Why New Aircraft Engine Ideas Rarely Succeed

Aircraft owners and pilots often bemoan the lack of new technology in aircraft engines and complain--accurately--that most airplane engines are basically 1960s tech. But as Paul Bertorelli points out in this video, it's not for lack of trying. And it's not necessarily the new engine itself that fails to get traction, but the company's support--or lack thereof.
CORRECTION: The Rotax V-6 engine had single, not dual overhead camshafts.

[@droge192]

The best bit of aviation journalism I've ever seen. So well researched, written and presented.

[@Smarty1171]

Until he said. It must be a German thing.

[@jaxbradley7036]

i know I'm pretty off topic but does anyone know of a good site to stream new movies online?

[@romeojacob2339]

@Jax Bradley Lately I have been using flixzone. Just search on google for it :)

[@augustinemarcos3505]

@Romeo Jacob yup, been watching on Flixzone for since march myself :)

[@jaxbradley7036]

@Romeo Jacob thanks, I signed up and it seems like a nice service :) I really appreciate it!!

[@n326dpcherokeesix5]

“If the engine is warm, there is a procedure to start it that works every time, but nobody knows what it is.” You have got to love this guy! Absolutely hilarious...and absolutely true.

[@radioace318la]

good one, bill.

[@stephengloor8451]

And for some reason that’s OK. Would you buy a car in 2021 like that?

[@tomatosoupwoo]

@@stephengloor8451 A car is nothing like a plane. Far more is required to make a plane fly efficently then to make a car drive.

[@429thunderjet2]

@Matthew Morycinski those darn run away two stroke cycle detroit diesel AV engines!

[@stephengloor8451]

@@tomatosoupwoo But humans operate both of them. The simpler and more straightforward the controls are then the safer they are. I find it strange that the same pilots will fill their cockpits with every electronic device known to man but for some reason view that same technology as forbidden for the engines. If a pilot has no backup IMC instruments or the pilot now lacks the ability to use the older IMC instruments and the electrics fail then they will have a sweetly running engine as they spiral in which is not really a comfort.

[@KingJellyfishII]

"I'm sick of pie, let's use a cake chart" this is without a doubt the best sentence I have heard today

[@SkyGrizzzley]

Things never said before until now but I'm glad it has.

[@jiroyamamoto2878]

a great line, but not a great informational graphic. Stay with pie.

[@PandorasFolly]

The algorithm brought me here. The excellent content got the upvote, But that line made me subscribe.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@jiroyamamoto2878 Agreed on both. Sadly the supposedly thin icing on top works particularly badly because it's huge to the eye even if a long thought can convince you there might not be a lot of icing up there. This guy is, however, one of the best video narrators on the whole of KZbin. just a total pro. I don't know whether he has cheat sheets behind the camera, very excellent video editors, or maybe a fantastic memory for the points he wants to make. Whatever it is, he comes off as a highly-skilled presenter.

[@alvarodiaz2221]

A cake chart would just be a glorified cumulative bar graphic, but still I will shoehorn that shit into every data analysis that I can from now on.

[@jeffreyfwagner]

As a retired engineer who spent years in automotive and marine engine development, I found this video to be a gem. I omce attended an SAE ( Automotive Engineers) meeting in which Porsche was to show us the high points of their Mooney engine. They could not show us the plane as it was in a shop for repairs. Very prophetic. Thanks for an excellent video.

[@terrygoyan3022]

I think you skipped the word "society"! Pretty sad they couldn't even get the plane there for an SAE meeting.

[@bikersoncall]

ha ha,,, :))

[@moss8448]

reminds me once in the early `80's of going by a Miami dealership of DeLorean's; we were doing a Land Survey next door and I asked a mechanic what all those DeLorean's doing in the bays as I thought they were brand new he said we're fixing things that they left out at the factory.

[@filanfyretracker]

@@moss8448 While id love to have one of the modern Deloreans, its purely the BTTF fan in me. The funny thing is if that movie had picked a different car, I feel like Delorean would be just another barely remembered page in automotive history. A rusting corpse of many a failed automaker.

[@taoisttiger4702]

Well, not rusting because they are stainless steel hahaha

[@tow.JanWinnicki]

Without a doubt, Paul Bertorelli is one of the most engaging and entertaining, yet factually sound, aviation-oriented speakers/presenters out there! I especially appreciate the no-BS, tell it like it is, approach which is so refreshing to hear nowadays.

[@mcduck5]

His delivery is a lot like John Cadogan over at auto expert, The right mix of facts, humour and a lot of understanding of the subject.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@mcduck5 very true

[@LuizSchmidt]

Right on point! Agree 100%!

[@grafhilgenhurst9717]

A nice, dry sense of humor!

[@charlesballiet7074]

@@grafhilgenhurst9717 and a hint of salt to enhance the flavor

[@JimDorn]

"ability to recognize a turd floating by"....friggin' hilarious. Absolutely love Paul Bertorelli's deliveries.

[@faithlifeworshipcenter460]

And less than 10 seconds later, he used the word "undeterred". I'm sure that's not a coincidence. :-D

[@SmittySmithsonite]

That was friggin GREAT!!! 😂🤣😂

[@moss8448]

reminds me of the old saying 'it's hard to polish a turd'

[@michaelmagill189]

Mothers Old Timey Turd Polish. You can get it on Amazon. Really

[@modernwar2ghostrp]

As an automotive technician, I sometimes wish we did this more. I've seen manufacturers release an engine, find all its flaws and improve them to be bulletproof gems, or at least for us to learn their problems and spot them. Then as soon as everything is great, release a new design that we have to figure out and deal with all over again.

[@thebravesirrobin.]

Well if they don't release a brand new design, that old engine model might become *too serviceable*. They can't let drivers have it too good, nor let the automotive service industry become too comfortable and efficient, else car buyers might not have to replace their car exactly every 5 years.

[@typxxilps]

most likely the new emission regulations kill them too. Look in the engine bay of a Mercedes 190 D build in 1989 and then look in a Mercedes C Class Diesel. In the 190D engine you will see thee street below, the c classe is cramped full under the hood and not much space left in between. What has happened ? stronger emission rules forced them to use less fuel , become more efficient and clean the exhaust gasses a lot better. All for a better world, environment. but maybe not the most reliable engines when they start the production - and once the assembly line is running smoothly the next generation is on the horizon. The good new: will no longer happen, cause mostly all german manufacturers cancelled all further combustion engine developments for cars. They all try to get into the future with electric engines and evolution of a few combustion engines mostly neeeded also for vans where the battery size still matters .

[@John-rw9bv]

@@typxxilps strictly speaking, newer diesels use MORE fuel than older diesels because much of the emissions problems are solved by using fuel for things that isn't transport, be it squirting in unburnt fuel to reduce combustion temperatures, to squirting in unburn fuel to heat up the particulate filter, to taking redirecting exhaust gas back into the engine (again to lower combustion temps), all of these methods make the engine less efficient at the only thing you bought it for - moving forwards. Also they're way heavier.

[@charlesangell_bulmtl]

@@typxxilps The EPA, ETC. are bought and paid for, controlled by the same people that bring YOU bust and boom cycles ... We SHOULD be seeing 100mpg cars and light trucks considering the technical advancements brought by the likes of Nikola Tesla and MANY others ...

[@ziegle9876]

Look at all the Airworthiness Directives... the Continentals of this world can't even rebuild 70 year old piston engines, because "purchasing" is full of accountants, and management full of ESG MBAs, and that in a world where every bolt needs to be "certified" or you go to jail....

[@aleksandrnestrato]

It's rad! The overhead cam design came into the automotive world from... aviation! Back in 1920s sports car builders searched for more power at the same or lesser weight. It was very prestigious to have fancy airplane tech in a car back then. Non sports cars used flat-head design or pushrods. Now those two worlds kinda swapped places.

[@bodenwhitmore7699]

Came for the cake chart, stayed for the interesting information.

[@sonshinelight]

Carrot cake... Yummy. But Im not going to swallow the carrot

[@sonshinelight]

@@zava5025 Lasagna? LASAGNA? Count me in?

[@jeffwells641]

Same. Was like "Why aircraft engines don't succeed? But why the cake? I must know!"

[@dragthatsht]

Who wouldn't want a Porsche engine? Anyone who's dealt with and Porsche, ever.

[@tissuepaper9962]

The guy buying isn't the same guy who's wrenching. Doctors and lawyers like the sound of "Porsche" when they boast to their doctor/lawyer friends, even if it costs more to maintain and makes the mechanic hate them.

[@counterfit5]

IMS bearings. I shouldn’t have to say more (although those came much later)

[@suzukirider9030]

@@tissuepaper9962 but private aviators aren't like that. Especially the lower end of the spectrum - they either wrench it themselves (and often go experimental to avoid needing the aircraft mechanic license), or they pay for the guy with said license, but are very cost-conscious about it!

[@samiraperi467]

@@counterfit5 AFAIK that's been fixed.

[@sigmasquadleader]

@@samiraperi467 That's post-fact and as-comforting as having the disease that kills you named after you, for an aircraft engine.

[@SuperAWaC]

@12:43 Steam locomotive engineer checking in. Never thought my skills would be applicable on an aircraft video of all things, but here you go: How many levers it takes depends all on what you're doing. If it's just keeping the boiler fired, assuming it's running on oil, as most do or have been converted to do these days, there is the firing lever which controls the fuel going to the atomizer, a valve that controls how much steam is going to the atomizer (the fuel is atomized with steam, the water vapor isn't an issue), and three more valves that control injection of water into the boiler (technically two sets of three, since there's two injectors for redundancy). That's a lever and four valves just to idle it at a standstill. If you actually want to move the engine, there are five more required levers: The johnson bar (or power reverser on full size locomotives built after 1939) to pick which direction you wanted to go, the throttle, the cylinder cock lever (these let condensed water drain from the cylinders when getting underway) and the two air brake levers to control the engine and train brake. So, around six levers and four valves. There could be more or fewer depending on the exact configuration of the locomotive. If you want to be technical there's always bunch more valves for various things, drain valves or bypass valves or isolation valves or whatnot which while are necessary to operate the locomotive safely in all situations, aren't technically needed to move it.

[@paulhaynes5029]

From a UK perspective, this intrigued me. I am a bit of a preserved railway fan (well, OK, QUITE a bit of a preserved railway fan) and I can't think of many locomotives over here that have been converted to oil. The Ffestiniog went down that route to avoid lineside fires (and because this is typical of the Ffestiniog - they'd be electric if they thought they could get away with it!), but I'm pretty sure they later converted all their engines back to coal (because it was cheaper?). The whole point of a preserved railway is to preseve what they were like back in the day (more or less), and that means steam - and coal. Visitors and enthusiasts might be interested in the novelty of the odd oil-fired engine, but they'd be very disappointed if they turned up to discover NO coal-fired engines. The whole point of a steam engine is that there's a bloody hot fire 'inside' it, and a bloke on the footplate shovelling coal into it periodically. A single driver (engineer), just moving levers just wouldn't be the same. AND it wouldn't smell the same! There's nothing quite as evocative as the smell of steam and coal smoke.

[@SuperAWaC]

@@paulhaynes5029 It depends on where in the world you are. If you have cheap oil or not. In the US, there are fewer and fewer coal burners every year, mostly because the conversion to oil is very simple, could technically be undone at any time, and extends boiler tube life a whole bunch, as well as diesel fuel or fuel oil being a whole lot easier to deal with logistically, and often is cheaper than coal here. High quality pure coal is getting more and more expensive because there are so few places that bother mining it, because the last major use for coal is power generation, and modern coal fired power plants run on the lowest grade of coal possible which is the cheapest to mine. Firing steam locomotives on that low grade coal is a nightmare. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you guys over in the UK only have one proper source of locomotive grade coal left, and that's been flirting with being shut down for some time now for the same reasons our high quality coal mines shut down? Most steam locomotives built on the west coast of the US either were built as oil burners or quickly converted from coal to bunker oil (and then later to fuel oil or diesel fuel) because oil was/is way cheaper on the west coast. They still had an engineer and fireman, because while firing an oil burner is easier, it's still a full time job.

[@Qp0int]

Well said😉

[@kazansky22]

How do I get your job?!

[@SuperAWaC]

@@kazansky22 give up on your dreams of becoming rich and famous and start making phone calls to steam railroads asking for a job

[@cloroxmints355]

I have sooooo little knowledge about anything he’s talking about when it comes to aviation but I gotta say this dude is awesome to listen to and I loved the video

[@flantc]

I really hate (maybe that's a too strong of a word... but anyway) when I hear pilots say "I want to be able to control my engine" in response to the idea of FADEC. I have yet to meet a pilot that can monitor dozens of engine inputs hundreds of times a second while adjusting parameters for best reliability and performance using algorithms developed over decades. While also constantly logging the engine performance, environmental conditions, and anomalies. Some will even make this argument while trying to start the engine for the 6th time because this time they know they didn't give it enough throttle on the last try.

[@tissuepaper9962]

You're in it for maximum efficiency, not everybody thinks like you. Even if it takes 5 tries, it's a whole hell of a lot of fun to be in complete control. It's like manual vs. automatic in your car. Manual is objectively worse in every way except simplicity, but it's a lot more fun and engaging for the driver. You never have to fight with the transmission about where to shift and how fast, because you are the one making that decision in the first place. Even if you are making the objectively wrong decision, it's ultimately your decision. That's fun, maybe not for you, but definitely for me.

[@SynMonger]

@@tissuepaper9962 I don't know if I'd describe it as fun or engaging during task saturated portions of a flight.

[@tissuepaper9962]

@@SynMonger then maybe a diesel plane is for you, my friend. the single lever control just isn't for me, it doesn't match my goals in flying in the same way an automatic transmission doesn't match my goals in driving. I want to master the skill of controlling as much of the vehicle as feasible. That's the fun part for me. It may not be the fun part for you, that's cool. We simply disagree. I'm sure if I had to fly every day for my job I'd like the single lever for its convenience and safety benefits (the same way I like the automatic for daily driving), but I don't have to do that, so I'll stick to my 1960s-style controls.

[@bwickham195]

They need that mod which adds a separate mixture knob and CHT+EGT gauge for every cylinder.

[@fermitupoupon1754]

@@tissuepaper9962 I get where you're coming from, and yet for me it's the exact opposite really. I'm working on my PPL, but I'm training on a turboprop (because my friend owns that plane and I get to fly for cheap) and not having to deal with the whole mixture and prop settings is so relaxing. It allows me to enjoy flying more, because I spend more time flying the plane rather than managing the engine. I'm the same with motorcycles. I don't want to have to deal with gears and clutches and power bands. I just want to carve up some corners and enjoy the ride and a CVT or electric gets me exactly that. You'd be surprised at how many "real bikers" get aggravated at my maxi-scooters just because they are sad people who are unwilling to concede that their definition of fun might be needless busywork to someone else. If you want to manage and balance all that stuff by hand, kudo's to you for being able to do that stuff, especially during moments with a high pucker-factor. To me that's just not where I get the enjoyment from. The improved efficiency is a nice side effect, but in the end it's about enjoying flying or riding, at least it is to me.

[@NickMurray]

Paul, these videos are just so well presented and produced. Just great work.

[@propertymanagement7011]

A solid 5 out of 10!

[@mustardseedsociety]

I agree, Paul is the GOLD standard.

[@egreens8512]

Roger that , answered a lot of questions . See yooz in Oshkosh 2021 . Wheels up :) Thank you Paul and AV Web.

[@DutchThackers]

Totally agree!

[@thelegleg1]

Paul is just GREAT

[@peterandersson3812]

Our flying club converted a C172 to use a Thielert diesel in 2011. The two main issues were the MTOW-limit and the uncertainty of the gearbox inspection interval (as mentioned in the video) which meant an uncertainty in operating cost. For touring, the aircraft was essentially a two-seater, but it you were only two people on board it was an amazing tourer: in a configuration where the MTOW was no issue, the range was fenomenal. As also mentioned in the video, engine management was very easy: you start it like a car, engine run-up is at the press of a button and in flight you just set the SLC lever to whatever percentage you want. No constant adjustment, no performance tables to read, no leaning,... The turbo meant we had sea level performance up to 8,000 feet. The club eventually sold it, but not because of technical issues: we needed to downsize the fleet and this was the aircraft for which we could get the best price. I still miss it. We have one Rotax-powered LSA (600 kg) now and that's also very easy and modern to operate compared to our C172 and PA28 Lycoming engines.

[@wallacegrommet9343]

You’re the best. Detailed, low-key sardonic humbleness in presentation, and a real insider’s perspective

[@jimbiller9682]

Great job explaining the whole aircraft piston engine business. You must have done a tone of research and done it objectively, then you did a great job condensing it into a 23 minute video. An absolutely amazing piece of journalism.

[@zakkoslo6456]

That cake chart is revolutionary!

[@lordjaashin]

calm down, zuk

[@SimonButler]

I can't say I really care that much about the engines in the planes I fly, yet I still watched every second of this video because Paul makes everything interesting.

[@pascalchauvet7625]

5:48 the OM640 was actually used in the two preceding generations of A-/B-class Mercedes cars, canted so that it can slide beneath the passengers in a heavy frontal crash. In the pictured A-class Diesel engines of less displacement than 2 litres are mostly from Renault.

[@brianbob7514]

I was just talking to a friend about this. I think the market is just too small to support a big change.

[@invertedv12powerhouse77]

Unfortunate. I think GA madlads would need to step up to keep anything interesting. This hobby is beyond expensive and either fully dedicated or not

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@invertedv12powerhouse77 One huge problem I see is if you do choose to buy an aircraft, it's very difficult to turn it into a revenue source. The FAA should make it LESS restrictive in doing a commercial enterprise. The reason I say this is many fold. The HUGE reason I'll not say on this platform because there are those that are like sensative Tom Cruises and THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. So I'll go to my 2nd reason -> revenues coming in would not only cover operating expenses, but would allow a budget to NOT {read that - N-O-T} skimp out on maintenance and ALLOW {read that A-L-L-O-W} the budget to have ON GOING training such as glider flying, upset training, basic aerobatics, mountain flying, IFR refreshers ect. This would result in BETTER aviators. Besides that, the mission of the "FAA" is to PROMOTE aviation. What upsets me from the FAA's perspective, is your wife. or your kids, or your friends ARE of LESS value than a "paying customer". The emphasis should be IS the pilot a good pilot or is he a bad pilot ?? NOT, is he making money or not. If you're NOT "safe enough" to fly a "paying customer", then you're NOT safe enough to fly your wife, kids, and friends.

[@mzaite]

Market is too small, and the cost per unit is way too high to be willing to take any chances. First 40 years of Aviation: First powered flight to Jet Engines. Last 40 years of Aviation: "We Can't Afford to change anything"

[@dirkmohrmann8960]

Just to illustrate how small the market is, consider this. There were a total of about 1,300 new piston aircraft shipped in 2019 world wide. On the other hand, Ford produces 900,000 F-150 pickup trucks every year, that's over 100 per hour, day and night. So, ONE car company make more of ONE model of vehicle in 13 hours, than ALL piston planes/engines combined in a year.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@mzaite That's probably the most accurate get to the point statement made. I think you're right. Especially the observation of being a small market. Heck aviation writers get all excited, "wow Cessna produced 20,000 C-172's" {yes I'm guessing the #} and we aviation readers are supposed to get all goose bumpy, but in reality 20,000 ?? Compare that to how many cars are produced - MILLIONS Upon MILLIONS of cars and car engines. My personal opinion, I think Pipestral is the current BEST GA manufacture on the planet. The speedy Panthera has been spin tested with 3/4 fuel in the tanks, 4 people on board, and they took it to 10 rotations on the spin test and it fully recovered very nicely. But if all else fails there's a parachute. But it's 600K out the door. I'd like to see a true 5 seater using the Panthera Virus concept where you have decent speed but also nice glide ratios. With that concept, you know we're always told about the "impossible turn", well there you go - no more "impossible turn" - if engine "quits" on takeoff, you can ACTUALLY do a turn around {or deploy BRS} and when you get up to altitude and let's say you got a nice tailwind, just shut the engine off and get to your destination in "quiet" and not burning any fuel. You only turn the engine on when you get in sink. If your in lift, you just trim the nose down and cruise forward burning up real estate but not burning fuel. PRETTY AMAZING !! But I'll be honest, when I was on the Pipestral website, I liked what I saw in the Virus, but kind of bummed it only has 2 seats, but whatever - BUT I on purpose DID NOT look at the price. At this point I don't even want to know. There's a glider club 35 miles from where I live, and I can just go fly high tech engineless gliders that need tow planes - FOR NOW -

[@davidshakespeare9767]

Your description of starting the IO550 is perfect I fly dozens of models with this GREAT engine but starting it… your face was perfect!

[@mustardseedsociety]

What about the Lycoming IO540 ?? I've been told that is the best engine in GA. That's why the Panthera choose it. The only problem with the Panthera, is it's "only" 600K out the door.

[@cherokee592]

Well, mine starts every time. When it's cold it takes 2 blades (of four)... when it's very hit I start it with the throttle wide open, and it always starts. And yes, you can pull the power after it starts.

[@TheReadBaron91]

@@cherokee592 yup! Especially if you flood it

[@cherokee592]

@@TheReadBaron91 You cannot flood the engine by starting it throttle wide open.

[@cherokee592]

@@mustardseedsociety Compared to the TCM IO-550 the Lycoming IO-540 feels like a two cylinder tractor engine :-)

[@MrWATCHthisWAY]

Paul your information doesn’t get any better than this. As others commented your clear, concision, informative understanding with just a hint of dry humor thrown in just to keep us smiling while we crunch the numbers in our little brains has us captivated throughout these segments. Thank’s Paul and I can’t wait for your episode of all the electrical propulsion designs that are currently under development that will eventually be scrapped in our near future. Technology rocks! Sometimes.

[@CCitis]

I am always baffled why we still use very old technology in GA... but it's what people are comfortable with. Diamond is certainly pushing the envelope, happily.

[@nirfz]

It isn't just GA. Take AM radio. It is still used for Air Ground communication and not going to be changed.

[@chrisdelzell8467]

Except the video is a load of BS. There is a tremendous market for newer and more reliable aircraft engines which would require trivial investment to tap. Quite literally millions of people would buy a modern airplane if FAA regs and unlimited liability tort laws weren't so comprehensively built around suppressing new entries.

[@danielalorbi]

@@chrisdelzell8467 Hi Chris. What would you say was the real reason for the mentioned failures in the video?

[@chrisdelzell8467]

@@danielalorbi almost entirely litigation and regulations. Airplane designers face indefinite and unrestricted liability for their designs , and the FAA has a number of regulatory catch 22s that make testing new parts almost impossible without unattainable economies of scale. A piper supercub might have a 200 lb heavier engine than a piper cub, generating 150 horsepower instead of 70. My car has a 200 lb total engine with over 300 horsepower that can operate at nearly twice the RPM. It also wastes less gas and costs less than 10% as much. There aren't a lot of things the cub's engine can do that the car's can't either. If I took that engine block out and jury-rigged it to a propeller shaft, several things would happen. 1) The reliability would go up. Cheap, mid quality fuel injected engines are far more reliable than any carburetor and magneto system. 2) The performance would go up. Lightweight, cheap, almost zero maintenance modern engines are far more powerful for their weight and volume than what we use in airplanes 3) The safety would go up. A more powerful, more reliable engine with more money left over for maintenance is a lot safer, and that 10% figure above includes all kinds of automation and safety features that are part of a car's cost. 4) It would be illegal to sell, and illegal to test. You can't sell it until there is sufficient test data, and you can't test it outside of an already approved airplane configuration without special dispensation. Flying isn't really that hard. We figured it out 100 years ago. We make it harder than it needs to be.

[@michaelmagill189]

@@chrisdelzell8467 obviously you're the one who needs the fact check on bs. Yes, regulation and scumbag lawyers make innovation a non sequitur, but there are not MILLIONS of GA pilots worldwide. Therefore limited market is the biggest driver in all aspects of innovation

[@obviousness8113]

I know nothing about aviation but these videos are so well-produced, it's mesmerizing.

[@lightsabr2]

After a couple dozen minutes listening to Paul, I hope you know SOMETHING about aviation. ;)

[@bevant9218]

“It has seen enough of the aeronautical river to recognise a turd floating by when it sees one”. Love it !!!

[@glennandrews7689]

Love you Paul; lol...you call it as it is and don't shave off any unpleasantness! No engine should ever, EVER "quit" - at any time - especially in an aircraft; not in 2021! I've been a pilot (SEL) for nearly 40 years now and I'm just dumbfounded that we are still "betting" our lives on 1930's motorcycle engines...it's just insane, especially at the level of technological advancements today. Love your honesty and incredible professionalism Paul...I remain always your biggest fan.

[@alex1290]

Hey Paul! Excellent video! From an engine manufacturer's point of view there is some more cost involved that make GA engines a major pain: Product liability insurance - especially for the US market with its class action lawsuits against manufacturers, low production volume combined with extremely high market entry barriers (-->certification process in every single country around the globe aside from FAA and EASA countries!), a decades long life-span of certified aircraft with legal requirements to provide support in parts from 100s of part-suppliers that go in and out of business (just think of electronics!!!) and engineering (ASBs for 30 year old engines!) until the last engine dies,... Long story short: We regulated the industry to a point where it just does not make sense from a business point of view. Every company that keeps innovating in GA deserves a medal just for trying to succeed in the long run. In the short run, innovation in GA on an industrial level never pays off. The guys at Cirrus, Diamond, Rotax and even Continental and Lycoming are awesome. There are so many more like Pipistrel, Tecnam or AutoGyro who just won't ever give up. Thanks for keeping us in the air!

[@medea27]

Ah yes, the good old tried & tested approach to starting a stubborn engine in _anything_ - aircraft, cars, trucks, bikes, lawnmowers.... "set the throttle, hold your mouth _just right_ , crank it...." It's all in the technique! 👍

[@colinwallace5286]

I note that the large displacement diesels I sit behind all day have a very complex cold start procedure.... (1) Turn the key to start position and hold until the rumbly noises start. I drove a friend’s 1960’s vintage car and marvelled at the CHOKE knob on the dash. Those were still around in the 70’s, but I had to think for a bit to remember the last thing I owned that had one. Those bit you at -25°C or so if you didn’t “hold your nose right”. Fondly remembered, but oft-cursed at the time.😏

[@blahorgaslisk7763]

But it is something that has been getting better over time. Just look at early automobiles compared to modern cars. Way back it was both a mental and physical test to start a car as you had to hand crank it, but only after you set the ignition timing, fuel blend, air intake and possibly primed it. To drive you had to keep track of ignition timing, fuel blend and how much air to feed it. The first simplification was to make ignition timing automated as well as the fuel mix. Add a starter engine and things got much simpler. So you ended up with the gas pedal, a choke and possibly priming. With increased tweaking of the ignition, the development of direct injection and eventually electronical control of it all we've ended up with cars where starting the engine is ridiculously simple. Turn the key and it starts. We have gotten to the point where we are so sure the engine really will start that we let it automatically turn off any time we stop for more than a couple of seconds at a red light. Just step on the gas and the engine starts right up so smoothly a lot of people won't even notice it was off in the first place. I got to think about that when I retired my last car, or perhaps latest, I'm not dead yet. It was a 98 Toyota Corolla and though just about everything else decided to fall apart at the same time, apparently after having a secret meeting I wasn't invited to, the engine never once gave me a problem starting. I've driven a lot of old cars and tractors and been around a lot of heavy equipment and none of those old machines was as reliable as that Toyota. Not even the Volvo B18 and B20 car engines that was known as being indestructible were as reliable in everyday use. With reliable I mean that it started at first try every time no matter the temperature and it ran without leaking oil, was reasonably fuel efficient and were easy and cheap to maintain. Compared to something like the B20 it was so much simpler for the owner. No carburetor to trim or maintain, no cranking it for minutes hoping it will start when it's cold outside, no growing stains where it has been pissing oil for the last twenty years and so on. It can be argued that with this increased ease of use we have lost a lot of ease of maintenance, and I can agree on that. When a modern car engine starts to throw a fit it is often more complicated to get it working again. Carburetors and mechanical distributors and ignition systems are very easy to understand. You need fuel, air and a spark. Get the fuel and air into the cylinder and add the spark at the right time and the engine will run. This is the basics of a IC engine. With modern ignition systems you no longer have manual control over any of this and that makes them hard to maintain when you do not have the brand specific tools and parts. Old engine we could patch together, and while they might not work perfectly they would get us how or wherever we were going. When a modern car stops at the side of the road with a light saying it's an engine failure it's not likely you will be fixing this up enough to take you home even if you have a huge toolbox in the car. So pick up that phone and call for a tow truck to take you to a garage. But like I said some where above, the modern car is just so much more reliable that it's pretty crazy. And let's face it, most drivers do not know much more than how to drive and how to fill up the tank. And that's all they are interested in. The car has gone from being something you needed to know how it worked to becoming a commodity you don't really think about. Sure there are some lemons, and they can be pretty frustrating when you encounter them, but percentage wise they are very few compared to how it used to be "in the good old days".

[@justforever96]

I always understood the proper incantations to be crucial parts of the procedure as well. I remember my father out on cold winter days trying to start whichever old clunker he was driving at that time, loudly chanting out mystic combinations of words that my mother never wanted him to say when we were in hearing. She called them his 'car starting words'. True story.

[@shinycessna]

@@colinwallace5286 Nothing a quick shot of ether won't fix.

[@michaelmagill189]

Most of the things you can do to start that cantankerous beast mean very little if you don't hold your mouth right. Just saying

[@Creeperownr]

Paul Bertorelli with another amazing video!

[@NorthOfEarthAlex]

I have no involvement in aircraft or engines, but this was recommended and I enjoyed the whole thing.

[@lekoman]

Paul, you are an asset to this community. Thanks for taking the time to put together such great reporting.

[@justsnappy]

This video certainly takes the cake

[@ToddDunning]

What outstanding presentation. Imagine this sort of quality in the mainstream media.

[@ackack612]

Is there anyone who even comes close to Mr. Bertorelli? Both the information and his presentation are simply 2nd to none. Always a joy to watch and learn.

[@bikersoncall]

I'm just not a Pie person, so thank God we now have cake charts, thanks to Paul.

[@stephengloor8451]

BTW conventional aircraft engines aren’t based on 60s technology they are straight from the 1940s. Viking seem to be selling heaps of its Honda conversions.

[@mzaite]

Keep going backward. mid 20's mostly. The Cord had a more advanced fuel injection than an IO-360.

[@bencheevers6693]

I'm not a pilot and don't have aspirations to be one, at least no realistic path to get there at least but I still love this channel. I've watched the entire catalogue of this style of video repeatedly and am really happy to see new ones.

[@mustardseedsociety]

Here's a video you might like -> kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZS2XoR5jK2ZmJo

[@bencheevers6693]

@@mustardseedsociety Thanks for the link, really interesting, reminds me of this kind of kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnrNo4hrl7qVi8U rotary piston hydraulic pump

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@bencheevers6693 Thanks I now know a little bit more about hydraulic pumps.

[@savanjd]

Never miss Paul's vids or blogs, thorough, pragmatic and fun!

[@jamescole1786]

Wow Paul, you are a might fine aviation journalist & statistician! Not a pilot (1970's USAF Radar ATC) but love to listen to yur videos. Great info on those Diesel engines, incredible! Carry on Sir!!👍👍👍🍷

[@VictoryAviation]

Absolutely outstanding!!! I love watching these incredible presentations. Cake chart 👍🏼

[@avshiloh2438]

I LOVE your videos, Paul!!! They’re so well researched and compiled, I never have the patience to wait for the next one. Keep it up... PLEASE!!!

[@anthonyesparza5044]

I absolutely love your videos Paul! Please never stop making videos, you have a way with the people and I will support your channel forever💯

[@supralapsarian]

Wow! What an amazingly well done and informative piece. Definitely deserving of more views. Thank you, Paul!

[@flyingark173]

Circles of audacity! Love it. Great video, very informative and the "cake chart" was genius

[@rianmonnahan]

Wow, great video! I love the dead pan. I would really be interested in what you could do with an analysis of the sailplane industry.

[@herzogsbuick]

You understated sense of humor and delivery are fantastic. Wish I had found your videos earlier, but glad to be here now.

[@andypuempel2570]

Always enjoy your insights, Paul. Comprehensive information, well presented, and entertaining! Thanks, Paul!

[@KabonkNo1]

Excellent presentation. Not being in aviation myself, I have always wondered about the, apparent, slow developement in light aircraft engines. Now I know.

[@SWAMPTTHING]

Thanks Paul, what a great history lesson and what must have been a lot of homework to assemble.

[@cramersclassics]

Monotone, serious, deadpan, surprising wit and a sprinkle of humor. So much information without a moment lost. Fantastic!

[@rever4217]

I feel like I've learned so much about aviation from this one video alone. I looked up many of the companies as you mentioned them to learn more about them. Thank you very much!

[@chris_hisss]

Thanks so much! This has always been a back of the head question for me! Now I know! I was even just watching your video about why engines fail and seeing that lycoming on the hook had me wanting to ask that question. How is it that still such a basic engine is the top of the line? I was guessing it was self evident failure avoidance. I didn't consider the infrastructure surrounding it.

[@alexbaer7810]

Paul please make a video about the GM LS1 engine's viability in general aviation. I know its been done at some point, but is not well documented. Aluminum block, and cylinder heads, excellent power to weight, ridiculously reliable. Biggest difficulty is the wet sump from my understanding.

[@recoilrob324]

I was involved with an aircraft project back around 1990 that used Chevrolet Big Blocks and the problem wasn't with the engine itself, but the accessories and the gear reduction unit. The engine had to spin backwards which isn't a difficult thing with Mercury Marine having done this for many years and counter-rotating marine engines, but it does involve some different parts to make it work. The auto engine makes seemingly big power for displacement but it does this with higher revs, so gear reduction needed and then you have to address the speeds that you'll be working the engine. Big Block 454's were rated at 450 horses...but at 5500 rpm. So if you took off using all of them you were condemned to cruise over 4000 by the limitations of propeller efficiency. We had a computer program from Hartzell that proved to be very interesting. You could choose any diameter and available blade profile which then showed you how fast it had to spin to work properly which is a very narrow range of speed...and I just wasn't comfortable running the 454 for most of it's life at 70% power and 4000 minimum rpm. I would have preferred about 3000 cruise but then the max HP is way down and they don't look as advantageous. One interesting thing I floated was to use a 2 speed gearbox...which I still say would have worked well. Low gear for takeoff then high gear and reduced revs for cruise...all the while the prop is spinning at it's most efficient speed. 'Nobody does two speed gearboxes' I was told. So? It actually would have been pretty easy to make a planetary gearset in the reduction case but it got shot down. The whole airplane deal went down the drain (Stewart 51) which is a shame because it would have been neat. Some did make it into the air...but the engines weren't being done the way I would have done them...to their detriment IMHO.

[@Spinolio]

It's been done a LOT, in every kind of experimental aero application including helicopters. If you want a dry sump aluminum V8, that hardware is available from the factory too as the LT1 crate engine, and aftermarket dry sump setups are well developed for all kinds of racing applications. Unless prolonged inverted flight is a requirement, even a wet sump LS/LT will work just fine with an Accusump-style accumulator, and you can even set that up as an automatic pre-oiler for startup too.

[@mustardseedsociety]

Or how about THIS -> kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZS2XoR5jK2ZmJo

[@mzaite]

Given a long enough timeline, everything gets an LS swap.

[@Spinolio]

@@mzaite #truth

[@Twitledum9]

Man.... What a great KZbin channel.... I'm so happy to watch this!

[@martinpauly]

Terrific summary, and very well delivered, Paul. Thank you for making this video! - Martin

[@Boebus666]

Oh man, imagine hitting VTEC on TakeOff!

[@Bartonovich52]

Interestingly enough, aircraft engines usually have flatter cams and longer overlap like a VTEC profile all the time. Airplane engines only need to produce power at maximum RPM... and only need to accelerate the propeller, not the entire airplane. So no point in having two cam profiles or one that is good for cruise and idle like in a car. Same with ignition timing. It’s fixed, not variable. That’s why you have to run aircraft engines at 1000-1200 RPM on the ground. Any slower and they don’t like to run that well, and the valve overlap can result in the intake valves being contaminated with lead deposits (which won’t burn off like they do on the exhaust valve). Idle is only a quick check before takeoff. Idle is only for zero or negative thrust in the air where the load on the prop will keep it spinning faster.

[@benghazi4216]

Viking offers Honda engines. But the old VTEC is long dead. The kick is non existent now, even in the new Type R's. You are thinking of the K20 series, the holy grail.

[@TheBrokenworld]

@@Bartonovich52 "So no point in having two cam profiles or one that is good for cruise and idle like in a car." Are you kidding? VTEC could be used to greatly reduce pumping losses at cruise, significantly improving the efficiency of the engine. As you pull the power lever back from full power, the FADEC system could leave the throttle wide open, while switching from the secondary cam to the primary cam to reduce power, instead of closing the throttle and causing pumping losses to increase. Something like the Valvetronic system might be better suited for use in an aircraft engine, though. Optimizing ignition timing also offers significant benefits and many pilots use electronic ignition systems in order to gain the ability to optimize their ignition timing. Ignition timing is fixed in many aircraft engines because they use magnetos, which are an absolutely archaic technology, not because there's no benefit that comes from varying ignition timing.

[@singleproppilot]

@@TheBrokenworld VTEC is just one of many implementations of a variable valve timing scheme, and it’s actually one of the oldest and least efficient ways to do it. Variable valve timing is used to adjust valve overlap based on engine RPM, used so a car engine can provide sudden bursts of power on demand at high RPM, while remaining efficient at low RPM for cruising. Airplane engines don’t need this because they cruise at nearly full RPM. Keep it simple.

[@TheBrokenworld]

@@singleproppilot VTEC is far from being just variable valve timing, it allows the engine to switch between two (sometimes more) different cam profiles. Compared to other cam-changing variable valve train systems (VVTL-i, NEO VVL, VarioCam Plus, etc), it's the most versatile out of any that have ever been produced. Because VTEC can switch between entirely different cam profiles, lift, duration, overlap and timing can all be varied. With the addition of VTC, timing can also be varied continuously. In an aircraft engine application, VTEC would offer the ability to switch between a cam profile optimized for cruise power, and a cam profile optimized for take off power. Most variable valve timing systems only vary timing, but they do it continuously (like the VTC aspect of the i-VTEC system), so the cam timing can be optimized for all operating conditions, from idle to full power. You are correct in saying that this would offer little benefit in an aircraft application, but VTEC offers far more capability than just variable timing.

[@radioace318la]

very nice, Paul. "ever start an IO 550?" Was that a hot engine? It reminded me of watching a ground crew standing by with a fire extinguisher in hand as rock star areo pilots cranked up their machines on the ground after taking on more 100LL and smoke oil. My CFI never mentioned having an extinguisher handy on start up. But he did say something about overpriming it.

[@murdelabop]

I watched a guy start a cabin class twin many years ago, who had that start-quit thing happen several times, and sat on the ramp for close to a minute with an obvious fire burning under one engine. After which he started that beast up, and left none the wiser. With big, black, sooty stains under both engines, so that fire on starting was apparently a regular occurrence.

[@filanfyretracker]

@@murdelabop I have no clue why YT suggested this video to me, but wow I never knew starting a light aircraft engine was so complex until I heard him describe this and seeing some of these comments. Priming an aircraft engine, Is that just like an upscaled version of that little pump on the side of my snow blower I have to do three or four times before setting the choke and pulling the cord?

[@murdelabop]

@@filanfyretracker Pretty much. The primer is a kind of syringe that pushes about a tablespoon or so of gasoline directly into the intake manifold. Managing that primer, especially for hot starts, is something of a dark art, and can be different for each individual airplane. Two of my boss's airplanes, both Cessna 172's, both the same variant, one of them would hot start with no primer at all, and the other, the only way I could get the damned thing started when it was hot was to set the mixture to the cut off, two pumps on the throttle and set it about an inch above idle, give it five full shots of primer, crank it, and when it caught throw the mixture full rich.

[@wootle]

I always found those 6 levers so so archaic , blew my mind when I started learning how to fly twins. Really did feel like a steam loco!! Great video as always thanks Paul!

[@webb463]

Great video Paul! Outstanding reporting on an interesting aviation topics. Would love to see more accident/incident investigation type videos in the future.

[@williamsmith286]

Love that sense of humor!!!!!!

[@superandy89]

Awesome video Paul! I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention any brands besides Rotax operating in the experimental space. Viking being a minor success story and Deltahawk (potentially following the same course of Thielert?)

[@nzkiwi9]

Ya have to appreciate Paul's sense of humor & dry delivery. Always great content

[@kingcrumpet]

Incredibly well done. Thoroughly enjoyed this deep dive into Joby and the challenges they will have to overcome.

[@flutetubamorg]

I am going to find an excuse to use a cake chart in my next meeting....thanks

[@paulo7200]

Story Idea: Paul, can you cover some of the emerging electric aircraft / VTOL startups? It seems like there are dozens of these companies, and all of them seem shady. The idea itself seems well intentioned, but the unsolved problem is that today's batteries lack enough energy density and are not as chemically stable as aviation fuels (witness electric cars that spontaneously combust). The only commercially viable electric aircraft today are consumer drones, which tellingly, use a lithium ion battery the size of a brick to transport a camera that weighs about an ounce, and even then can only fly 20-30 minutes. Many of these companies are mum about range and payload, all while raising money from naive or unqualified investors based on slick renderings and animation. The pitch to investors is that their electric planes will replace current Part 121 aircraft, yet none of these companies have designs that can even meet current requirements of flying to alternate destinations plus 45 minutes. When pressed, some of these companies will claim to have some extraordinary "proprietary" battery technology or some secret revolutionary airframe design. I find these claims to be very suspect in general. If one had some revolutionary battery design, certainly they would get into the battery business directly rather that trying aircraft manufacturing, with its regulatory hurdles and high financial mortality rate.

[@djmips]

You illuminated so many aspects of aircraft engines that I'd always wondered about in a few short minutes. Bravo!

[@slahous]

This is actual content, no bullshit, to the point, systematicly and excelenty delivered. No stretching the video due to lack of knowledge. Earned a like and I dont do that very often.

[@BravoCharlieGlobal]

The carrot cake analogy...love it. Thnx Paul!

[@jamesengland7461]

The GA market has been shrinking since 1980. Less than 3,000 new airplanes are built worldwide every year. The market simply isn't there.

[@yestfmf]

The prices continue to climb. A cheap one is over a hundred grand these days.

[@jerem0621]

Not enough CFI’s unreasonable medical requirements, who wants to spend 10-40k in training just to have it wiped away with an easily controlled disease. Yes I know there are SI but the FAA requires your life blood and more than necessary PHI JUST TO DENY you anyway for more tests that your own MD doesn’t think you need. FAA is good and the problem at the same time.

[@BhaveshDiwan]

11:32 He is the kind of cool uncle I wish I had! He has a knack of conveying a serious point while making you chuckle! One cannot help but love him, respect him!

[@EmperorBun]

I came into this knowing nothing about aviation and aircraft engines, but your delivery was so engaging that I stayed the whole time and learned a lot!

[@MrSupro]

I have thought about this many times. If Porsche could not do it, then it’s not practical for an automotive manufacturer to do it. It’s only chance to catch on would be experimental but that market is well served by the regular manufacturers who all now have uncertified lines. Viking and their Honda based thing looks interesting for RV’s. The most promising thing for high performance is aluminum small blocks with racing dry sump systems work well when tried but by the time you load up all the race parts you are in over 60k for an uncertified motor and now you could buy a certified comparable motor for not much more money. The quantities are just not there. Cristian Von Koenigsegg has been hinting at a 3 cylinder high hp low burn rate unit using his new free valve technology could be in the cards but it would not be cheap. He has the money to ram it down the FAA’s throats and is probably the best chance at getting it done. He really is a billionaire Bond Villain who actually likes people and engines.

[@forest4283]

Let me just say, after this I cannot wait for someone to bring up GE airplane engines at the next dinner party.

[@droge192]

*GA

[@homeworld1031tx]

Really excellently researched video. Thanks for putting it together.

[@ssgjmg]

This is a great video. Straight talk and no blowing sunshine up your skirt. Love your presentation style. Keep up the great work!

[@Ozarkprepper643]

Cessna knows a turd floating by when it sees it. LOL You got to love it.

[@leftcoaster67]

Not only well presented, but damn hilarious.

[@roderickcampbell2105]

Classic Paul. Informative, and you're going to get some really good laughs. He does an amazing job of hiding his funny lines in serious sections. Which helps keep folks attention.

[@lobstereleven4610]

i love these vids, informative, clear, easy to understand and backed with lots of research data. thanks!

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

Good stuff Paul! A lot of work putting this altogether.

[@Rauschgenerator]

"must be some German thing..." ...well, maybe it's heritage from long ago... we never had to repair anything, stuff didn't come back from the front anyway...^^

[@anonymoususer3561]

Deutschland moment

[@irwinrussell60]

my instrument checkride is tomorrow, wish me luck Update: I passed. Thanks y’all!

[@loddude5706]

Little luck needed really, just focus & precision . . . it will work every time, if YOU'RE in charge. Good luck : )

[@Evanseys]

Well done. Best commentary i have heard in years!

[@stephenhparker]

What a brilliant, clear and entertaining video. The biggest challenge with current light aircraft is wondering whether it's going to start, hot or cold; whereas I never ask myself that question when I get in my car - a 20 year old Passat (diesel!). Except on a cold winter's day with a dodgy battery! But after watching Paul's video, I now understand why I must continue to focus on my engine start foreplay. There is, however, a local DA40-TDi that is beckoning to me.

[@nereanim]

"not to b denied its #MeToo moment in the diesel world... " - Too funny!

[@TheBrokenworld]

The Bombardier V300T/V220 did NOT have DOHC, it was a SOHC engine and only had two valves/cylinder. Cost is likely the reason why Bombardier chose this configuration, but it was absolutely insane from a performance standpoint. Running at 5,500 rpm, the engine would have benefited from having 4 valves/cylinder, enormously.

[@randyvanvliet226]

The Rotax 912 , 914 and 915 series, I believe, all run 5500 to 5800 rpm, 2 valves per cylinder head, pushrods to rockers. Doesn't seem to have a problem with breathing. 100 HP out of 1365 cc's, no problem. 141 HP in the turbocharged version.

[@TheBrokenworld]

@@randyvanvliet226 Except that they demonstrate somewhat poor fuel consumption (0.40 lb-hp-hr, at their absolute best, 0.50 at their worst) and poor specific power output (as did the V300T/V220). BMEP is around 185 psi for the 912, but would probably be around 210 psi if it were a DOHC, 4 valve/cylinder engine. Edit: That jump in BMEP would produce a 15% increase in power output and the decrease in pumping losses would likely result in a 10-15% decrease in fuel consumption.

[@AVweb]

You're right. My punch list included fixing that title because I knew it was SOHC. Thanks for the point out. I'll add a correction in the comments.

[@kparr7585]

Excellent vid!! Really well done with great content and exceptional delivery. Big thank you! 😀

[@StephensonRaceTech]

Great videos! Id be really interested in adding in cost comparisons when looking at those weight and power comparro slides. Keep em coming!

[@javev1772]

There’s also a stubborn resistance from the American buyer to buy something modern. We still make Waco biplanes, radial engines, and Cessna just came out with a brand new copy of the twin otter including struts and fixed gear. Europe is producing beautiful modern stuff but most buyers are in the US and they won’t buy modern stuff. Make a new 1955 chevy and you’ll make tons of money.

[@zolotiyeruki]

Part of the problem is that the sleek European airplanes come with eye-watering prices.

[@Dudeisthere]

@@zolotiyeruki So do the classics though, a brand new C172 will set you back what? 300-400k? And that plane hasnt changed in 50 years apart from fancy avionics and a nice leather interior.

[@michaelmagill189]

A large part of the current pilot population is aging out or simply getting away from ownership. Not to mention dying. As a result, the market is loaded with clean well cared for ( mostly but do your homework before buying ) older aircraft that can be had most reasonably priced unless the dealers get hold of them. Then you'd think you were buying new and they get pretty damned indignant if you suggest that their price is too high. I watched a dealer who bought a nice ( fair condition ) 172 at an estate sale for $15000. 3 weeks later it was cleaned up, had some minor vinyl graphics that covered the unrepaired corosion on the upper wing and a price tag of $85000. But still there are many good deals out there and many new aviators like the idea of reasonable price and familiar well proven planes. The downside of this is that it makes it really hard to sell that outrageously priced new airplane thats 3 knots faster and has Garmshit avionics

[@bliglum]

Calling a modern Mercedes engine "about as bullet-proof as engines get".... LOL!! Yeah, nah, I'd rather a Japanese based aircraft engine than a German based, thank you.

[@Benjamin-tr4jr]

if it had been like an engine from up til the late 80s id be like sure itd be bulletproof but by god not now, the fucking garbage ass 4 cyl the M270 they put in everything now as an example is so bad. so many new mercedes have had to get engine replacements bc the M270 loves to grenade. and ironically the engine was made by nissan apparently

[@tylaranderson8559]

Great video. very informative and the production quality is fantastic. Keep up the good work

[@JoaoPedro-nw5cl]

Paul is amazing, regarding research. He’ll never just say something is the best out there-be it “according to me” or according to whoever, he’ll always cite where a statement comes from. Love it!!!

[@_Matsimus_]

We all know PT6 is the best engine in the world. Hands down.

[@Bartonovich52]

Best for what? It is insanely expensive and thirsty for most of general aviation. It’s increasingly old and outdated especially in comparison to the GE Catalyst. The PT6E is a reactionary and band aid approach to what they should have done years ago. Pratt & Whitney is slow and expensive.. and after spending an insane amount for an FCU the secondaries are either so slow that it threatens to hang in the winter or so fast it threatens to hot start in the summer.

[@khatrinim4149]

Not for general aviation aircraft

[@CatatonicImperfect]

I'm sorry, but if you want the best, you clearly need to strap a GE9X to your Cirrus.

[@namewitheld]

These nerds clearly don't have experience on the Pratt Mat. PT6 is excellent and it runs on Jet OR avgas (some models anyway)

[@peteranderson037]

Meanwhile, in the experimental world, Viking seems to be making a good name for itself by slightly modifying Honda crate engines.

[@zolotiyeruki]

Well, they're not exactly crate engines--the engines are pulled from totalled low-mileage cars. Unless that's changed recently. Still probably just as good as new, though.

[@peteranderson037]

@@zolotiyeruki I think they switched to crate engines. It's the reason why they don't use Toyota engines instead. Toyota doesn't sell crate engines, Honda does.

[@thebigmacd]

The K series is arguably one of the best engines ever made, what a great platform.

[@michaelmagill189]

Only thing wrong with Viking is Yan. I despise him. Why hasn't anyone mentioned Aeromomentum. Very similar to Viking, just no Yan and no sleaze. A well developed product line and a stellar reputation.O yeah they're exp only and have no current plans to certificate

[@peteranderson037]

@@michaelmagill189 I have no stake in Viking, just a casual observer in the bleachers. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that you created your KZbin account 7 days ago. Your comment has all the hallmarks of a sock puppet on a smear campaign. You wouldn't happen to be that bitter limey who crashed his Zenith 750 and tried to blame it on Viking, would you?

[@acastellini]

Amazing depth of content and effective communication. Congrats

[@rrice1705]

This vid was exceptionally well done. Informative and entertaining!

[@tinolino58]

By production numbers and flight time, the Viking 130 is the most successful automotive aircraft engine ever.. light, cheap and reliable.

[@michaelmagill189]

If it just didn't have that Egginfu**er attached to it

[@tinolino58]

@@michaelmagill189 I know his past. He changed a lot. Todays facts are nice.

[@ryanedwards7741]

Loved every second of this. Thank you for putting it together.

[@ianmyles9025]

excellent over view - HUGE thanks - very thorough and super insightful.

[@BrianSchiff]

Thanks for a great perspective on something about which I had been wondering for a long time, but was afraid to ask...