Paul B. on engines

Ryan F.

Ryan F.

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
1,307
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Provides some perspective on why the tech in those marvelous modern auto engines just can't seem to find their way to us in GA. A common complaint among those who think our engines are sadly out of date.

 
I thought it was a good review of where we are with engines and where are going still are with engines.

Snarkiness aside, it's a good video and answered some of my questions.
 
It was a good video ... and Paul's wit makes me LOL ...
 
was expecting a takedown on DeltaHawk
 
I cam here to post this video.. since my disdain for our piston engines is well know. LOVE the Paul videos.. that dry wit is epic
 
I found this video very interesting. Paul gets it virtually all correct.

Back in the mid to late 2000s I was involved in or otherwise witness to a number of the projects that Paul talked about, I suppose close to half of them. He left a few bits out, but more or less correct.

The biggest thing he gets right is Diamond's success of the Austro engine by sheer force of will, and that's one of the big problems. Ford or GM can force an engine to market easier - they make the engine, they make the cars. It still has to work and meet requirements. Diamond is the first OEM to decide to make their own engines essentially in-house, and that vertical integration of airframe and engine is a real asset for getting new technology like this out the door. That also makes it easier to coordinate the support/warranty. And "it has to work" is always a teething pain issue, but I think teething pains are more acceptable if there's support and commitment.
 
Great little video.

I agree it's a tough balance between tried and proven vs new and better. Rotax has done a great job breaking into the market with more modern engines and I would think a natural extension would be for them to make direct competitors for the ubiquitous Lycoming O-360 series that is in so many airplanes. The 915is is certainly an intriguing engine, but still lower power and very expensive at $40k+ for 140hp (and those that are not interested in turbochargers would be turned off by that).

On the experimental side I've been following UL power for years. Modern FADEC engines with some of the lightest weights in class, air cooled. It's just so difficult to make the jump to certified.
 
I do appreciate that Diamond/Austro/Dries simply said "to hell with the aluminum block, F it!" and just built the plane around a heavier engine.
 
Tantalum said:
I do appreciate that Diamond/Austro/Dries simply said "to hell with the aluminum block, F it!" and just built the plane around a heavier engine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that seems like an approach that would work best on a twin. The extra weight and longer arm on a piston single retrofit would be problematic, I think. I'd love to see them evolve that engine with an aluminum casting.
 
George Mohr said:
Yeah, but that seems like an approach that would work best on a twin. The extra weight and longer arm on a piston single retrofit would be problematic, I think.
Click to expand...
They made it work on the DA40NG, too. I guess the problem was not intractable.
 
Ted said:
The biggest thing he gets right is Diamond's success of the Austro engine by sheer force of will, and that's one of the big problems. Ford or GM can force an engine to market easier - they make the engine, they make the cars. It still has to work and meet requirements. Diamond is the first OEM to decide to make their own engines essentially in-house, and that vertical integration of airframe and engine is a real asset for getting new technology like this out the door. That also makes it easier to coordinate the support/warranty. And "it has to work" is always a teething pain issue, but I think teething pains are more acceptable if there's support and commitment.
Click to expand...
Textron owns both Lycoming and Cessna/Beech. Too bad they don't have a Christian Dries.
 
asicer said:
Textron owns both Lycoming and Cessna/Beech. Too bad they don't have a Christian Dries.
Click to expand...

I am aware and you are correct, Textron owns both Lycoming and Cessna/Beech. However in my experience, Textron doesn't operate in a vertically integrated manner across companies, it's very siloed.

Would it be possible if they had a Christian Dires? Absolutely. Will it happen? Not likely, I don't think Cessna is even putting the iE2 in anything and they had been wanting/looking at single lever control/electronic engine control decades ago.
 
I still think the biggest problem is getting the engines into legacy airframes. When my Luscombe's A65 gives up, it would make so much sense to drop a Rotax in it, but at what cost for an STC?
 
RyanShort1 said:
I still think the biggest problem is getting the engines into legacy airframes. When my Luscombe's A65 gives up, it would make so much sense to drop a Rotax in it, but at what cost for an STC?
Click to expand...

There's no lobbying interest for giving life to legacy. They want us to stop flying the things and buy new, or go away. Textron behavior is the clearest example of it. Ditto for the recent LSA/LPA nothing burgers on the regulator side. It's not technical, it's political.

EAB is the only source of reprieve, outside of cannibalizing your fleet and hope you lose your medical before you lose aftermarket support, latter which is what many of us are handcuffed to.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I still think the biggest problem is getting the engines into legacy airframes. When my Luscombe's A65 gives up, it would make so much sense to drop a Rotax in it, but at what cost for an STC?
Click to expand...
The Europeans got a Rotax certified into a C150, hopefully soon to be certified in the US. So it is happening slowly.
 
George Mohr said:
Great work by Paul, as usual. Also as usual, the problems in GA all go back to low volume.
Click to expand...
This is absolute fact! If sales volume was anywhere near that of automobiles, the cost of new planes, parts, service and repairs, aviation fuel, and everything else GA related would drop like a rock. Unfortunately, there would also be nowhere near enough airports, hangar space, service centers, controllers, or anything else airplane related to handle the extra volume. GA is the essence of supply and demand at work in the real world with a certain level of government regulation to drive costs up as well.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
Unfortunately, there would also be nowhere near enough airports, hangar space, service centers, controllers, or anything else airplane related to handle the extra volume.
Click to expand...
The facilities would expand to meet the demand. There are millions of cars and trucks, so there are millions of miles of road and lots of service centers and lots of cops. That all grew as the number of cars grew.

But the number of airplanes isn't likely to grow suddenly or in large numbers. The costs are too large to encourage much growth. It's a vicious circle. Cars have become a necessity for most folks. Personal airplanes never achieved that importance except for those in remote locations.
 
Tantalum said:
I cam here to post this video.. since my disdain for our piston engines is well know. LOVE the Paul videos.. that dry wit is epic
Click to expand...

yes I’m always geeked when I see a new one out! I bet he would be an absolute riot to belly up to bar with and have a good whiskey or three together with!
 
skier said:
Which led to them putting a Continental in the 162.
Click to expand...
Cessna was annoyed with the ongoing Lycoming crankshaft hassles when they were designing the 162. They had to deal with a lot of angry Cessna owners. Textron gave them the go-ahead to put the O-200 in the 162.
 
Need a Christian Dries with Elon's deep pockets to fund the development years. I think it would be a good business. But it's not going to be the block buster business that Falcon and Starship are going to be.

Given what Paul said about auto engines, maintenance and warranty support needed - sounds like a Christian with the GM LS marine engine would be a good combination.
 
WDD said:
Need a Christian Dries with Elon's deep pockets to fund the development years. I think it would be a good business. But it's not going to be the block buster business that Falcon and Starship are going to be.

Given what Paul said about auto engines, maintenance and warranty support needed - sounds like a Christian with the GM LS marine engine would be a good combination.
Click to expand...
It sounds tacky but GA needs to be made sexy again

People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on all sorts of stupid hobbies, there's plenty of money out there, and even people without money, there's practically free money out there with absurdly low interest rates

People also HATE traveling on the airlines. So there's a market out there somewhere. But no one has the desire (and capital) to crack it and make it happen. Like Paul said, you need sheer F*****G will

Funny, I was watching an Aerostar Jet video and the dude in the right seat goes "wow, this feels like my Tesla!" that's exactly what you need to go for.
 
Tantalum said:
It sounds tacky but GA needs to be made sexy again

People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on all sorts of stupid hobbies, there's plenty of money out there, and even people without money, there's practically free money out there with absurdly low interest rates.
Click to expand...

I agree. People spend absurd amounts of money on hobbies, even here in the Midwest where wages are commonly lower than elsewhere. I know lots of guys who have $100k+ race cars plus the tow rigs and other supporting equipment. Or the guys with expensive boats and trucks. It is nothing to see average or below average earners with an entry level airplane’s worth of money wrapped up in toys.

It seems like money has been real easy to come by for the past 15-20 years. People just haven’t spent that money on airplanes, they’ve spent it on other stuff. If flying became more popular again and people redirected the money they spend on hobbies I think things would really take off.
 
mondtster said:
It is nothing to see average or below average earners with an entry level airplane’s worth of money wrapped up in toys.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry guys, but I just don't think this is true. No spec Miata or 25' center console comes close to the amount of sheer capital investment you need to own an operate an airplane. Sure its true that a boat and a plane might have vaguely similar buy-in costs, but the ongoing cost of maintenance, storage, and insurance for that plane will greatly out-pace the other options. In any other motorized hobby, the hobbyist can do most of the work should they choose to, not so for certified airplanes. And the fact that at any time a $30-50k AD or overhaul inducing event can just flatten you is a fact distinctly reserved for airplanes.

Of course, there are a lot of rich people out there, and it seems to me that they are buying Cirri in reasonable numbers. But capturing folks that can sink 1M into a plane is not the road to a healthy GA industry.

“In 1970 a Cessna 172 was 1.3 times the average salary in the U.S. and a Bonanza was 5 times the average. Today it is 6 times the average salary for a 172 and 14 times the average salary for a Bonanza. Anyone else wonder how [the manufacturers] are staying in business?”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericte...ing-pilots-out-of-the-market/?sh=28bd315c3722
 
George Mohr said:
Sure its true that a boat and a plane might have vaguely similar buy-in costs, but the ongoing cost of maintenance, storage, and insurance for that plane will greatly out-pace the other options.
Click to expand...
Plus, the boat don't kill you when you forget how to dock it.
 
The golden age was when a new plane was 2X the median income. Now it is 8 times.
 
asicer said:
They probably have the polar opposite of a Christian Dries
Click to expand...
They're super vanilla. I can understand (albeit to my chagrin) why they bailed on piston. But killing the Citation X? Even if the M2 sold more than the Mustang there was a role for light light jet. They've got the most vanilla line of boring corporate jets now.. all with that stupid basic design. When Tantalum gets rich on crypto (yeah right!) he's buying a damn Falcon 7X! Textron is utterly boring.

mondtster said:
People just haven’t spent that money on airplanes, they’ve spent it on other stuff
Click to expand...
Absolutely! All those things and toys add up. Guys out there with a $60K salary put that much (or more!) into their trucks

George Mohr said:
“In 1970 a Cessna 172 was 1.3 times the average salary in the U.S. and a Bonanza was 5 times the average. Today it is 6 times the average salary for a 172 and 14 times the average salary for a Bonanza. Anyone else wonder how [the manufacturers] are staying in business?”
Click to expand...
It's sort of a chicken or egg thing though, it's expensive because volume is low. Volume is low because it's expensive. There's also a massive barrier to entry, if not objectively (go to the doctor and competently fly a plane for 40 hrs) then subjectively people assume that it's hard to become a pilot. It really isn't. But there's a massive psychological barrier to entry for people with aviation (it's hard, it's scary, it's dangerous, etc.). Maybe in 20-30 years as the whole drone auto air taxi thing catches on people will normalize to small planes.

**But as a note, this whole 1970 vs today plane cost stat always bugs me.. for comparison

Tuition
-in 1976 the average cost of tuition was about $2,600 per year (for the fanciest).. average salary $10K
-in 2006 this was $19,000 per year.. average salary $34K
--So the salary went up by about 200% but the cost of education went up 630%
--we also have about 50% of eligible people in college today vs about 30 percent in 1970.. so the cost way outpaced salary and yet more attend now (for arguably less value.. hell I'd argue unless you're going for a specific trade then a basic "bachelor in arts" or whatever is useless)

Housing went from $17K in 1970 to $281K in 2020.. a gain of 1,553%

A car went from $3,500 in 1970 to $38K in 2020, about 985% increase

People afford all these things, and in fact people BUY more cars and crap than they did before and live in bigger and more expensive houses relative to their income. Every couple has at least two cars now.. people stretch their budget to get their "dream house" .. people load up on student debt to go to school.. people on a $120K salary by a $100K tesla and pay $900/mo for it

If flying was cool, sexy, instagram post worthy, and the whole perception was changed you'd easily see that happening too. If Cirrus sold 40,000 planes per year I'm sure they'd have clever leasing and financing programs, on top of the already enticing programs they have (like free training)

And the 172 and Bonanza are bad examples anyway. The 172 only goes to flight school, it's a niche and captive audience, Cessna can charge whatever they want and get away with not streamlining a production line that's been the same for 60 years. The Bonanza.. let's be honest.. no one the new one. They took what was a good plane, killed it's useful load by putting a bunch of crap in it, and threw a Garmin avionics package. Why would anyone spend a million dollars on a new Bonanza when they can get a 30 year old plane that's better in nearly every objective category and be a fraction of the cost.
 
The chicken - egg would be much less expensive planes to kick start things. Auto industry didn’t take off until Model T made it affordable. I phone model 1 was affordable. Etc
 
George Mohr said:
I'm sorry guys, but I just don't think this is true. No spec Miata or 25' center console comes close to the amount of sheer capital investment you need to own an operate an airplane. Sure its true that a boat and a plane might have vaguely similar buy-in costs, but the ongoing cost of maintenance, storage, and insurance for that plane will greatly out-pace the other options. In any other motorized hobby, the hobbyist can do most of the work should they choose to, not so for certified airplanes. And the fact that at any time a $30-50k AD or overhaul inducing event can just flatten you is a fact distinctly reserved for airplanes.

Of course, there are a lot of rich people out there, and it seems to me that they are buying Cirri in reasonable numbers. But capturing folks that can sink 1M into a plane is not the road to a healthy GA industry.

“In 1970 a Cessna 172 was 1.3 times the average salary in the U.S. and a Bonanza was 5 times the average. Today it is 6 times the average salary for a 172 and 14 times the average salary for a Bonanza. Anyone else wonder how [the manufacturers] are staying in business?”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericte...ing-pilots-out-of-the-market/?sh=28bd315c3722
Click to expand...

Plenty of guys with sub-$80K/yr salary with a $70K+ 25' center console boats they can't store at home, so they pay $200/mo to store it and pay marina fuel prices to tank up. Pretty much equivalent to owning a 70's PA-28 or C-172. Obviously there's some nuances there like annuals and whatnot, but many of the expenses aren't out of line for a comparison. A major difference is that there's not really any training required for a "wet behind the ears" fella to buy a boat and take it straight to the boat ramp with a few of his buddies. Takes $10K worth of rental/training plus studying and exams to be able to get the Private. Then you only get to take 2 of your buddies because the 3rd would put you over gross on the W&B. Flying has more barriers to entry than boating, but much of the capital/monthly expenses can be comparable. Or you're like me, where I have my mid-1970's ski boat that we keep around because I can't justify paying $70K+ for a new version of what I already have, lol.
 
Once again though, you are talking about buy-in costs. That's the least expensive part of aviation in my experience. It is the ongoing maintenance, upkeep, storage, training, and then the big hits like overhaul. That stuff is all off the charts in aviation compared to boating.

You are fully right about the other barriers to entry though. 10k worth of training is certainly one of them!
 
George Mohr said:
Once again though, you are talking about buy-in costs. That's the least expensive part of aviation in my experience. It is the ongoing maintenance, upkeep, storage, training, and then the big hits like overhaul. That stuff is all off the charts in aviation compared to boating.

You are fully right about the other barriers to entry though. 10k worth of training is certainly one of them!
Click to expand...

No only the pricing inflation for training, prior years there many more people owning flying aircraft that new pilots would get a lot of time in the right seat before they ever initiated training formally. Greatly reducing costs.

So many of my friends who are pilots learn to fly from their dad or an uncle who owned a plane. They were able to click right through their PPL requirements based on everything they’ve learned already growing up around GA planes. This doesn’t seem as common today. Also people who own aircraft don’t seem to fly them as much as statistically prior and the population is much much older.
 
Last edited:
George Mohr said:
Once again though, you are talking about buy-in costs. That's the least expensive part of aviation in my experience. It is the ongoing maintenance, upkeep, storage, training, and then the big hits like overhaul. That stuff is all off the charts in aviation compared to boating.

You are fully right about the other barriers to entry though. 10k worth of training is certainly one of them!
Click to expand...

Are we talking about outboard engines that cost $25K+ to replace? $300+ monthly slip rental? Lower unit oil changes/maintenance? Dinged up $400 stainless props? New batteries every 3-4 years (usually 3-4 of them in a fishing rig)? It's not as if those in boating don't talk about BOAT = Break Out Another Thousand the same way we talk about money in AMUs. I'm not saying the costs are EXACTLY the same, but they are close enough in many instances to use as a comparison of "hobby costs". The main difference, is that everyone spouts off about the $40K engine overhaul every 2K hours as this expense that is just going to hit everyone. The boating guys don't really worry about that $25K powerhead on their 300HP outboard engine the way we fret about the cost of an engine failure at any given moment. Even though, on an hours of use basis, they're pretty comparable in many instances.
 
Lets talk about those batteries as a canonical example. Say you've got a boat with a lead acid battery, and you need to replace it every 3 or 4 years. That battery costs something like $200. The airplane equivalent of that battery also needs replacing every 3 or 4 years. It costs $600, so roughly 3x the cost. And if you want to upgrade that battery in your boat, just make sure it fits in the box. The airplane guy needs an STC (many AMU's probably) and and A&P to install it. Its a small example but an instructive one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top