Most drivers know NOTHING about engine management for their cars and yet manage to drive for most of their active life without hard failures.
Exactly. It is not the job of a pilot to learn everything about engines. It is also not a value in itself for a pilot to be an engine expert. I like to deal with engines, others here too, and I have even taken apart and repaired a couple of engines … but I know many people who find it completely unattrative that you have to become a specialist in so many things if you want to be an airplane owner. There’s people who have other interests than spending their limited free time in cold airplane hangars, and many simply don’t have the time. So they have to rely on shops, and that can be very frustrating too. Imagine our engines were as uncomplicated as a typical car engine is today. There would be much more FUN in flying, IMHO …
Flyer59 wrote:
Imagine our engines were as uncomplicated as a typical car engine is today.
Not much imagination needed, just fly a Diesel…..
Flyer59 wrote:
Leaning during taxi is a good example. When was the last time you leaned your car when it was idling?
My old Peugeot 309 we keep in Bulgaria still has a manual choke. I have to remind myself every time how to properly use it.
Leaning during taxi is actually written in the few procedures the 1965 Mooney POH has, so it’s a problem which is known at least since 50 years… I never had that on my O200 in the Cessna.
If you want a really funny procedure for the O360, you should ask John Deakin how to fly it lean of peak.
add to that you get a very easy to use engine. I know several who either own or fly airplanes with those engines and they do love the ease of operation.
Imagine our engines were as uncomplicated as a typical car engine is today. There would be much more FUN in flying
(etc)
None of that is relevant unless the person is really dumb. This is not the car business where a lot of people are dumb, and constant innovation is the name of the game and people expect it.
In cruise you set up the engine and leave it. How can FADEC make flying more “fun”?
Most people who have ground their way through a PPL (in the typical disorganised training dump outfit operating a load of shagged spamcans) and the whole GA learning curve and still hang in there at the end of that are simply not willing to pay for little conveniences like straightforward car-style key starting. That is just absolute trivia. I would not pay even a tenner for that. It’s a complete non-event…
That is one reason people are not interested in paying for supposedly “innovative solutions” which remove what the vendor claims is “complexity” but which anybody with a brain deep down knows isn’t really a big enough issue to worry about.
The other reason people are not interested in paying for supposedly “innovative solutions” which remove what the vendor claims is “complexity” is because most of them have been around the GA block for long enough to know that the “innovative technology”
Regarding the threat topic, diesels will not take over unless somebody offers a decisive advantage and a proven (or 24 carat financially backed up) product and offers it at a reasonable price. Thus far we have not seen one of these, never mind all three. There is a decisive advantage but only if you want to fly heavily around Greece, or similar.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Sorry, if i had a car which required
- manual priming
- carburettor heat
- manual mixture control
- oil change every 50 hours of operation
- where I have to constantly watch the engine instruments for deviations from normal.
- an engine which needs a complete revision at more than hull value every 100k kmI would not bother.
Exactly, plus the barriers to entry are different.
A really dumb person can get into a car, but not into a plane.
So the sort of “innovation” which the car driver population is willing to pay for is not anywhere near the same as the “innovation” which the pilot population (especially the owner-pilot population which has gone up a much bigger curve) is willing to pay for.
The idea that “simplification” will sell planes will work only if you go for a whole new market segment and dig out pilots who are fairly new to aviation, with marketing methods which equate flying to driving. Cirrus did that pretty well in their early years (and Cessna had a go at it later on the C400/TTX) but now are in the same boat as everyone else and have to sell stuff on the normal criteria, plus USPs like the chute.
with those arguments you could just aswell drive a car from the fifties.
You are completely missing the point, but never mind…
(This website is about planes, not cars)
No, I am not missing the point, I am just trying to show you that this point makes no sense. Why shouldn’t we compare similar technologies (combustion engines) in airplanes and cars? We see what is possible today, and really all of us suffer from the bad quality we are sold. The stories about failing Continentals – and Lycomings – are endless.
If somebody from Lycoming or TCM reads this website they can rest assured that they will sell their engines to pilots another 100 years.
Silvaire wrote:
So what is, for the actual market, on a rational basis? For me a carbureted O-320 Lycoming is genuinely better than any other aircraft engine yet created, and I don’t see that changing soon. An injected water cooled turbo diesel wouldn’t come close. I wouldn’t even consider it, ever, on a rational basis
Personally I would, but even though my aircraft is vintage, there are certain things I would take into account:
Unfortunately there isn’t at the current time an aviation diesel that quite fits all of that which is affordable. Perhaps by the time the O-320 needs an overhaul, things might have changed.
Peter wrote:
None of that is relevant unless the person is really dumb. This is not the car business where a lot of people are dumb, and constant innovation is the name of the game and people expect it.
Starting is one bit, just the most obvious one. The much worse part is that most engines with even the more competent pilots won’t reach TBO for various reasons.
- Remember the Malibu 310 saga? That engine was in many ways a huge way forward. It was extremely economical, it had a lot of pretty good things speaking for it, but people could not handle it. These engines were ruined by GA pilots who were trained on it, yet still the concept of running lean of peak as a rule did not work out. It was too complex for them. That is why it got replaced by a much less capable engine which runs ROP.
The whole ROP/LOP saga is something which does not belong in modern aviation. Pilots are not engineers, at least a lot of them are not.
Even in airliner aviation, FADEC’s are today the fact of life. And FADECs save a real lot of money. Why? Because they will not let pilots exceed the engine limits. Because they will monitor the engine parameters properly and keep them in limits.And because they are made so that even the most incompetent pay to fly muppets in 4th world countries can run and not ruin them.
I’ve handled mechanical jet engines both on the TU and the Caravelle. In the TU we had a flight enigneer who did that job. And I’ve handled Airbus engines. Particularly if I have to fly one of these things alone, Airbus any time for me please if you don’t mind. And yes, I much prefer my bullet proof electronic ignition Toyota Camry to my beloved but hopelessly out of date 2CV, which was an adventure to start every morning. Would I want that back, no.
Now look at today’s GA pilots. Do you really think they are more competent than that? I don’t. I fly maybe 30-60 hours per year, each flight is something special for me and so it should be. I have installed a viciously expensive AP in my plane because I want to fly more relaxed and have more capacity. If someone offered a refit FADEC for my engine which provides for all the stuff you need to watch and do during the flight (Carb ice, optimum mixing, CHT monitoring, e.t.c.) I’d be there to see it real quick. Why the hell not? If someone finally develops a proper electronic ignition which will save me quite a bit of fuel and get rid of the expensive to maintain and regulate magnetoes, sign me up!
Peter wrote:
most of them have been around the GA block for long enough to know that the “innovative technology”
The fact that most new manufacturers fail today is due to the immensely complex and expensive cost of certification. That is why nobody really is interested in doing new things. Those who have all went bust once or twice, some got bought up by the Chinese, others just disappeared. NO industry can survive like this. What has to change is this ridiculously expensive cover the lawyers ass certification requirements. What we need are airplanes which cost what they cost to be built plus a small amount on top to pay for the certification process, but not something with an overhead of 50-80% on top of the manufacturing costs. We need competition on this market, not monopolies. But that is exactly what we have. Lycoming, Conti, Garmin and all can ask these ridiculous prices of theirs because there is nobody else there who survived the process. THAT is what GA is ill off and that is why innovation is a small percentage of what it is everywhere else.
Plus, I have to say, the ultraconservative attitude of a lot of GA participants. Clearly, many have been burnt by “innovation” which proved problematic. So have many airlines for that matter. Yet, the complete refusal into new stuff is sometimes hard to belive. And also controversial. The same people who often bemoan that flight schools still dam navigation by GPS indicate the very same attitude when it comes to other innovations such as engines.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: For me GA stands and falls with the Diesel engine. Not only because it is the only real current design, not only because it is a lot more economical and environmental friendly, not only because it is finally an engine which does not require 20’000 pages of forum posts on how to run it properly, but also because it is the one potential game changer in the GA aviation industry.If GA’s market stays in the dark ages, it will not have any chance in 20 or 30 years from now.
