Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

WingFlaps,

I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel.


You need to let go of what you Americans consider to be a "diesel".
That's good for trucks and boats, but not for efficient small cars -
and airplanes.


Go **** yourself. i've owned several diesel cars. I have nothing against
diesels in cars or airplanes and I have already made that clear. I'd fly
a diesel airplane no problem and I was anxiously awaiting the Zoche, in
fact, which never appeared.

We're talking modern, common-rail diesels which get their efficiency
and attractivity through complete electronic control.

If you think an engine that can quit anytime a bit of corrosion appears
on it's battery terminals is attractive, have I got a girl for you.

FWIW, Thielert's two main developments (cost- and engineeringwise) are

1. the fuel pump (which has nothing to do with a gasoline pump), which
is self-lubricating with car diesel, but must be jet fuel compatible -
and jet fuel lubricates less well.

2. The FADEC, which, Bertie, has nothing to do with the car's engine
control, has dual redundancy and also proper electrical redundancy if
installed right (it wasn't in the DA-42, IMHO).

Nope.


Thielert starts with a Mercedes car engine and exchanges 150 parts
before that engine becomes a Thielert.


Doesn;t matter. The Fadec requires electricity to make the engine run.
The electricity cannot be gaurunteed as has been proven by experience.
One of the 150 parts is crap.




Bertie