Bin Huang

18 hours ago, Marc Zeitlin said:

Easier to "use", yes. Please provide evidence of FADEC piston engines being more fuel efficient than a manually adjusted fuel injection engine. Thanks.

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)

On 2/17/2015 at 8:23 AM, Jenate said:

Alright all, here's the performance data so far. Only 8 hrs on the bird and still tweaking to do that should get her even faster:

 

UL Power 390is, 160hp. 220lbs installed

 

leaves the ground in 1000ft

 

climbs out at 1900ft/ min solo

 

WOT (3000rpm) at 3000ft is 182kts TAS.

 

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

On 6/10/2020 at 5:35 PM, Justin said:

The Rotax engine range is amazing, but in my view, the UL390 series makes the most sense if you want a modern (fuel injected with FADEC) engine with a bit more power. Some people have put O-320s in EZs. They are heavier than the O-235 , and I hear people need to add weight up front to maintain the CG position. The UL390 is about the same weight as the O-235, and has variants ranging from 140hp to 160hp. Its torque lies between that of the O-235 and the O-320. Of course, a new engine mount design is required for the UL Power engines.

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?