Airborne_Again wrote:
With that figure I think we can safely lay to rest any worries that engine failure is a major problem for GA safety.
What a relief! 
Yes; thanks for putting those ridiculous assertions to bed.
Cobalt wrote:
Maybe we should all read the Nall report here and then continue.
Thank you for actually providing some facts and data to this discussion.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So a whopping 4.1% of all fatal accidents in noncommercial GA had “mechanical” causes!
Of course, you could look at that the other way around and say there is room to increase the mechanical complexity of GA engines 
Or that the expensive regulatory regime is clearly paying dividends
Glad to hear my terrible, unreliable O-320 may not kill me in the immediate future
To paraphrase the popular T-shirt referring to another motorcycle manufacturer “if BMW made an aircraft would you fly in it?” I might, but I sure wouldn’t invest in it, as a buyer or otherwise.
Honda is the automotive manufacturer that has come the closest to producing a GA engine recently, with their flat four prototype of 2003 and their now-certified jet engines. I’d be more interested in their product than most other non-GA companies, because they have been successful in building new businesses in new areas, and done so by listening to the market, and building what the market needs.
An aircraft engine is a single speed device that has to be light, easy to diagnose and repair, maintainable at airports, and last a long time. It’s more analogous to an industrial engine than a car engine, and Honda makes industrial engines as well as other types I have an idea of what might possible in new engines too, having a couple of patents in the field. Just because it’s possible does not make it a good idea. Rotax made reasonable choices for the smallest aircraft engines based on slowly working up through two strokes, and on their experience with other recreational vehicles. Then they totally messed up their larger GA prototype engine, and apparently decided to stick with what they know. Porsche’s 1980’s failure in larger GA engines shows what happens when the arrogance of knowing what might be possible is confused with broader understanding of what serves the educated buyer.
And the educated buyer of 2015 spends his time diagnosing and repairing all the stuff s/he buys, hence the massive amount of consumer-friendly products GA pushes through the door.
You make it sound as if most good things in aviation have already been developed.
Not at all. Is that really what you read out of my postings?
Yes, in general that’s the impression you give me many times, that there’s not much reason to develop new (engines), because all is good. Everybody seems to be satisfied with what we got. I for one would prefer more contemprorary engines – at least in the modern airplanes.
Interesting, because “everything is good” isn’t my point of view at all. But it isn’t “all is bad” either, what seems to describe your view on air cooled gasoline engines in general. Perhaps I should elaborate it more, but it really boils down to my aversion to base any technical choice on a parameter like “novelty”. Improvements have to stand for themselves and you will miss the opportunity to get to an optimal choice if you rule out solutions based on their age.
If a solution makes sense has to be evaluated on technical grounds, not on fashion. And “novelty” is a pure fashion statement.
