I wish it where so, I want it too but........
G-force said:
George: I respect your opinion, but to suggest that there is "nothing under the sun" new in engine technology, I gotta disagree. Aircooled, carburated, fixed timing, non-counterbalanced, mag fired pushrod motors are at least 50 years out of date. The Japanese have been building injected engines with half the displacement, same horsepower that easly go 3000 tbo (I'm estimating about 200,000 miles in a car) and are smooth as silk from 500 to 5000 RPM for 20 years. For about $4-8k a unit! With todays high precision metal fabrication and joining processes, Honda or Toyota or whoever could easily build a 172 copy out of aluminum for a fraction of the cost or time it took Cessna 50 years ago, probably without a single rivet to boot. From computerised stampings, robotic welding, EB welding, friction stir welding, precision CNC stamping/shearing/punching, etc the tools for Honda to spit out a 172 frame every 2 minutes already exists. And it would probably be lighter, smoother, and faster. I come from a manufacturing background, and I know it can be physically done. I guess my hangup is not factoring in the $100k per plane for the lawyers, lawsuits, and government bureaucracys
Whats everyone elses opinions? I doubt anyone would gloat over an aircooled motor the put out .6 horsepower per cubic inch in their 2006 Corvette...why is it "the hot ticket" for a performance aircraft? I see parallels between this topic and Harleys and Japanese motorcyles: Harley motors , up untill the the last few years, are similar designs as 50 years ago. Every Japanese bike engine can do the same job lighter, faster, cheaper, and longer. I don't think thats a bad thing
I like that name G-force, my girlfriend calls me Geeeeee.
I got an easy response, prove it could work ($5k engines, manufacturing processes) in planes.
Yea I know about smooth engines. My airport car is a 1988 acura legend with 225,000 miles. That V-6 is awesome, in a car, desaster in a plane. I get some valve noise when cold, but overall it is still tight. What people don't understand is automobiles and planes are quite different, and I am not being sarcastic, it is just a fact. Again if car engines are so good, subaru, suzuki, mazda than why are they not setting the aviation world on fire?
I can't believe people don't worship the beauty of the air-cooled Lyc. I understand its human nature to want something new. The sad part its all the rhetoric has achieved nothing as good as the Lyc. The idea of a Lexus engine and airplane is nice but than reality sets in. Hard to believe a 50 YEAR OLD direct drive air cooled technology still rules. Hey the wheel is still round; they have not improved that old technology.
TCM is good also, their IO-240 (based on the venerable O-200, used on the ubiquitous C-150) is a good engine, but TCM product line is geared more for large 6-cylinders. Lyc with their 235, 320, 360, 390 and even the 540 is a great line of proven, reliable technology.
I dislike antique furniture and homes. I love modern, but when it comes to my engine, antique technology as people imply, is still as current and valid today as it was in WWII or even pre WWII. The idea of cams, valves, rods, pistons, piston rings, cranks, rocker arms, springs and all the machine elements is still the same. Yes, Lyc as made improvements in some materials or finishes and design details, like roller cams, which should eliminate any early cam wear issues. Look at the new cylinder materials and ring coatings. It just does not get any better.
The perceive HI-TEC of a Honda comes from water cooling, which equals lower noise and tighter clearances (piston/cyl) and even longevity due to lower valve temps. However water cooling is heavy and hard to fit. The engine may be great BUT IT HAS TO FIT THE AIRFRAME.
Air cooled engines, no matter how much you wish it was not so, are well suited, better suited for light planes. It is just physics, aerodynamics and engineering. It is just a good match. Yes it has draw backs, but it still is the best choice.
BTW, except for electronics, water cooling, overhead cams, multi multi valves per cylinder, turbos, superchargers are not new, they where around the 20's, 30's and 40's. A 2,700 rpm one power setting 99% of the time cruise, does not need electronics, fuel injection or water cooling. This stuff is great for emissions and lower sound, but comes at cost of weight, a killer on an airplane and drag. My comment, there is nothing new under the sun is a correct statement in my opinion:
The laws of physics are the same as always
Engine technology has not really changed, a 4-cycle Otto cycle.
The NEEDED quality and specs for an airplane engine are the same today as they where 50 years ago or a 100 years ago. Light weight, reliability, simplicity and low drag. A lyc does that beautifully. They just got it right.
A low RPM engine does not need overhead cams or the extra width or height or complexity of a cam belt.
Fancy electronic fuel injection will not make an engine much more efficient for airplane use. We have FADEC for Lycs and TCM's today. It is good for what, 4%, 5% better fuel economy? Of course that comes at the expense of cost and more complexity.
You admire the Japanese, me to, but you overestimate their abilities. First in modern times Japan has developed a few planes. Frankly they where mostly failures or marginal aircraft. Their modern all japan commercial aircraft history is spotty at best. (Nippon YS-11, Mitsubishi MU turbo prop, GA planes, one cessna clone, one piper clone, none that great.)
As far as motorcycles, the No. 1 NHRA points leader, Andrew Hines is on a Harley. I had a Suzuki GS1100, great bike. There all good. Again engines made for the application. I like the BMW R1100RT "Air head" Horz twin.
The next myth is manufacturing can reduce cost so much it will make cheap planes. May be if there was volumn. The volume is not there. Also aluminum or composites are NOT cheap. Look at Cirrus and Lancair Columbia, that is the reality, a $250,000 airplane, but they're desirable planes. People have to WANT to buy them. The bar is pretty high. A nice ultra light cost $30,000. A Rotax can be more than a Lyc.
Rotax charges $30,000 for a little 115 hp turbo engine, so forget a $5,000 name brand Honda. My Honda Lawnmower cost $800. For Honda to make an engine suitable, it would be an all new engine. With low volumn, development and tooling, I see $60,000. It still will not go faster or burn significantly less fuel than a Lycoming?
An all Honda airplane will need materials, labor, overhead, insurance and of course liability and leagle defense dept cost money. A home builder puts at least $60,000 into a nice RV, using free labor and arguably one of the best bargains in kit planes on the market, Van's RV. You can do the math. Paying skilled labor to build it, in a heated cooled factory will be expensive. I think you put too much faith into manufacturing process and digital machine tools. CNC or what ever is not going to change the cost structure. First those things cost $$. You still need rivets for aluminum, which is labor intensive, as is composites. Aluminum is NOT cheap. The eclipse Bizz jet reported to use friction stir welding, originally used in missile construction. I think it was a nightmare to get certified. I don't know if they ended up not using it. It remains to be seen if it meets the markets needs and is successful. If no one buys it, it does not matter how cool it is.
The solution is go out and make more money, build or restore a plane or TLC an old bird. We need to take care of those old Birds.
I appreciate the Debate G-Force (love that handle), good stuff and a pleasure. I am not saying it will not happen, just not today or in the foreseeable future.
Cheers G-man (not as good sounding G-Force)