WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote
innews:VA.000077df.009
:

Bertie,

None of them regard electricity.

So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
than others?

I believe I just did.

Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is,
too. But don't make it sound like there is something inherently
wrong about an engine just because it has different failure modes
than the ones you are used to.

It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable,
therefore unacceptable.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...FADEC-0-a.html


I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel. They
must have adde it due to pressure from the marketing department!


However, FADEC adds a failure mode but removal of sparks takes one
away. The reduced risk of fire would remove another. Add that to the
removal of 100LL and the damage that will be caused by ethanol
addition and diesel starts to look better all the time.


No. What I meant was, you lose power to the fadec, you lose power. it's
gone. You;'re gliding. End of flight.
There are Fadecs installed on a lot of turbines. Fadecs and similar
devices. they all have a manual reversion of some description. It's
usually a coarser throttle response, but you still have power....

With the thielert system, you don't. I can only imagine they lifted the
FADEC straight out of the car with the engine.





Bertie