Flyer59 wrote:
But do you think that is a concept for modern GA of the future?
Yes.
My O-320 ran for about 25 years on unleaded, and I think that’s one reason the cylinders have never needed to come off. Nothing to do with the engine design, regardless.
Silvaire wrote:
carbureted O-320 Lycoming is genuinely better
Carb’d engines are obsolete, even dangerous. Dealing with chokes and carb ice is old school. Fuel injected, electronic ignition, computer managed engines (ECU/FADEC) are the future…and the present for Rotax. Continental and Lycoming also make more modern fuel injected computer managed engines now. They are the high end.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
running my car is a lot less problematic than running any Lycosaurus or Contigator where alons starting it under some circumstances requires knowledge and skills car drivers have long forgotten.
Yes, but you must keep in mind, that the car and the aircraft pose two completely different environments for an engine. Starting at different design criteria over different durability necessities, weight limitations, power requirements, vibration environments and damping / isolation properties. Placing a car engine in an aircraft is not a trivial task.
Flyer59 wrote:
I like them too, in vintage planes. But they are hardly the solution for tomorrow’s GA.
Many people are very quick to dismiss aircraft gasoline engines (“Lycosaur”, etc.) as technology of yesteryear, but in fact the solution posed by the working principle is just as valid as those of a high revolution small bore engine. So any direct drive air cooled engine becomes a “lycosaur” in their view, despite being in some cases, modern, valid, good engines for the specific application. There is more to an engine than efficiency.
It seems to me as if many people want new stuff for the sake of stuff being new, rather than for a job to be done with certain restraints. Take, for example, the carbon fibre airframe. It holds no advantage over wood or metal, unless you specifically design for that material and design the airframe that benefits for the possibilities of easier 3d-structures, for example. Yet, you see people building carbon Hershey-bars with is just expensive. But in carbon. Same in the cockpit. I don’t want carbon anywhere near the cockpit, but it is “modern”. Sometime to the point, where there is “just one layer of carbon for the optics” – Prollcarbon as we say in Germany.
I don’t like the attitude that a solution for a given task is inferior because of its age. That thinking is the reason why much knowledge has been lost and complete branches of aviation try to reinvent the wheel. Because old solutions are bad, so naturally one created a worse, that is better, because it is newer.
mh wrote:
carbon fibre airframe. It holds no advantage over wood or metal
Arguable. The combination of carbon airframe, Rotax 912iS fuel injected/ECU controlled engine results in a 3.5gph @ 120ktas cruise (dual fuel 100LL or 91E10 mogas). About 500 feet of runway is needed to takeoff and climb at 800fpm sea level climb.
Add to that the Dynon Skyview panel with Garmin 796 touch GPS nav and you have cutting edge tech in every way for under $160k USD new. Flying is a simlple matter of turning the key and setting the throttle.
No metal plane can come close to this level of ease of use, fuel efficiency, climb, cruise and reduction in pilot load.
It seems to me as if many people want new stuff for the sake of stuff being new, rather than for a job to be done with certain restraints.
That’s just a stereotype. And then who are “many people”. We do not have to argue if the Lyco/Conti technology is completely outdated. This has been true the last 30 years already ;-) And what do you mean by “it does it job”? How about the many times it simply doesn’t? The build quality, tolerances, material and efficiency of these engines not on the technological level we are used to in all other areas.
If even the ENGINEERS don’t want new technology in GA airplanes, then I am beginning to understand why it doesn’t happen … :-) There used to be a time when engineers were all striving for the best solution and couldn’t wait to make the next step.
I don’t want carbon anywhere near the cockpit, but it is “modern”. Sometime to the point, where there is “just one layer of carbon for the optics”
How about a layer of brushed aluminum, or wood? That was the fashion for decades. How much function does cherry wood add to a cockpit?
Given a choice I’d rather be in the position of selling an RV-7A, a 200 mph, 1800 fpm climb aircraft, for $75K versus than a Light Sport for double that amount. But that’s just the market, what does it know? 
I know which I’d prefer to buy or own. And the engine is surely a part of that preference. Because its better.
In one very well regarded financial institution the-then-COO assured me the mainframe-based IT system was a V-12. I asked him exactly what vintage V-12 he was thinking about since they evolved a lot since 1920. Said system would probably not come to 1/10th of the Apollo mission guidance computer capabilities which was 1965 lamp and tube vintage.
So yes, air-cooled direct-drive engines may be appropriate to the application… but to claim there have been NO improvements since the 1940es that can be carried over to aero engines… seriously?
We have people here talking down the idea of plane electronics because the electrics of their Ford Cortina were susceptible to water ingress… in the 70es… or people fixating on problems seen on BMW modern motorcycle engines used under a lot more demanding schedule and comparing them with engines operated at constant power for a whopping grand total of one hour a week.
Yes they can be fixed in a field with a wrench, pliers and safety wire. But do you buy a plane because you want to fly it or because you want to fix it?
We are not talking about the same things here.
Yes, a Morgan Plus 8 is a nice car. And a Luscombe is a great plane. And a Cub too. And I find my IO-550, 9-litre six cylinder 310 hp engine very charming too.
But it is not the future of GA, if there’s any. Isn’t it a bit strange that the most modern airplanes that cost 1 million dollars fly with 1950’s engine technology? I think it is. (I am aware that the IO-550 came out in 1980, but it is based on the O-470, very much the same engine with more displacement).
But do you buy a plane because you want to fly it or because you want to fix it?
You can’t be so sure with some people ;-)
The radial engines of the first airliners were nice engines too. Would you like to fly to New York in a 1950’s airliner? I know that I do not.
USFlyer wrote:
No metal plane can come close to this level of ease of use, fuel efficiency, climb, cruise and reduction in pilot load.
You must be joking. The use of FRP has absolute nothing to do with any of the attributes you just claimed for the material.
