Why are airplane engine TBO hours so low?

let me just say....when I worked for Textron UAS group....we had Wankel UEL engines on our aircraft. The MTBF for those were just shy of 200 hrs. Apex seals were shot shortly there after and required a complete overhaul.

If you are hearing 2,000 hours TBO.....that's miraculous.

Another point of comparison....know anyone with a Mazda RX7 rotary engine? Ask them about engine reliability. I suggest you stand back a few paces before you ask. lol ;)
 
let me just say....when I worked for Textron UAS group....we had Wankel UEL engines on our aircraft. The MTBF for those were just shy of 200 hrs. Apex seals were shot shortly there after and required a complete overhaul.

If you are hearing 2,000 hours TBO.....that's miraculous.

Another point of comparison....know anyone with a Mazda RX7 rotary engine? Ask them about engine reliability. I suggest you stand back a few paces before you ask. lol ;)

The Mazda’s weren’t as bad as implied, I believe they’re mainly just misunderstood. And yes, I own one.
 
The Mazda’s weren’t as bad as implied, I believe they’re mainly just misunderstood. And yes, I own one.
my BIL had one....that I disposed of. It was basically trash at 150,000 miles. The seals were so bad it wouldn't start if it was the slightest cold....and it burned oil.
 
my BIL had one....that I disposed of. It was basically trash at 150,000 miles. The seals were so bad it wouldn't start if it was the slightest cold....and it burned oil.

As I said, misunderstood...

Burning oil was normal. They have an oil injection pump on them. Many guys would also run 2 stroke oil in the gas.
 
know anyone with a Mazda RX7 rotary engine? Ask them about engine reliability.
While learning from people experience is undeniably useful, I am also basing my findings on research grade efforts around wankel engines. I can't post links yet for year 1984 article ("NASA Technical Memorandum 83699 An Overview of the NASA Rotary Engine Research Program" easily found via google) but here are some encouraging (at least for me) from it:

Some preliminary results of this testing are presented in figure 18. The data Indicate that the engine can be run for long periods of time at 7000 rpm at a throttle setting of 75 percent, without excessive overheating of the coolant and lubrication systems. The nominal BSFC at this setting was 316 g/kW-hr (0.52 Ib/bhp-hr) at an air/fuel ratio of 14:1 with a measured output of 61 kW (82 bhp).

Studies at NASA and several aircraft and engine companies Indicate that the rotary engine is a viable candidate for future light aircraft propulsion systems. These studies have shown that fuel savings on the order of 25 to 50 percent are possible and could result in a substantial reduction in the world aviation gasoline fuel consumption.

As far as Wankel Supertec TBO, I think we are going to learn the numbers closer to 2022
 
my BIL had one....that I disposed of. It was basically trash at 150,000 miles. The seals were so bad it wouldn't start if it was the slightest cold....and it burned oil.

I worked for a Mazda store in the 80's. We replaced exactly one RX-7 engine in the six years I was there. We replaced a number of RX-3 and RX-4 engines under a recall, they did not last well at all. Also, 150,000 miles was a good lifespan for any automobile engine in that period.

Having said that, the Wankel has some significant limitations that make it unlikely to be a competitive engine going forward. Its combustion chamber shape is poor, the combustion always takes place in the same location on the engine almost continuously, and the sliding seal it requires is hard to maintain. Historically, its specific fuel consumption has been poor as well. This is not exactly new technology, the first automotive installations are almost 60 years old now, so it's not like we should expect great improvements over the next few decade.
 
I worked for a Mazda store in the 80's. We replaced exactly one RX-7 engine in the six years I was there. We replaced a number of RX-3 and RX-4 engines under a recall, they did not last well at all. Also, 150,000 miles was a good lifespan for any automobile engine in that period.

Having said that, the Wankel has some significant limitations that make it unlikely to be a competitive engine going forward. Its combustion chamber shape is poor, the combustion always takes place in the same location on the engine almost continuously, and the sliding seal it requires is hard to maintain. Historically, its specific fuel consumption has been poor as well. This is not exactly new technology, the first automotive installations are almost 60 years old now, so it's not like we should expect great improvements over the next few decade.

My observations as well, although I would like to clarify that the "sliding seal" to which you are referring to consists of more than the apex seal. I wonder what the ratio of actual apex seal failures are to the number of claimed apex seal failures. Back to the misunderstanding thing...

I love the rotary but they do have their faults. Fuel efficiency is poor, which I attribute to being the nature of how the engine works. In other words, I don't expect it to ever get much better than it is. I find it somewhat amusing that fuel efficiency and wankel are used in the same paragraph in the quote posted above.

My father was part of a Curtiss Wright/Deere rotary engine development program that never really went anywhere. I should ask him how efficient that engine was.
 
Ted might have had some involvement with the Textron UEL engine project....not sure, he was involved with others. But, in over a million flight hours and butt loads of DoD Desert Storm money we could not make significant improvements in MTBF for rotary engines. And we did try a few things with metallurgy and case hardness and other stuff....

Our engines did run at a rather high duty cycle.....HP in the 70-80% rated HP. Auto's run much lower....more like 20-30%.

As the Engineer who analyzed the data......I'm not a fan.
 
I wish the days of electric aircraft would just get here already and then we can laugh at the conversations we used to have.
 
My observations as well, although I would like to clarify that the "sliding seal" to which you are referring to consists of more than the apex seal. I wonder what the ratio of actual apex seal failures are to the number of claimed apex seal failures. Back to the misunderstanding thing...

I love the rotary but they do have their faults. Fuel efficiency is poor, which I attribute to being the nature of how the engine works. In other words, I don't expect it to ever get much better than it is. I find it somewhat amusing that fuel efficiency and wankel are used in the same paragraph in the quote posted above.

My father was part of a Curtiss Wright/Deere rotary engine development program that never really went anywhere. I should ask him how efficient that engine was.

For those who aren't familiar with the Wankel rotary, watch this:

There are three areas that need sealing, from the tips of the rotors to the rotor housing (the one on the periphery), from the sides of the rotor to the side housing (those grooves along the side of the rotor), and then on the side of the rotor near the apex seal, which are called corner seals (the round things at on the sides near the tip of each lobe). The guys in our shop that had experience rebuilding these engines said that the corner seals were the ones that failed most often. By the time I got there in 1980, Mazda was doing all the rebuilds at a regional location, so only the guys who had been with Mazda since the 70's got experience with the internals of the engine.

One thing about these engines that pilots would really not like is that if they sat for a couple of weeks without being run the apex seals would stick to the rotor housing and the engine wouldn't turn over. The proper way to correct this was to turn the engine backwards before starting it. If you didn't do that and tried to force it to turn it its normal direction, there was a good possibility that the apex seal would crack, which would require a rebuild.

I wish the days of electric aircraft would just get here already and then we can laugh at the conversations we used to have.

I don't think there is any energy storage technology on the near horizon to get us practical electric airplanes. That's not to say it isn't possible, but it's not likely any time soon.
 
The beauty of part 91 operations is we can replace or overhaul "on condition". Anecdotal evidence shows many part 91 operators are seeing 20 years or more of operation and exceeding TBO time 2-400 hours over factory figures if kept free of corrosion and engine managed properly.

My own O-470R is going in for OH in January. The engine was 1500 hr/ 12 year TBO, but ran for 32 years and 1825 hours before it started speaking it's needs an OH. It also has a Rajay turbo-normalized STC.

You need to fly more
 
My heavy equipment runs at very high % of hp 12 hours a day, under massive amounts of turbo boost, and truck engines while less so, still often spend 20 minutes at 100% Throttle, also under massive amounts of turbo boost. Not some gentle 5 or 10 psi. I have never ever ran my airplanes at 100% for more than maybe 90 seconds, then reduced the power. Living at 1133' and often landing at places much higher, my naturally aspirated planes basically never are at 100% power, even at take off. And should I run them fire walled at 8,000 or 9,000 ASL they are not even close to 100% power. They make very little power per cubic inch/liter even at sea level. I generally sell my equipment off at 17,000 to 19,000 hours on them, my semi trucks around 1.3 to 1.5 million kilometers. So a TBO of only 2,000 hours seems very low. Years and years ago I bought a timed out Cessna 210, flew it another 170 hours on condition, it still ran perfectly when I put in a reman. Sold it with 612 hours on the new reman engine, to a woman I knew. She still owns it, timed it out, and while she flies it again on condition, she tells me that it runs perfectly still. I talk to her usually a couple of times per week. I told her that if she ever wants to sell, to please give me first kick at the can. I had sellers remorse the day after. I don't get the TBO times, should be more in the range of 8,000 hours IMO. Lower rpm, never jolted hard because someone spun it to 6000 rpm and popped the clutch, nor floored 30 seconds after start up, barely any cycles compared to cars and such. No more pampered engines exist than airplanes.
 
I wish the days of electric aircraft would just get here already and then we can laugh at the conversations we used to have.
And if they don't get here we'll have a laugh at the whole concept. There's plenty of money going into building various test beds, like the deHavilland Beaver (Harbour air) and the electric Cessna Caravan (Magnix/Aerotec) but such projects are waiting for much better battery technology (or fuel cells) before they'll make any practical sense. A lithium-ion battery provides about 200 watt-hours per kilogram of weight. Jet A and avgas both provide around 12,000 watt-hours per kg, 60 times as much as the battery. Battery technology has to improve an awful lot. Even allowing for the rotten efficiency of the internal combustion engine (20 to 40%) we still get 2400 to 4800 watt-hours per kg out of the liquid fuels. What would be the efficiency losses of an electrical aircraft engine system? It sure isn't 100% efficient.
 
My heavy equipment runs at very high % of hp 12 hours a day, under massive amounts of turbo boost, and truck engines while less so, still often spend 20 minutes at 100% Throttle, also under massive amounts of turbo boost. Not some gentle 5 or 10 psi. I have never ever ran my airplanes at 100% for more than maybe 90 seconds, then reduced the power. Living at 1133' and often landing at places much higher, my naturally aspirated planes basically never are at 100% power, even at take off. And should I run them fire walled at 8,000 or 9,000 ASL they are not even close to 100% power. They make very little power per cubic inch/liter even at sea level. I generally sell my equipment off at 17,000 to 19,000 hours on them, my semi trucks around 1.3 to 1.5 million kilometers. So a TBO of only 2,000 hours seems very low. Years and years ago I bought a timed out Cessna 210, flew it another 170 hours on condition, it still ran perfectly when I put in a reman. Sold it with 612 hours on the new reman engine, to a woman I knew. She still owns it, timed it out, and while she flies it again on condition, she tells me that it runs perfectly still. I talk to her usually a couple of times per week. I told her that if she ever wants to sell, to please give me first kick at the can. I had sellers remorse the day after. I don't get the TBO times, should be more in the range of 8,000 hours IMO. Lower rpm, never jolted hard because someone spun it to 6000 rpm and popped the clutch, nor floored 30 seconds after start up, barely any cycles compared to cars and such. No more pampered engines exist than airplanes.
If we redesigned your equipment engines to have the same weight as the airplane engines they wouldn’t last very long at all.
 
Back
Top