But your “all things considered” is far too generalistic – “all things” are vastly different from one country to another, not to mention one continent to another.
Also: if you think the Austro/Thielert engines too complex, what about the Rotax 912/914? Complex as anything, yet quite successful, and and not that unreliable either.
And also: what is in your observation the “basic design flow” of the SMA engine?
I disagree. A Rotax is a very simple engine. It looks complicated because it is very compact and is watercooled and is a dry sump design with external oil bottle (lots of tubings and stuff). The engine itself is like a VW engine or a Lycoming, and the gear/clutch is straight forward. The new “i” engine(s) is of course a bit more complex software vise, but a black box is a black box. With the Rotax you can remove the black box and put in carburetors and CDI and the engine is fully analog again, fully operational. The Austro is like a modern high performance automotive turbodiesel. There is no way it will run without computers. And how have they solved the torque pulses from those diesel pistons at low revs? I don’t know, but its definitely has to be more complex and/or heavy than the Rotax. The engine may very well be excellent, but it is a mystery to me how such an engine can be commercially viable on its own. My guess it isn’t, someone is poring money into it.
The SMA destroys propellers due to the torque pulses. The only way to fix it is by adding cylinders.
And by the way. Its name is RV-9, not RV9 
The SMA destroys propellers due to the torque pulses. The only way to fix it is by adding cylinders.
That is a challenge with compression ignition engines. The solution is to reduce the mass of the propeller, i.e. install MT props which all diesel airplanes have. I have not heard that the propellers on the SMA C182 conversion last less than their TBO.
The Porsche PFM3200 had the same issue and Porsche had to purchase 3 blade MT props for all its customers to replace the original 2 blade metal props.
but by the fact that engines are of poor quality to begin with and need most parts replaced quite often.
I also must tell my engine that – rebuilt by a top US engine shop in 2008 for the crankshaft swap, with 700hrs on it, and with almost nothing below new limits (exhaust valves and tappets only, IIRC).
One O-320 with all the original parts… out of how many out there?
It is normal to make TBO, on relatively regularly used non-turbo Lyco engines. By “make TBO” I mean the whole engine making 2000hrs, not “make TBO” as in a turbo engine needing new cylinders at 1000hrs.
Of course many privately owned GA spamcans do 20hrs/year… they won’t make TBO. But would a DA40Tdi make TBO, at 20hrs/year? The engine mounts would rust through and the engine would fall off.
Of course – 61%
That is likely just Norway and Sweden, where historically the small and relatively rich population is very willing to pay any price for being environmentally correct 
Actually, in Norway, happy to pay any price for anything, which I am very happy about since my best European customers are in Norway and Switzerland. I sell virtually nothing to Germany or France.
The engine may very well be excellent, but it is a mystery to me how such an engine can be commercially viable on its own. My guess it isn’t, someone is poring money into it.
Yes – the people who buy the aircraft.
The SMA destroys propellers due to the torque pulses. The only way to fix it is by adding cylinders.
That is relative. No piston engine delivers smooth torque. Is the 4C SMA worse than the Thielert/Austro?
Basically what happened was that due to some subobtimal outlay of the electrical system the engines would stop (both of them) if there was a total electrical failure on the airplane
No; it was a coolant issue – something to do with corrosion and leakage.
The issue with taking off with a flat battery and getting a dual engine stoppage is another one but that isn’t the engine – that’s a dumb design whereby the engine cannot run by itself like a Lyco can. They could have easily powered the FADEC from a little alternator, etc.
The MT wood prop is excellent at absorbing vibration (I own one) but is another marketability issue. Not tough enough for a utility plane. They’re actually easy enough to fix but you’re doing it too often for markets where mandatory prop overhaul calendar limits do not apply. I understand the diesel 182 has a composite Sensenich with Inconel leading edge?
Last week I drove an Audi R8 V10 which was fun, up to 230 km/hr and passed a cop at 200. Great with somebody else’s money. It made me think of a friends 2014 Corvette at less than half the price. There’s your automotive analogy.
In all fairness, I would say the quality abyss between an Audi and a Corvette is multiple that of an SMA and a Lycoming…
That is likely just Norway and Sweden, where historically the small and relatively rich population is very willing to pay any price for being environmentally correct Actually, in Norway, happy to pay any price for anything, which I am very happy about since my best European customers are in Norway and Switzerland. I sell virtually nothing to Germany or France.
You are missing something here. Most will not pay a price for going all UL91, it will be cheaper. If anything you can say it is the dictatorship of the majority who is showing up
What do you sell?
That is relative. No piston engine delivers smooth torque. Is the 4C SMA worse than the Thielert/Austro?
Yes of course. The SMA has much larger cylinders and no gear/clutch to protect the propeller shaft.
I wouldn’t buy either car because either would be a total waste of my money, but the new Corvette is actually pretty nicely made. Not as foo foo as the R8 but fast and I bet it’d last longer, and cost a whole lot less per mile. It also costs $52K or €38K to buy and they’ll sell a lot of them. A good analogy for Lycoming.
Hey Peter… how many times have you heard of engines having to be REBUILT for something as trivial as a crankshaft… OUTSIDE GA?
Dynamic balancing? Weight Matching? Tappet surface disintegration? Etc ad nauseam? Seriously? How many modern car engines need that sort of work done to run smoothly?
The new Corvette maybe…
Metallurgy and machining is of 1950es standard at best – end of story.
The least reliable motorcycles currently sold on the US market are BMWs and since a close friend owns one the largest volume BMW dealers in the US, I could take some photos of disassembled engines if you’d like. He makes a lot of money servicing warrantee claims
I never considered the ability to overhaul/repair aero engines as an advantage, more as one of the reasons why we’re still stuck with these substandard products for more than a fleet of vintage airplanes.
I had an O-320 overhauled last year. The company has been in business since the 1930s. They specialized in overhauling all kinds of engines, stationary gasoline engines, car engines, ship engines, aero engines. All that is left are the aero engines because nothing else is primitive enough to be overhauled by manual labor using methods from the 1950s.
I don’t want my 2013 Android phone to be overhauled next year, I want to throw it in the bin and get a 2015 Android phone. Maybe others prefer to purchase the 5th replacement battery and 3rd display for their 1995 Nokia
Thielert’s TBR versus TBO was a good idea. Splitting an engine, measuring all parts and machining them is a waste of human intelligence. It’s what people behind the Iron Curtain were forced to do.
