It’s the technical imperfection of modern cars that I dislike – they are life limited throw away devices
That’s really (and I am sorry to say that) complete BS. In the Seventies an expensive car you used daily almost never reached 100 K km, and if it did then it was really finished. And I had many, Alfa Romeos, Lancias. Today I have a 6 cylinder turbo Diesel Mercedes that’s stronger and faster than a 1985 Porsche 3.2 Carrera (0-60 6 seconds, 270 km top speed), needs 10 liters of Diesel if you drive it hard, or 7.5 if you don’t, and is practically NEW condition after I wash and vaccum it.
The car has 150 K km now, needs 0 oil and drives like it did the first day. Repairs in 5 years: 2 sets of brakes, 4 sets of tires, oil change. And in my company I have 14 Merc. passenger cars for our employees. Some are close to 400 K km, and work perfectly. Today a turbo diesel BMW, Audi or Mercedes are broken in after 100 K km. We took apart such an engine in our shop not too long ago – and all measurements were almost within the new tolerances.
Or take rust. Many italian sportscars in the 70s were DELIVERED with rust holes. Today a car has 0 rust after ten years or street side parking and driving on salted German Autobahns. Rust on cars is a topic of the past. Same is true for interiors, drive trains, shock absorbers (original ones in most of our company cars).
You could not possibly have said anything that is further away from reality.
Yeah but Silvaire has FUN!
In Germany, fun is a very serious business 
Having owned quite a number of cars, old and new, I understand stand how unreliable some of them once were. Yes, I know all about older European cars. But cars today are even more than in the past limited life consumer-grade products, in contrast to aircraft which you don’t self for scrap after 15 years.
I would never buy another new car of any kind if I could avoid it, and will never buy another new European car because of their manufacturer’s attitude, apparent since the 90s, that the buyers should be their life long slaves, buying one after another when instructed! I’ve also BTW given up buying new motorcycles, and the newest of my eight motorcycles is a 2001 model, a Ducati 996 based on early nineties technology, being held in reserve for future use with 2300 miles since new. My 1980 version of the same thing has meanwhile appreciated in value from $5700 to $35,000+ over the period I’ve owned it. Maintaining a fleet of motorcycles is serious business, as well as fun 
My aircraft are a breath of fresh air in contrast to so-called modern consumer-grade stuff, relatively easy to own and no worries about becoming unmaintainable. I don’t have to care in the least what anybody, anywhere, at any time in the future thinks about it and that is a very, very nice thing
Agreed with Mooney Driver.
Often on the Aerostar here in LA basin with step climbs etc, by the time you’d leaned, gotten the prop rpms to where they were needed, EGT’s and CHT’s perfect, well it was time to climb again and push everything forward and you had to redo everything. That’s how long it took each time. Once you finally reached your cruise altitude, it could take a good 10mins to set the engines up perfectly. That’s time you should have spent looking out or managing other things.
Avgas pistons are just painful in this regard and the sooner FADEC can arrive, the better.
@Silvaire
I sympathize with a lot what you say about motorcycles and planes that are easy to maintain, but your facts about cars are clearly wrong. Probably it’s more a feeling you have.
If you were in that business you’d be aware that one of the problems the German Car industry faces is that passengers got constantly more reliable and have a longer lifespan tha in the 60’s. While the average car in Germany was 6.8 years old in 2000 the average German car is 9 years old now, 16 years later. But that’s not the end of the lifecycle of these cars, most are sold abroad later and they actually get very old: VWs 26 years, BMWs, Audis and Mercs about 24 years,
I also did not know I am ordered to buy a new car ;-)
German cars were unreliable although otherwise quite practical and maintainable through the 80s. Now I think they are adequately reliable on a daily basis (although not world beating in that respect) but not not very maintainable. I have no interest in them, the Japanese have always made a better throw away product and that’s what the car market has moved to.
Late model ‘modern’ BMW motorcycles are actually less reliable in normal service than they were. On my last trip my 1990 BMW provided its normal reliable service with roughly 160,000 km of European touring on the clock. It’s never failed to get me home from all over Europe, ever. It was close once ten years ago, stuck in one gear, but I made it back to base. It’s very much like an aircraft, not perfect but easily maintainable, and I’ll probably be riding it indefinitely. Meanwhile, two of my partners had failures on late model BMWs: a throttle position sensor failed on a 2012 model, but didn’t set any error codes so despite being hauled to the local dealer by truck, it ended up being shipped from Corsica to Germany for repair. The other bike, a 2016 model, made progressively more tappet rattle over the tour until it was very loud… but did make it back to base. The BMW factory affiliated rental agent didn’t even come to listen to it, he just said “OK, I understand, it’s the fifth one so far”. A friend who is, shall we say, well placed to know what’s going on was asked if this is a common problem. He said “it might be” with a well practiced blank expression. BMW makes about 100,000 motorcycles a year and I think that’s not enough volume to allow high tech to be developed for a high level of day to day reliability, especially over a long time in service. Aircraft volumes are miniscule is comparison.
In contrast, the occasional issues with Lycoming cam failure (I know one guy who’s had it personally), setting mixture for cruise, setting rpm etc are just non issues. I like operating a machine, it’s fun and it allows me to avoid ownership hassles. Starting isn’t problem either for me – carbureted Lycomings start right up, hot or cold.
In contrast, the occasional issues with Lycoming cam failure (I know one guy who’s had it personally), setting mixture for cruise, setting rpm etc are just non issues
I think that’s really the root of the lack of demand for diesels – where other special circumstances don’t exist. The Market just doesn’t see it as worth the hassle.
Same with electronic ignition. We had a thread on that here too. Lycoming quite obviously can’t be bothered to develop the product. They know their market…
There is a lot of “technology” people here on EuroGA. The GA business selects those types quite strongly. See this old thread for example. And these people strongly wish that they didn’t have to fly the decrepit technology we are handed down.
But most of them eventually realise that actually not much would be gained by stuff like FADEC (no improvement over an engine manually adjusted to peak EGT / LOP in cruise) etc etc.
I think the Lyco camshaft issues are far bigger in Europe than in the USA. Here, we have a huge % of GA flying almost no hours at all. The other day I went to a pilot meet-up. I think nearly everyone there was struggling to do the 12hrs every 2 years.
Peter wrote:
There is a lot of “technology” people here on EuroGA. The GA business selects those types quite strongly. See this old thread for example. And these people strongly wish that they didn’t have to fly the decrepit technology we are handed down.
I am a technology person, no quotation marks required, and the technology development programs I’ve worked on over the last 15 or so years, funded between $25M and $1B (yes, that is a B) are very much along the same lines as replacing 50-100 year old aircraft engine technology with newer technology. Its made me appreciate the sort of thing that’s being replaced, and understand why it takes so much money to replace and how, sometimes, it’s not the right way to go. At least not without a very realistic approach if you want to avoid failure. It’s quite easy to waste $100M.
Peter wrote:
But most of them eventually realise that actually not much would be gained by stuff like FADEC
One of the most important thing FADEC does is to prevent the engine from running “off spec” and prevent abuse. The result of this is increased reliability and longer engine life. The other thing is easier operation. All these three things are very much desirable for a pilot, but very undesirable for a producer that makes money, not by selling new engines, but by selling parts to old engines. The Evolution is sold with the YeC2 (or whatever the designation was), and if the sales numbers of new certified aircraft would increase, so would the incentive to sell them with FADEC.
One of the most important thing FADEC does is to prevent the engine from running “off spec” and prevent abuse.
True.
The result of this is increased reliability and longer engine life.
That is a tricky one
In marketing you always want to flatter the customer. You will never make money by telling him that he is stupid and that your great new widget will prevent him exercising his stupidity.
And most pilots think they are really great
In reality, it is not difficult for an intelligent pilot to avoid buggering up the engine.
Mine is turbo-normalized. I take off and climb straight to FL200 for cruise and in many cases descend after about 2.5 hrs from FL200 to almost sealevel in more or less one go. My CHT stays well below 400 and my EGT and TIT stay within regular limits. My climb is full power, full rich. My climb is with power pulled back a bit to keep speed around 150 kts. Should I worry?
Only that you have a turbocharged engine, which simply won’t last as long – simply because it is making a lot more power for a lot longer.
