Planes & Cars Webinar 6 June

Mike Busch discusses why aircraft engines need to be overhauled every 2,000 hours while car engines don't? Why do planes cost so much more than cars? Are these fair comparisons, or are they apples and oranges? SavvyAviation offers Professional Maintenance Services to owners of General Aviation aircraft, such as: Savvy Mx (Professional Maintenance Management), Savvy QA (Expert Consulting), Savvy Prebuy, SavvyAnalysis (Engine Data Analysis) and Breakdown Assistance. For more information, visit us at savvyaviation.com. This webinar was hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

[@RobertArthur007]

I really enjoyed this webinar! I wonder if it would be worth putting a 160 hp Rotax in a 172. I would also like a cs prop for that. Wrt fuels, I understand the ubiquity of kerosene at airports world wide. But rather than diesel I wonder if turbines make more sense despite the need for more fuel capacity given higher specific fuel consumption of turbines. They have much longer lifetimes. Aviation is a much more demanding environment than cars on highways too and most people don't need to travel long distances regularly.

[@pilotavery]

When my A/P/IA buddy tore down my Rotax 915is at 2000 hours, he said it still had the factory scoring on the cylinder and the engine looked like new. He says he thinks it could last another 2,000 hours with no maintenance. The only thing I did to it was oil changes and spark plugs. I literally didn't do anything else at all... I think that rotax using automotive technology really hit the jackpot here. I wish Lycoming and Continental would start innovating and copying the automotive market.

[@RoadRunnerLaser]

I fly an autogyro in the UK. We have to replace the rubber components on our engines every 5 years. This pleases the microlight pilots who stand in line for our cast-offs because, whilst they are flying the same Rotax powerplants, they are allowed to replace the rubber on-condition and what we throw away is usually perfectly serviceable for another five years or more. My gyro just had her ten-year service which cost over £2000 !

[@LTVoyager]

And this comparison ignores the fact that the 2017 Skylane, other than avionics, is basically the same airplane as it was in 1968 with very similar airframe and engine and very similar performance. In contrast, the 2017 Cadillac is better than the 1968 Cadillac in every way imaginable. It is more powerful, more comfortable, safer, requires less maintenance, etc. So, if technology and performance is factored in, the “value” ratio is probably more like 15:1 against the airplane.

[@pilotavery]

That actually was the whole point of the comparison.

[@pilotavery]

To be fair the continental and Lycoming engines used to be cast in a mold made from pressed wet sand

[@cruizgonzalez5004]

Hello Mr. Mike Bush, There are new lighter Diesel engines and Gas engine. Also, installation maybe easier for planes. These engines are all aluminum setup and you can produce more H.P. from a small engine. Thank you for your time Sir.

[@gmcjetpilot]

What engines? Price? Weight? How many flying? Fleet hours? I don't expect a reply.

[@LTVoyager]

Yes, where are these magical engines hiding?

[@timduncan8450]

My O320-D2J has an STC for mogas that I use. Can I run synthetic and if so I what brand/type etc and what drain interval?

[@michaela.660]

Lyc and Con have enjoyed the capture of the GA engine market for to long. Now they will actually have to compete on price, much like the Big Three had to do in the early 80's. I do not think they will survive the on slot of a more mass produced engine selection that is more universal in use. They have lost their protected niche and cozy relation with the FAA. Markets force change.

[@gmcjetpilot]

In the 180jp to 350hp range there is no competing engine to Lyc and Continental.

[@KB4QAA]

MA: The FAA has not provided any protection to Lycoming or Continental.

[@LTVoyager]

There is no protected niche with the FAA.

[@TheJustinJ]

@@LTVoyageryea there is. $100,000,000 paywall that prevents anyone else from gaining certification. Because the new-GA engine market is so incredibly small.

[@brnmcc01]

Yeah this doesn't make much sense. Have a crane with a Cummins 8.9L engine in it that has over 16000 hours on it, never been apart, from 1999, and it still has 80 psi oil pressure at cold startup. Only things that have been replaced is the oil pressure sending unit, fuel pressure regulator on the injection pump, and turbo was replaced about 4000 hours ago. Was still working, but getting loud and screechy and not performing as well. Oil and filter changes every 500 hours. Not 100 or 400. I've been on large boats that have had like over 85,000 hours on the main engines, but those have meticulous maintenance and hold 5 tons of engine oil. Plus they have oil and fuel purifiers and other equipment that would make a plane so heavy it would never ever get off the ground. If caterpillar can make a 3406 that will go 750,000 miles hauling heavy loads someone should be able to design an airplane engine that will last 10000 hours instead of 'only' 2000-3000.

[@pilotavery]

Rotax engines last 6000 hours easily. They're just only certified for 2000 because... Bureaucracy

[@rickwiggins283]

I completely agree on the need for massive tort reform, however it will never happen. The higher costs we pay for things, like planes and engines, is an embedded tax that consumers like you and me pay due to all the ambulance chasing law firms. And those ambulance chasers make big campaign donations. That is the corrupt you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back system we have. The insult-to-injury is the potential lost revenue and even lives lost due to stifled innovation.

[@albinmoore7214]

My clubs C-172 paid over $250 for a new oil dip stick.

[@georgegonzalez2442]

The overhaul at a fixed time meme sounds like a lot like the old vacuum-tube computer meme. Yes, that. If you followed the usual vacuum-tube lifetime numbers of like 5,000 hours, no old computer could ever work. If you had 5,000 tubes, one would be "worn out" or fail every hour. Fortunately that did not stop them from trying! What they found out was that if the tubes are warmed up slowly and never have the filaments tuned off, they would last nearly forever. One source said that the best predictor that a tube would go another 5,000 hours was that it had already run 5,000 hours. They went to "replace on condition". So TBO has been abandoned before.

[@ericrolfe9521]

Book is very good - a compendium of everything Mike has published, but the context and readability give it a lot of added value. But Mike - a top overhaul??? Horrors!!! What about the risk of MIF - spun bearing, etc?

[@thebentley71]

I still don't understand why boats & airplanes can not use, manual or automatic transmissions, connected to the engine, with the propeller mounted to the output shaft of the transmission . I understand that boat & airplane props require more torque & horsepower when taking off, & as they build speed to get to cruising speed, they require less just like a car. I'm an A&P mechanic, I was told that boat & airplane props are under the same load, so to speak as a car going up a steep hill, at all times & especially at takeoff & climbing in an airplane. Perhaps the load on an airplane engine requires it's most torque at takeoff & climbing, but once they level off the torque & horsepower to spin the propeller lessons a great deal. Just like a car that is climbing a hill & taking off it needs more torque & horsepower, but once it's on a level road at cruising speed it requires much less power to maintain cruising speed, especially with the advanced transmission of today that have 5-8 gears in an auto trans. I'll never in my right mind understand why an airplane engine & an outboard boat engines, have to run at such high rpms, & they haven't attached transmissions that have at least 2-4 forward speeds, other than the government does not want civilian boats & airplanes going fast & getting great gas mileage at the same time. I've seen a person put a 3 forward speed transmission from an rc truck, on the front of a small 4 stroke nitro engine in an rc plane. The plane flew great, I seen it with my own eyes. You could hear the gear changes. The little RC plane would go into 2nd gear just after lift off. The rc plane had a 4 oz gas tank & could fly 3 to 4 times longer with the same 4 oz fuel tank. His little rc plane could still fly the same speed at less than half the rpms. I believe a lot of things we are taught in school & at colleges is misinformation, & indoctrination.

[@tomasnokechtesledger1786]

What a variable pitch prop can't do that a complex and heavy gearbox can? You know there's a top speed limit that a spining prop tips has to be under or it will face destruction from shock waves (fyi that's around 330 m per Second)? Or cavitation from over speed problems? I think you could look at this issues.

[@thebentley71]

@@tomasnokechtesledger1786 I understand that propellers can can only spin so fast before they reach mach tip speed & destroy themselves. That goes for almost anything, even over revving a car. Imagine a plane cruising at 80% of it's top speed, but the engine engine turning 1/3 of it's redling. It could be done with a diesel engine that is either turbo or super charged, or perhaps even both. Turbofan jet engine now has a 2 speed gear box, because at high speeds they get to much air & had to bleed some of it off. Kinda like the Ramjet turbines. The SR71 was a ramjet turbine. I point is to spin the prop to it's near maxium speed, but with gearing & torque, so the engine doesn't have to be at redline when taking off, or at 80 percent of redline while cruising. Imagine if cars would have stayed without a transmission, we would only be doing 40 mph. Variable pitch propellers can only bring down the rpms a little & in doing so the propeller is loosing thrust.

[@USAF291]

@@thebentley71 the answer to this is simple: airplanes require far more power than cars do while cruising. For example: a c5 corvette has (from memory) 375 horsepower. Yet it requires less than 20 horsepower to maintain 70 mph on the highway. So the engineers lower the rpm to achieve a better fuel economy. The engine can still develop 20 horsepower during these conditions, but certainly cannot make its full rated 375 horsepower, the computer will downshift the transmission if high power is commanded. While an airplane may be able to fly with that amount of reduced power, speed is directly effected. These aircraft essentially cruise at the maximum power they can without significantly shortening engine life. Thus the higher RPM is required

[@LTVoyager]

Well, for one, they do have an “automatic transmission” called a variable pitch prop. Second, gearboxes are heavy and add length to the drive trains. Both of these are bad for airplanes.

[@pilotavery]

Because there's no reason to run at high load and low rpm. If you run at high rpm, then you're automatically running at high load and if you run at low RPM you're automatically want to get low load which is exactly what you want anyway, variable pitch prop is better than manual transmission because you don't want the propeller to spend super super fast, you want the propeller to spend the same speed while you go faster and the pitch of the prop change so you don't keep shifting. Spending the propeller fast just makes it less efficient...

[@apfelsnutz]

The New book is great ! I bought it on the second day of sale...Congrats Mike !

[@itz_flame_ff]

I want to be publish my books by foreign state

[@ctsteve1967]

Mike you love to ramble and your engine book is really not about engines

[@LTVoyager]

Yes, he definitely should get to the points much faster. It is hard to pay attention long enough to get to his punch lines. I have not seen his book yet. What is it about if not engines?