I read an article by one of the operators in those days which said that. I also personally knew a pilot who used to fly them for one of the last big operators (BOAC?) before the jet engine took over, and he said they were terribly unreliable, with some of the flights bordering on dangerous. Obviously this would not be advertised to the public at the time. He then spent another 20 years on jets and did not have a single engine related “event” during that time.
But I am sure there were multiple variants.
Then you need to get EASA145 and FAR145 approvals, and EASA21 so you can in-house signoff some mods. The first two can be transferred from any previous holder even if it’s an empty hangar now. The last one is harder.
It’s not really hard. The maintenance facility I’m renting hangar space from unhurriedly got a Part 21 authorisation without investing huge amounts of money (which they don’t have anyway), and so far they have only been using it for a handful of orphaned Czech turbine and piston engines. In fact, the owner told me he is willing to take third-party projects under his aegis.
I read an article by one of the operators in those days which said that. I also personally knew a pilot who used to fly them for one of the last big operators (BOAC?) before the jet engine took over, and he said they were terribly unreliable, with some of the flights bordering on dangerous.
That was true for the huge overdeveloped ‘corncob’ 28-cylinder engines, the R-4360 being one 3000 HP example used by BOAC and others. 56 spark plugs! 
But not representative of Pratts in the GA size range, up to 1000 HP or so, which were slightly (not greatly) more maintenance intensive than smaller Lycoming and Continental flat engines in daily service.
With modern aerodynamics and construction techniques it should be relatively easy to build a very roomy and comfortable trainer that cruises 100kts on 20-25 lph, or if you throw in a diesel, perhaps 15-20 lph. Where are they?
C172 ?
Hahaha – roomy and comfortable? I think not. The C172 is worse than a PA28 in the cabin, apart from the legroom in the back.
Anything less than 46 inches across is still tight. The 172 comes in at 40.5 and PA28 at 41 IIRC. The usual solution is to sit sideways or slightly behind the student, but it’s not always possible if you want to reach the controls as well. Which 172 does 100kts on 20 lph?
Well, I learned to fly on PA28s so know them well, although thankfully don’t have to fly these horrid things anymore. I think the layout of the cabin (lower window line) gives you a bit more elbow space. In any case, I always felt there was more room in a 172. May also be the perception because of the two doors.
As for the 20lph. Not quite, I agree, but as per Mr. Cessna’s POH of a 172N, 5.6 USG/hr are doable At 2100 RPM. OK, you ain’t going anywhere in a hurry at that setting, but it can be done.
Ah, and I didn’t say anything about comfy ;-)
Haha. Yes, I agree that the 172 is better with the two doors, that is one thing I don’t like about Pipers, Mooneys and Beeches.
Not any more room though, but it is possible to sit staggered, especially when traveling with pax, or once the student can be left to his/her own at the controls.
The issue with diesels has always been power to weight ratio. They’re usually much heavier than a gasoline equivalent, but one would think that problem can be solved as well so even though there aren’t any lower powered engines on the market today, 100hp or less, there have been a few interesting experimentals out there, with Opel or Renault diesels. Availability should open up for new design possibilities. The question is if a 100hp diesel would be more efficient than a Rotax 912iS for example, and maybe mogas capability will kill off any reasons for low powered diesels.
Tecnam’s P2008 is being fitted with the new iS Rotax, and it ticks most of the boxes I was asking for above now that I think of it. The fuselage is quite roomy (from memory at Aero 2011). Cruise is better than 100kts on less than 20lph, so perhaps the solution is already here. Only thing I don’t like is the price tag, €160k or so…
Well, DISAGREE ;-)
I have a PA-28 (Cherokee Warrior, 74, tapered wing) – since 1995 (and it was in our family since 1978) and it has always been a delight to fly. Pretty slow, but very docile and safe, with a much nicer control feel than any C-172 I’ve ever flown, much more direct and precise. Lands almost by itself, has no problem with strong crosswinds and you really SEE more than in any Cessna
The only advantages i ever saw in the Skyhawk are the more efficient flaps and the two doors.
(MAybe we should not discuss this for 500 posts now ;-)) I’m just sayin’ … ;-))
@Krister: in some countries, mine for one, automotive diesel is cheaper (though not by much anymore) per litre than gasoline, on top of the lower litres per hour burn of a diesel engine. Best of all, I have heard rumours of aeroplanes running on “red” diesel, i.e. fuel oil as sold for domestic heating or for powering agricultural machines. But perhaps we should not announce this last fact publicly – ISTR the use of “red” fuel was disallowed for recreational yachts in several countries, over the last few years. On the “con” side, I think the diesel must intrinsically be heavier due to the greater internal pressures. Anyway, there certainly is a case for an affordable aero-diesel of +/- 100 hp, though the diesel’s best opportunities might rather be in the 200-600 HP segment. Such a pity that Thielert could/would not press on with that 400 HP V8, there must certainly be a market for it.
Jan,
that was the Centurion 4.0, based on the V8 diesel from the S-class (for a while we had that engine in a car) …. and it is NOT completely dead. I am sure we will hear from that engine ;-)
