit.
"Through key improvements, continuous testing and field experience, both the CD-135 and CD-155 are now rated to a TBR of 2,100 hours. The TBR of the CD-155 increases from 1,200 hours to 2,100 hours, the CD-135 from 1,500 to 2,100 hours. In addition, the gearbox and timing chain will be rated for 1,200 hours once EASA issues the final paperwork for these components."
Highlighting by me. The old flat air cooled engines don't use a gear box in the basic models (or any that have been made in decades, the reduction gear versions were put to sleep decades ago if they ever existed in these sizes).
Now to help illustrate the dilemma of trying to introduce a more than minimal diesel engine we have the old/ancient Allison B-15/17 turbo shaft. Sold by RR since 1995. Design work started in the late 50s with first engines flying in the early 60s. Versions from the 90s could give 420hp for a weight of just under 200lbs.
75% cruise rating was 277hp.
Granted these are pretty thirsty engines for their size. But then you need three of Continentals diesels to equal the power of one Allison/RR small turbine. At 4-5 times the weight. The Diesels will sip fuel but the turbine allows you to put in 700-800lbs more fuel (or cargo?)
The B17 needs an inspection at 1750 hours and a general overhaul life of 3500hours. The reduction gear in aerobatic aircraft has a 2000hour life. In other applications reduction gear overhaul life depends on condition.
RR is certainly getting good money out of an old dog.
I have no idea why anybody would want to put NOS into a turbine engine.
Edit:
this website gives a good idea the pluses and minuses of converting a Cessna 172 to this Diesel engine.
Little diesel, big fuel savings - AOPA
Basically, due the greater weight of the engine/powerplant and the heavier weight per gallon of diesel fuel/jet fuel the useful load with full tanks (even reduced to 47 gallons) is reduced to 332lbs (pilot, passenger/s and baggage?)
speed is reduced(test report is on 135hp version) but range/endurance is inreased.
http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/pdf/Datenblaetter/DS_CMG_2_CD-155.pdf
155hp max power and 97hp best economy power from a 294lb engine (weight does NOT include coolant or radiator)
WOW! I am impressed!
Of course the Continental Io-360 (360 cu in air cooled) can make 195hp max from 305lbs dry
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/u...gines/Gasoline_engines/300AvGas-SpecSheet.pdf
and the Lycoming O-320 series can make 150-160hp from 280-307lbs dry weight
Both gas engines have been around for decades. Some of the Lycoming O-320s have an overhaul life of 2000 hours.
Both engines can be made in models with slightly reduced compession to suit less than 100LL fuel.
I also like this tidbit.
"Through key improvements, continuous testing and field experience, both the CD-135 and CD-155 are now rated to a TBR of 2,100 hours. The TBR of the CD-155 increases from 1,200 hours to 2,100 hours, the CD-135 from 1,500 to 2,100 hours. In addition, the gearbox and timing chain will be rated for 1,200 hours once EASA issues the final paperwork for these components."
Highlighting by me. The old flat air cooled engines don't use a gear box in the basic models (or any that have been made in decades, the reduction gear versions were put to sleep decades ago if they ever existed in these sizes).
Now to help illustrate the dilemma of trying to introduce a more than minimal diesel engine we have the old/ancient Allison B-15/17 turbo shaft. Sold by RR since 1995. Design work started in the late 50s with first engines flying in the early 60s. Versions from the 90s could give 420hp for a weight of just under 200lbs.
75% cruise rating was 277hp.
Granted these are pretty thirsty engines for their size. But then you need three of Continentals diesels to equal the power of one Allison/RR small turbine. At 4-5 times the weight. The Diesels will sip fuel but the turbine allows you to put in 700-800lbs more fuel (or cargo?)
The B17 needs an inspection at 1750 hours and a general overhaul life of 3500hours. The reduction gear in aerobatic aircraft has a 2000hour life. In other applications reduction gear overhaul life depends on condition.
RR is certainly getting good money out of an old dog.
I have no idea why anybody would want to put NOS into a turbine engine.
Edit:
this website gives a good idea the pluses and minuses of converting a Cessna 172 to this Diesel engine.
Little diesel, big fuel savings - AOPA
Basically, due the greater weight of the engine/powerplant and the heavier weight per gallon of diesel fuel/jet fuel the useful load with full tanks (even reduced to 47 gallons) is reduced to 332lbs (pilot, passenger/s and baggage?)
speed is reduced(test report is on 135hp version) but range/endurance is inreased.
Last edited:
Oh boy,
http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/pdf/Datenblaetter/DS_CMG_2_CD-155.pdf
View attachment 506072
155hp max power and 97hp best economy power from a 294lb engine (weight does NOT include coolant or radiator)
WOW! I am impressed!
Of course the Continental Io-360 (360 cu in air cooled) can make 195hp max from 305lbs dry
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/u...gines/Gasoline_engines/300AvGas-SpecSheet.pdf
and the Lycoming O-320 series can make 150-160hp from 280-307lbs dry weight
Both gas engines have been around for decades. Some of the Lycoming O-320s have an overhaul life of 2000 hours.
Both engines can be made in models with slightly reduced compession to suit less than 100LL fuel.
I also like this tidbit.
"Through key improvements, continuous testing and field experience, both the CD-135 and CD-155 are now rated to a TBR of 2,100 hours. The TBR of the CD-155 increases from 1,200 hours to 2,100 hours, the CD-135 from 1,500 to 2,100 hours. In addition, the gearbox and timing chain will be rated for 1,200 hours once EASA issues the final paperwork for these components."
Highlighting by me. The old flat air cooled engines don't use a gear box in the basic models (or any that have been made in decades, the reduction gear versions were put to sleep decades ago if they ever existed in these sizes).
I've got a customer who operate a fleet of C-172's on training. They had an extended TBO on the Lycoming IO-360 of 4,000 hours, and it was still cheaper for them to convert the aircraft to the CD-155. The operating and replacement (note - no overhaul) cost of the diesel's worked out cheaper than the IO-360 operating and overhaul costs, even after doubling the TBO. from memory, 1800 hours TBR on the diesel was where they worked out about hte same.
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you.
Diesel engines can make inroads into the piston engine market due to the costs of the fuel/s available or simply the availability of certain fuels in certain areas of the world. But is seems to be on the lower end of the HP range.
For the engine companies (and the airframe makers) the problem seems to be looking into the future and trying to figure out what the fuel of the future will be.
100LL seems to be on the way out, but they have been saying that for how long? a couple of decades? I don't doubt that it will disappear at some point and just not in certain areas of the world. The question may be what will be left? 80/87 no lead or avgas disappears completely leaving only diesel or jet fuel?
It seems to take years (a decade or more) to get a new aircraft engine into production and fuel prices can fluctuate wildly in that time making projects in the works look like a good investment one year and money down the drain the next and then back to a very good investment. This certainly doesn't help development times either. Not mention government agencies.
Aviation Gasoline – About Aviation Gasoline
Looks like the FAA on June 4th 2018 kicked the can down the road another year. Testing not even being scheduled to be done until Dec 2019. Let alone a decision made.
This makes it hard to invest the millions (10s of millions) needed for even a light plane engine development plan.
For operators who's aircraft do a lot flying but not with 4-6 people on board the small Continental diesel may make sense. Some of that depends on local fuel prices.
However the diesel conversion does have it's limits. It reduces the number of passengers by around 1 on the 172. Not that the 172 was really a four place airplane with full tanks to begin with. But with the diesel and full tanks you are down to 2 people (and they better not be well fed ones). Taking out 20 gallons of JP4 lets you carry another skinny adult but leaves you with 27 gallons on board.
Also note that the comparison is not quite equal. The Diesel powered plane uses a constant speed prop while the standard 172 uses a fixed pitch prop. I am not saying that the gasoline engine would ever equal the diesel in fuel burn but it might do a bit better in both cruise speed and climb for the same fuel burn if it had a constant speed prop.
For the gas engine owners/builders if they come up with a fuel that meets the environmental regulations and is close to the old 80/87 or 91/96 fuels many of the smaller engines will be OK, they never needed 100LL to begin with. However any engines using superchargers or turbochargers may be in trouble. It depends on how much boost they used, some not much and others did use enough to require the better the fuel.
Unfortunately the diesels so far that I have found are not a lot of help.
SR305-230E®
By Streaky77 - Own work, FAL, File:Moteur-SMA.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
and the same engine was supposed to taken over by Continental
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diesel/engines/cd200.aspx
Now please note that this 230hp (basic version) four cylinder engine weighs about 440lbs making it as heavy as some of the basic 6 cylinder gas Continental and Lycoming engines. Most of the websites/information seems to be 3-5 year old?
Continental also has 6 cylinder liquid cooled engine in the works.
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diesel/engines/cd300.aspx
300hp for 550lbs? we are getting into the weights of 350-360hp gas engines, it may work, it may mean 100hp less for a twin with the resulting impact on performance?
Or it may leave an opening for a modern small turbine to make it to the market.
In any case the diesel and thus the reciprocating engine look to be dead end for engines much bigger than this. The chances of anybody building 500-1000hp aircraft diesels and getting them to market look pretty slim.
Diesel engines can make inroads into the piston engine market due to the costs of the fuel/s available or simply the availability of certain fuels in certain areas of the world. But is seems to be on the lower end of the HP range.
For the engine companies (and the airframe makers) the problem seems to be looking into the future and trying to figure out what the fuel of the future will be.
100LL seems to be on the way out, but they have been saying that for how long? a couple of decades? I don't doubt that it will disappear at some point and just not in certain areas of the world. The question may be what will be left? 80/87 no lead or avgas disappears completely leaving only diesel or jet fuel?
It seems to take years (a decade or more) to get a new aircraft engine into production and fuel prices can fluctuate wildly in that time making projects in the works look like a good investment one year and money down the drain the next and then back to a very good investment. This certainly doesn't help development times either. Not mention government agencies.
Aviation Gasoline – About Aviation Gasoline
Looks like the FAA on June 4th 2018 kicked the can down the road another year. Testing not even being scheduled to be done until Dec 2019. Let alone a decision made.
This makes it hard to invest the millions (10s of millions) needed for even a light plane engine development plan.
For operators who's aircraft do a lot flying but not with 4-6 people on board the small Continental diesel may make sense. Some of that depends on local fuel prices.
However the diesel conversion does have it's limits. It reduces the number of passengers by around 1 on the 172. Not that the 172 was really a four place airplane with full tanks to begin with. But with the diesel and full tanks you are down to 2 people (and they better not be well fed ones). Taking out 20 gallons of JP4 lets you carry another skinny adult but leaves you with 27 gallons on board.
Also note that the comparison is not quite equal. The Diesel powered plane uses a constant speed prop while the standard 172 uses a fixed pitch prop. I am not saying that the gasoline engine would ever equal the diesel in fuel burn but it might do a bit better in both cruise speed and climb for the same fuel burn if it had a constant speed prop.
For the gas engine owners/builders if they come up with a fuel that meets the environmental regulations and is close to the old 80/87 or 91/96 fuels many of the smaller engines will be OK, they never needed 100LL to begin with. However any engines using superchargers or turbochargers may be in trouble. It depends on how much boost they used, some not much and others did use enough to require the better the fuel.
Unfortunately the diesels so far that I have found are not a lot of help.
SR305-230E®
and the same engine was supposed to taken over by Continental
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diesel/engines/cd200.aspx
Now please note that this 230hp (basic version) four cylinder engine weighs about 440lbs making it as heavy as some of the basic 6 cylinder gas Continental and Lycoming engines. Most of the websites/information seems to be 3-5 year old?
Continental also has 6 cylinder liquid cooled engine in the works.
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diesel/engines/cd300.aspx
300hp for 550lbs? we are getting into the weights of 350-360hp gas engines, it may work, it may mean 100hp less for a twin with the resulting impact on performance?
Or it may leave an opening for a modern small turbine to make it to the market.
In any case the diesel and thus the reciprocating engine look to be dead end for engines much bigger than this. The chances of anybody building 500-1000hp aircraft diesels and getting them to market look pretty slim.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Those costs above look like purely overhaul costs to me and therefore ignore the periodic maintenance costs of each type.
The Allison 250 series oil consumption is negligible and it does not require an oil and filter change every 100 hours. Just the oil and filters are a significant cost. Add to that the induction filters, spark plugs and all the other throw away items on piston engines and the hourly running costs zoom past the Allisons costs.
Sixteen spark plugs every 200 hours for the IO-720 sets you back about $2.40 an hour - plus the cleaning costs on the first hundred hourly. The man-hours for the periodic inspections on pistons are also far higher than most turbines - the TPE331 being the notable exception.
Another benefit of the later Allison's is they have FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and the computer tells you well in advance of most failures thereby usually saving lots of expense. An exception to that is when some airframe driver wildly exceeds some limits like one who oversped a new engine 7 times in the first hundred hours. That FADEC report cost the pilot his job and the company an expensive engine shop visit but it also prevented a possible complete engine failure at some unpredictable time in the future which could well have destroyed the aircraft and killed all on board. I am not aware of any FADEC piston engines but I have not worked on pistons for years.
- Thread starter
- #117
PWR4360-59B
Senior Airman
- 379
- May 27, 2008
It is on the Continental diesel engines. And offered on some of the gasoline ones as well. Personally not sure if I would want electronics controlling the engine in a plane I'm flying, but thats me.
Shortround6
Major General
FADEC seems to be the coming thing with just about all commercial aviation going that way.
I guess the schools figure that they might as well teach it from the beginning.
I haven't had a manual choke on a car in over 40 years and I can't say that I miss them on the whole
Just as long as the FADEC system doesn't use Windows everything should be OK
I guess the schools figure that they might as well teach it from the beginning.
I haven't had a manual choke on a car in over 40 years and I can't say that I miss them on the whole
Just as long as the FADEC system doesn't use Windows everything should be OK
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Just as long as the FADEC system doesn't use Windows everything should be OK
Amen to that
Just as long as the FADEC system doesn't use Windows everything should be OK
My car does, no problems.
