Bin Huang

I mean FADEC engine is more fuel efficient than those engine which require manually adjust mixture. This is only a general point, cause there are more than one engine in each category, and the efficiency of an engine depend on many aspect of an engine, and it certainly depend on the Engine Control Unit algorithm in the FADEC engine. I remember I saw a graph that compare fuel efficiency of rotax 915 is (A FEDEC engine) and those older types, like lycoming 0-325 etc. But I can't find it now, although it is more like a claim than evidence. I believe my claim on the fuel efficiency is valid, just think there is no reason a properly programmed Engine Control Unit couldn't outperform a man, cause the computer monitor and adjust the parameter of the engine multiple times per second, a man at best level, one time in several minutes. (Actually, some pilot claim they ignore the mixture setting when they shouldn't)

What dose "WOT" mean? What is the cruise speed and how much fuel it consume?

Yes, I prefer FADEC engine, cause they are more fuel efficient and easy to use. The PRO of rotax is their lighter weight, if handled properly, may gives you extra pounds of useful loads.

The rotax 912 is very popular these days, the shp is good too, for it is similar to 0-200, both 100hp. If you want more hp, then you have rotax 915, with 135 hp. The PROs of using rotax engine would be it can operate on autogas, and it's a more modern engine. But I could hardly find anyone adapted rotax on a long ez on the internet, anyone know if it is possible to do so? The only issue I could think of is the lighter weight of the rotax, and a custom made engine mount is probably needed too, any other issue?