What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Why we don't have a modern aircraft engine.

Top quality journalism....well presented and extremely researched and informative. Essential viewing for amateur builders who might be toying with the idea of doing a home brew auto conversion.
 
Agree, that was nicely presented.

Having spent decades of my life in pursuit of understanding engines, their design, development and limitations, never say never, but it is a rare combination of luck and skill for selecting and adapting an automotive based engine to aircraft. Ross has has pretty good success with his efforts, as have a few others.

As an engineer, starting with a few years as a mechanic, then design engineer, development, heavy performance analysis, applications, research/development of new technologies and processes for identification of functional requirements and development process to yield the field findings to support the customers for a few decades the final answer to why we don't have new aircraft engines is there is no viable economic path to support such a project. At least not as an independent entity.

If all the wanna-bees pooled the resources wasted over the past 3-4 decades into an open source path we could have some new engines, but that would be limited to the funding part. Agreement on specifications, solutions and the final product would either become an Edsel or fail from it's own internal organizational friction.

Continental had an excellent opportunity, but internal focus and change of management doomed their NASA diesel project to the scrap bin.

However, if we had a person who skillfully tinkered with engines like the old gent from New Zealand and the Indian motorcycle . . . .
 
Last edited:
Paul's three circles tell the tale. It's like a three legged milking stool. If one leg is short, the farmer ends up in the manure.
 
Modern

So what disadvantage of today’s engine will a “modern” engine cure?
Seems like a “ modern” engine maybe a solution in search of disease. JMHO
 
Well...

The good news is there will always be plenty of folks in the "that's the way it's always been done" camp...
 
So what disadvantage of today’s engine will a “modern” engine cure?
Seems like a “ modern” engine maybe a solution in search of disease. JMHO

Single lever control
Electronic fuel injection
Electronic ignition
Automatic electric constant speed propeller
Using regular auto gas
Non-air cool
Easy to start
Lower fuel burn
etc....

What it doesn't have:
All the stuff in the video
 
Not much point in another discussion of engine design improvement when (as Paul argued) "it has to work" is only one of the factors in market success. I'd argue it is not even the most important factor.

Assume God resurrected Eggenfellner Subaru, and promised unlimited warranty support, via personal on-site visits from angels with tools and parts, for the life of your aircraft. Would you try one?

Point is, will and resources will fix anything, and confidence regarding support is huge. Even clunkers can make it eventually.
 
Very well-done and informative video. Diamond's Austro engine has always been intriguing for me and I couldn't figure out why it hadn't gained more ground since introduced. If I ever had the money and need for a twin, it would no doubt be the DA-62.

Have there been any more updates on the Continental CD-265? I know there was another thread about an RV-10 with a diesel engine but no updates in over a year...
 
Accesories

Single lever control
Electronic fuel injection
Electronic ignition
Automatic electric constant speed propeller
Using regular auto gas
Non-air cool
Easy to start
Lower fuel burn
etc....

What it doesn't have:
All the stuff in the video
I agree these accessories could be improved. And we have most of these improvements in the experimental world, except maybe the single lever feature.

I guess I was thinking as new being a clean sheet design, not just changes in accessories.
 
Single lever control
Electronic fuel injection
Electronic ignition
Automatic electric constant speed propeller
Using regular auto gas
Non-air cool
Easy to start
Lower fuel burn
etc....

What it doesn't have:
All the stuff in the video

I don’t want any of that..
Liquid cooling? No thanks. I don’t want a pin hole taking down my aircraft. Automatic CS propeller? Na… I like the ability to control things just the way they are. Thank goodness that Rotax V6 thing didn’t happen.. links like a timing belt overhead cams? Looks like a nightmare to work on! Am I the only one who is happy with an air cooled Lycosaurus with mechanical fuel injection and a manual CS prop? Sure I would like electronic ignition with variable advance as long as it’s not dependent on external electrical system..
 
I'm thinking if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.
It may get broke. These engine are pretty &**^& dependable.
I know 9,000 rpm in my Nissan 370Z sounds cool and the smoke and rubber is coming off the tires BUT?????? I don't hold it there for hours and hours.
I've blown up a lot of engines we tried to make better in the racing world.
I kinda like the 2,500 rpm purr of the 0-360 in my RV-6A
Art
 
I agree these accessories could be improved. And we have most of these improvements in the experimental world, except maybe the single lever feature.

I guess I was thinking as new being a clean sheet design, not just changes in accessories.

The idea of spending hundreds millions designing a clean sheet engine and to sell about 200-300 engines per year for $50k/engine doesn't make business sense. This is why the auto companies backed out. Even Lycoming toyed with the idea of full FADEC and single lever control on the venerable oil heads engines, it dropped the plan after receiving luke warm receptions from the prospective customers. We all want these features but we don't want to pay more than the regular traditional engine, as though they are inexpensive in the first place.
 
People talk about all the technological benefits of a “modern” engine. I think all that talk is a distraction. What we really want is an engine that works for aircraft (regardless of the technology) that benefits from an economy of scale. I imagine a good portion of the misguided attempts at auto conversions started with the quest for a cheaper engine, rather than the quest for a “modern” engine.
 
.....Even Lycoming toyed with the idea of full FADEC and single lever control on the venerable oil heads engines, it dropped the plan after receiving lukewarm receptions from the prospective customers. .......

Lycoming does still build that iE2 engine, don't they? But I suppose you mean "dropping the plan" as not applying that tech to any of their other engines, like 4-cylinders.

https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2
ie2.png
 
Had to laugh

Lycoming advertises the iE2 as running on two fuel types.
Wow i thought it would be E10 mogas and 100LL;
but naw the two fuel types are 100LL and Unleaded100. I think that is technically correct, but really stretching it.
 
IMHO light aircraft piston engine development went on life support with the rise of the turbine, and died out completely with the crash of GA production in the early 70s. The money just isn't there any more--the market is too small, and the fixed certification costs way too high (and without a certified product you're unlikely to make enough sales volume to make up the development costs--same reason we don't see non-TSO'd IFR GPS already).

There's no inherent reason why an airplane engine needs to have super-expensive, bespoke, low-production run parts, manual engine management, loose tolerances, inefficient head designs, and more. There's nothing about those features that is inherently "good". They're just what we got "stuck with" because we no longer have large sales volume and the development is no longer aided/subsidized by government and large aircraft R&D.

I would love a more modern engine option that used common parts produced in mass quantities, didn't require babysitting and fiddling with during operation, and could give full power and good efficiency on 87E10 from any gas station in the country.

Admittedly I've probably had fewer trips around the sun than the average audience member here... but I also grew up with car engines that didn't take constant fiddling and tune-ups and tweaking, or special techniques for hot or cold weather. They just worked, even if they were abused and neglected for years. Manual mixture controls, fixed-timing magnetos, and the like don't speak "reliability" to me; they speak "cantankerous and maintenance-intensive".

I'm not beholden or attached to any particular technology to provide thrust to my aircraft; I don't care if the thrust comes from a turbine, or pistons driving a propeller, or electrons charging the air, or a farting unicorn strapped to the belly. All I want is reliability, affordability, plentiful fuel (in whatever form it takes) and a minimum of "fiddling with" in flight. Ideally I'd have only an "on" switch, a throttle knob, and an "energy remaining" gauge.
 
So, what would I want . . . .

Lighter installed weight
Lower fuel burn
Better tolerance to fuel variables
Longer Life (to TBO)
Better reliability (failures/100 hrs)
Extended service requirements (consumables)
Less required maintenance (mags etc)
No internal corrosion when parked
Easy starting, hot or cold
Rebuildable/serviceable components, not a throw away design.
Finally, lower cost/hp
The dang thing should not leak.

While I don't care about the type of fuel, it would be a hurtle not to use standard fuels. 100LL 100xx, JetA, etc. Typical tradeoffs of life cycle costs would apply to keep total costs, performance etc equal or better.

The typical laundry list of technologies would be options to reach the above. That is a pretty tall order.
 
Perfectly happy

After watching that very well done video I am perfectly happy with my IO-540!
1: Acceptable weight to power ratio.
2: Low fuel burn (got to use the red knob to make it low)
3: Tolerance to various fuels (got to make a little effort, wishing for it won't do it
4: Better reliability, of course we all want that. (The number 1 cause of GA accidents according to FAA statistics is still pilot error,
work on that first and reduce accidents rates by 50%
5: Electronic ignition. (what are you waiting for?)
6: CS Propeller (Automatic electric CS propeller, no thanks)
7: Starts easy (EI will take care of that)
8: Mine does not leak oil.
9: Air cooled, 100 percent reliable
( hoses, radiator and water pumps add parts and unreliability )

I would want a new design if it had the following:
Lower parts count than a Lycoming
Lighter weight
Lower price
Burns Jet A
 
After watching that very well done video I am perfectly happy with my IO-540!
1: Acceptable weight to power ratio.
2: Low fuel burn (got to use the red knob to make it low)
3: Tolerance to various fuels (got to make a little effort, wishing for it won't do it
4: Better reliability, of course we all want that. (The number 1 cause of GA accidents according to FAA statistics is still pilot error,
work on that first and reduce accidents rates by 50%
5: Electronic ignition. (what are you waiting for?)
6: CS Propeller (Automatic electric CS propeller, no thanks)
7: Starts easy (EI will take care of that)
8: Mine does not leak oil.
9: Air cooled, 100 percent reliable
( hoses, radiator and water pumps add parts and unreliability )

I would want a new design if it had the following:
Lower parts count than a Lycoming
Lighter weight
Lower price
Burns Jet A

Well, a turbine takes care of three out of four!:D
 
Very well-done and informative video. Diamond's Austro engine has always been intriguing for me and I couldn't figure out why it hadn't gained more ground since introduced. If I ever had the money and need for a twin, it would no doubt be the DA-62.

Have there been any more updates on the Continental CD-265? I know there was another thread about an RV-10 with a diesel engine but no updates in over a year...

Take a look at the Diamond Aviators forum and maybe you’ll get your answer. The Austro has been subjected to numerous MSB’s and a few AD’s requiring extensive component replacements. Mercedes no longer builds the engine that was the basis for the Austro and they now have to manufacture their own. Additionally, Austro promised a TBO versus a TBR that the Continental diesel has, but they have now gone to a replacement program only. The engine is very heavy as it uses a cast iron block.

I’ve owned three Diamonds and they are wonderful airplanes, but Diamond support is lacking, to say the least.
 
Perhaps small increments towards diesel or automotive gas based engines is the best we can hope for from the likes of Continental or Lycoming? It doesn't sound like they want to really put any skin in the game although with the ever looming change away from 100LL, maybe they should?

The electric 'engine' market is looming, and it's got real force behind it. I hate to say it but I believe the chances of seeing real and affordable innovation in the single-engine market for powerplants is all but dead. There's no money to be made in that endeavor any longer so why would any of the big manufacturers waste their time on it??

It's not a matter of if an RV gets flown with an electric motor, it's just a matter of when and who will be the first to do it. The RV-12 is the prime candidate IMO. I'm guessing it's already in the works. Maybe even at Van's....?
 
BUT WAIT !!!

There is a new kid in town

Astron Aerospace
Omega 1 engine
35 lb 160 hp
1,000 rpm idle
25,000 rpm max
Few parts
Low emissions


Looking for a few good investors

I’m not making this up,….go look on the internet,…..
I stumbled across it while looking for a new design auto engine with low part count I had seen earlier


Meanwhile, I’m going to get a new big bag of popcorn
 
A Lycoming running LOP with EI is already remarkably efficient. lbs/hp/hr is already quite good and leaves very little left to gain.

EFI offerings can essentially remove the red knob and makes it much easier to start.

Air cooled for simplicity and light weight means wider temperature operating range. Which necessitates wider engine tolerances.

Diesel/Jet A would be great, no reasonable offerings yet, they're all way too heavy. In terms of lb/hp/hr, the current diesel/jet A offerings aren't much better, but is significantly cheaper to buy that fuel.

No internal corrosion when parked is a big deal. I don't pickle my car engines when going on vacation for a month, they just sit in the airport parking lot and are ready to go when I get back.

Oil leaks are a PITA. Lots of Lycomings don't leak, but many do. Not sure why any new engine sold in 2022 should ever ever leak. It's just not something anybody ever talks about their car since 1980.
 
What are the limitations developing a turboprop for RVs? There must be even more than with a diesel piston engine.
 
People talk about all the technological benefits of a “modern” engine. I think all that talk is a distraction. What we really want is an engine that works for aircraft (regardless of the technology) that benefits from an economy of scale. I imagine a good portion of the misguided attempts at auto conversions started with the quest for a cheaper engine, rather than the quest for a “modern” engine.

A lot of truth here. I'm still a fan of the modern tech (such that I'm fitting EFI on my Lycoming) but "lower cost, easily available parts" seems to be the major driver with auto conversion attempts.

As others note, we can get many of the modern advantages with some (relatively) simple modifications to a standard Lycoming/Continental. But it's the core engine--its low production volumes, and its dependency on a certified supply chain and market--that drive the price way up and have us always looking/hoping for alternatives.

What are the limitations developing a turboprop for RVs? There must be even more than with a diesel piston engine.

Small turboprops are less efficient due to tip losses and other things, so you're looking at a fuel burn probably 1.5-2x that of a piston engine of equivalent horsepower. Turbines are also very high energy components so you want to be very sure they don't come apart and shed chunks (in the big jet side, we assume turbine chunks have "infinite energy" and will go through anything and everything in their way). You're also going to need a gearbox, though on the plus side you probably won't have as much in the way of torsional vibration to deal with.

They will cost significantly more than an equivalent Lycoming, too.



I don't think we'll see any alternative engine gain widespread acceptance until the "general population" of homebuilders sees the following:
  • Demonstrated reliability, as in double-digit numbers of customer engines flying hundreds of hours without problems
  • Reasonable cost, as in either less than a "standard" option, or maybe a little greater than standard if there are compelling advantages. Even a really cool engine will be a non-starter if that engine alone costs as much as an entire build including paint, Lycoming, and avionics--unless perhaps it runs on zero-point energy or otherwise doesn't require fuel...
  • Ease of installation, such that it can be installed as quickly and easily as a "stock" engine. No custom machining, no fabrication, no "go to a junkyard and scrounge". Ship the customer a box with all the necessary parts and "insert tab A into slot B" instructions.

Unfortunately, getting to the point above is like the chicken-and-egg problem. You need volume sales to get there, but without being there it's hard to get volume sales. It takes a "sugar daddy" or a bunch of committed early-adopters focusing on one solution and willing to spend a bunch of extra money.
 
Paul's three circles tell the tale. It's like a three legged milking stool. If one leg is short, the farmer ends up in the manure.

The comment he made when talking about the 3 circles was the REAL key when he talks about Austro's owners "sheer force of stubborn will".

Reminds me of a podcast I used to listen to called "How I Built That". It's interviews of founders of well known brands. (Nike, Southwest Air, Atari, etc...) At some point in the interview they always ask the founder this one question..."What do you think was the key to your success?" It's amazing how many founders use the same word to describe the key to their success, PERSEVERANCE!

As builders of airplanes, most of us can attest to how much of a role "perseverance" played in our success of completion. IMHO I think perseverance is often underrated and overlooked when it comes to understanding any success (or failure) story.
 
UL engines

I’m using the new UL engine in my -12…130HP, FADEC, and dual electronic ignition. I’m going to add a second battery for redundancy.

This engine is a work of art with very large cooling fins on the cylinder heads and even an oiling system for the valve stems (an external line wi
Th banjo fittings on the heads).

Regards,
 
ADEPT

Albeit quietly, things are starting to move around with ADEPT Engines. https://flyadept.co.za/

They're moving operations to the US, and have actually delivered some production engines stateside. There are a few being installed on Velocity and Lancair types as of current. It would be great to see a 280N on an RV10 - I know they're looking for somebody who might be in the skillset to collaborate on a FWF for one.
 
I’ll say it: there’s a strong culture of self-satisfied Luddism in general aviation. That combined with the already small market share likely explains the biggest reason manufacturers aren’t clamoring to develop a new light piston aviation engine. The cost to develop and certify won’t be worth the costs due to low adoption.

We as a culture really ought to look at moving past the “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude and start championing incremental improvements in the technology we use.

This is a group made up of experimental airplane enthusiasts, right?
 
I’m using the new UL engine in my -12…130HP, FADEC, and dual electronic ignition. I’m going to add a second battery for redundancy.

This engine is a work of art with very large cooling fins on the cylinder heads and even an oiling system for the valve stems (an external line wi
Th banjo fittings on the heads).

Regards,

I was actually wondering why he ignored the UL engine in his video. Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative that there is nothing new succeeding.... . I do have a Lycoming on my RV now but if it ever stops working I will certainly look at the UL engines .... .

Oliver
 
IMHO light aircraft piston engine development went on life support with the rise of the turbine, and died out completely with the crash of GA production in the early 70s. The money just isn't there any more--the market is too small, and the fixed certification costs way too high (and without a certified product you're unlikely to make enough sales volume to make up the development costs--same reason we don't see non-TSO'd IFR GPS already).

There's no inherent reason why an airplane engine needs to have super-expensive, bespoke, low-production run parts, manual engine management, loose tolerances, inefficient head designs, and more. There's nothing about those features that is inherently "good". They're just what we got "stuck with" because we no longer have large sales volume and the development is no longer aided/subsidized by government and large aircraft R&D.

I would love a more modern engine option that used common parts produced in mass quantities, didn't require babysitting and fiddling with during operation, and could give full power and good efficiency on 87E10 from any gas station in the country.

Admittedly I've probably had fewer trips around the sun than the average audience member here... but I also grew up with car engines that didn't take constant fiddling and tune-ups and tweaking, or special techniques for hot or cold weather. They just worked, even if they were abused and neglected for years. Manual mixture controls, fixed-timing magnetos, and the like don't speak "reliability" to me; they speak "cantankerous and maintenance-intensive".

I'm not beholden or attached to any particular technology to provide thrust to my aircraft; I don't care if the thrust comes from a turbine, or pistons driving a propeller, or electrons charging the air, or a farting unicorn strapped to the belly. All I want is reliability, affordability, plentiful fuel (in whatever form it takes) and a minimum of "fiddling with" in flight. Ideally I'd have only an "on" switch, a throttle knob, and an "energy remaining" gauge.

I couldn't agree more with everything you said. At this point, it just seems like the plane engine industry is buying time until electric or electric-hybrid powerplants are truly viable. Why invest $100million in a new engine when we might all be sitting behind electric fans in 10 years? 500 engines a year for 10 years does not provide a positive return on that R&D investment under any reasonable pricing model.
 
I couldn't agree more with everything you said. At this point, it just seems like the plane engine industry is buying time until electric or electric-hybrid powerplants are truly viable. Why invest $100million in a new engine when we might all be sitting behind electric fans in 10 years? 500 engines a year for 10 years does not provide a positive return on that R&D investment under any reasonable pricing model.

I don't think a $100M would touch it. It was over $350m back in mid 1990's for a truck heavy duty engine. That was 1/3 each for design/analysis, test development, and tooling. It was also carving out a few dozen experienced engineers from thousands that knew how to do this efficiently, with a modest evolution in design even though clean sheet designs.

Granted, todays CAD/analytical tools a so much better than then, the experience is not. Management and technical experience to do the design/development process from idea to certified product does not exist in the industry and hasn't for decades. Outsourcing to available contractors would add such conservatism that it would not meet requirements. Not trying to be negative, but there is reality involved.
 
Brad, do you know when and where?

They're in-process to move US operations to the Fredericksburg, TX airport. Of course SA geopolitical and supply chain hasn't made that easy on anybody, but there is an engine being installed on a Lancair ES at that facility. Also, Velocity aircraft has a production engine destined for one of their aircraft.

I have no personal affiliation with ADEPT. Just another industry supplier rep who has a lot of interest in the engine (and recent business contact with them) and hopes to see it succeed. Look for them again at OSH this year.
 
Single lever control
Electronic fuel injection
Electronic ignition
Automatic electric constant speed propeller
Using regular auto gas
Non-air cool
Easy to start
Lower fuel burn
etc....

What it doesn't have:
All the stuff in the video

None of those things would be an improvement for an
experienced pilot that understands how his Lycoming, Continental, etc is properly operated.
 
None of those things would be an improvement for an
experienced pilot that understands how his Lycoming, Continental, etc is properly operated.

True.

There is a huge knowledge base about the traditional air cooled engines but it doesn't mean there aren't better engines, if the manufacturers have the resource to stick it out, which is doubtful in a declining aircraft market. We know what we want but we don't want to pay 2x or 3x the price of a Lycoming engine that we are familiar with. Who would have guessed the Rotax 912 design is now the defacto engine for the LSA market because it fills a niche that doesn't fit Lycoming or Continental very well.
 
so...

None of those things would be an improvement for an
experienced pilot that understands how his Lycoming, Continental, etc is properly operated.

I don't think that is the point.

Why shouldn't we, as a aviation group, look for better ways to do things? That is how the status quo moves forward, and progress is made.

Truly a difficult feat in the aviation community but certainly worth trying. Someone, somewhere will make it work, and we won't be saddled with 50+ year old technology anymore.

For now, it is what it is. With various companies looking to the future, at least there is hope...
 
None of those things would be an improvement for an
experienced pilot that understands how his Lycoming, Continental, etc is properly operated.

We have to remove the high priesthood mentality if we want the industry to grow. Imagine where the auto industry would be if everyone had to mess with chokes, points, manual trans, etc. There’s plenty of room for those that WANT to deal with it. That’s why I gravitate to vintage aircraft. But we should not demand it for entry to aviation.
 
What are the limitations developing a turboprop for RVs? There must be even more than with a diesel piston engine.

Small power means small rotating parts for good power/weight. Tip clearances are the top issue for controlling SFC. Then to get better OTE, they need higher cycle temperatures meaning more exotic materials and driving up the component costs. Recuperators or regeneration for better capture of the thermal energy also add complexity and cost. All this applies to any replacement for a diesel, even in heavy equipment. Many projects have tried as emissions drove complexity and cost of the diesel engine higher. Ford tried with the 707, way back in the 60's. Now off-highway is expanding electric. Massive batteries for 400 ton mining trucks running autonomously are quite efficient and cost effective, if the mine is designed from the start for it. It has been on the table for mines for 30 yrs and just now coming to economic reality. Low emissions are a plus. Computer controls don't get sick (COVID). But as Danny points out, it was not because a lack of human skills. But I digress.

The total power plant life cycle costs can trade fuel against flight availability and that advantage works for a business aircraft or commercial/military service but not for the DIY guy already doing all the work for cost savings there. Conti had a single shaft 500 hp turbine project that was unable to meet market demands. Cost vs efficiency was the fatal blow.

Henry Ford knew what he was doing.View attachment 22095
He just asked the wrong questions.
 
Forced

We have to remove the high priesthood mentality if we want the industry to grow. Imagine where the auto industry would be if everyone had to mess with chokes, points, manual trans, etc. There’s plenty of room for those that WANT to deal with it. That’s why I gravitate to vintage aircraft. But we should not demand it for entry to aviation.

It took a lot of money to get rid of this stuff. But having a market demand for new cars, allowed the govt to force auto companies to change to the “modern” engine in the name of smog reduction. I see no benefit to the “modern” aircraft engine that would justify a similar thing in aviation.
 
The auto conversion is not the problem , its that VERY FEW OFFER A RELIABLE
PROPELLER REDUCTION UNIT AND FEW ARE AWARE OF SDS COMPUTER WHICH IS SUPER RELIABLE,ALSO MANY PEOPLE RUN SOME HAREBRAINED EXCUSE FOR
A COOLING SYSTEM, AS GOOD WATER COOLING IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS AIR
COOLING IS WITH THE DINOSAURS !
 
Been thinking about this a lot recently. What we really want is convenience. Same with Henry Ford. People thought they wanted faster horses, but loved the added convenience of not having the horse all together. Much easier to feed a gasoline engine than a horse, plus no poop comes out of an internal combustion engine. ;)

So what's inconvenient about an airplane engine we don't like, and why don't we like it? I've got my thoughts.

I think people actually want an electric engine. Leaving the politics and environmental considerations aside, hear me out:
-No cold starting
-Doesn't leak oil
-No fuel tanks (weeping rivets, filters to clean, etc.)
-Simplified operation
-Almost no maintenance (oil changes, spark plugs)
-Lower Drag (cooling)

Yes there's a lot of other problems to solve before aircraft are electrified. Once we solve those problems, I think it's what people will want when technology gets to the point that it's viable.
 
DavidZ , you are spot on ! If I was 20 years younger I would be working on some kind of electric engine for my Zenith 701. I don’t know when , but someone will
solve battery life/strenght problem! But with my limited life time I will continue with my home version of Viking. The honda engines are a true engineering masterpiece ! As an OLD RACER I am facilitated by main bearing “ girdle” as we
Used to fabricate for flatheads and early cheve v8 !
 
Been thinking about this a lot recently. What we really want is convenience. Same with Henry Ford. People thought they wanted faster horses, but loved the added convenience of not having the horse all together. Much easier to feed a gasoline engine than a horse, plus no poop comes out of an internal combustion engine. ;)

So what's inconvenient about an airplane engine we don't like, and why don't we like it? I've got my thoughts.

I think people actually want an electric engine. Leaving the politics and environmental considerations aside, hear me out:
-No cold starting
-Doesn't leak oil
-No fuel tanks (weeping rivets, filters to clean, etc.)
-Simplified operation
-Almost no maintenance (oil changes, spark plugs)
-Lower Drag (cooling)

Yes there's a lot of other problems to solve before aircraft are electrified. Once we solve those problems, I think it's what people will want when technology gets to the point that it's viable.

I would be interested in that - just as soon as the battery tech allows me to fly for 4 hours and recharge in 15 minutes.
 
Back
Top