In my last column “Standing still too long,” I wrote about the problem with general aviation not moving ahead technically. This resulted in a significant amount of feedback from readers.
The comments mostly centered around GA being too small a business to pay for new technologies, all GA aircraft are hand built, the fact that the FAA would never approve new technology, and the always present, “who will pay for it?”
This month I thought I would try to come up with a solution to all of these problems.
First, I agree that GA is a small economy. This means that we need to borrow technology from other industries.
Since we are already borrowing fuel from the automotive industry, why not just borrow its engines since it has already developed leading edge technology for its engines?
For example, Ford produces a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder Ecoboost engine that produces 181 horsepower. This engine is already turbocharged, so it will work well at altitude. (There are many other makes and models to choose from, I am only offering this as an example).
The Ford 1.5 liter Ecoboost engine. (Photo courtesy Ford)
Now if Lycoming, Continental, or some other company would adapt an engine like this with a good reduction drive and other modifications, they could get it certified and offered for sale.
Many of you are already writing a comment about the fact that the FAA would never approve this. And they would be correct.
The problem is that the FAA procedures for certification are designed to work with 1940s technology and do not work with new technology powerplants.
For example, most certified aircraft engines were designed for leaded fuels, so they have two spark plugs in case one fouls out. When is the last time you fouled a spark plug in your car run on unleaded fuel?
So we need to change the FAA approval process. But who will pay for this?
Step Two
The FAA needs to stop work on the 100 motor octane unleaded avgas and admit it just is not worth it. They gave it the old college try, but it just is not working and really does not offer a safe alternative to 100LL.
If the FAA stops work on this fuel, it can transfer that money to work on new and improved procedures and rules for qualifying a modern technology powerplant.
Agency officials have already approved some diesel cycle engines, so how hard could it be to approve a spark ignition engine?
I am sure there would need to be some additional modifications, such as removing the catalytic converters because of the possibility of getting 100LL in the aircraft. The engines can also be detuned some to ensure that they last.
And it will be necessary to customize the electronics for self diagnosis and safety mode limp-back features and maybe add a spare or second battery.
Electronic ignition and fuel management very rarely have a failure, but if they do, they will revert to what is called a limp-back mode. This will bring you to a nearby airport for repairs if there is ever a problem.
And the systems have self diagnostic features to help find out what is wrong. The systems are not perfect, but neither is an old technology aircraft engine.
It will take some period of time with a steep learning curve.
Now I know this may sound like a wild idea. But the alternative is sitting here and watching GA continue its present downward spiral.
Lots of people like to make the FAA into the whipping boy for GA’s shortcomings. The FAA has shown a willingness to change regulations if someone pushes them – or even asks. The (much-derided) Light Sport category is a prime example, as are recent signs of flexibility at the FAA.
Nearly ten years ago, Continental gained FAA certification for a FADEC engine, their TSIOF-550. It didn’t sell, due – as I understand it – to lack of “market acceptance.” That us pilots, who are always complaining about outdated engine technology, but won’t buy it if it’s offered.
So, a decade of development and what does it cost? What is its TBO? And when we start doing the math do we find that based on fuel burn and maint, does it cost more than my IO540 in my Piper?
Now, let’s say it is cheaper over a 10 year period by 20%, including maint and fuel burn.
How much do I have to pay for an STC for it to go in my plane?
Oh, the TSIOF-550 was being sold to the Experimental crowd — a group using 180-200HP engines to get ~200Kts. So it is going to cost what, 50% more than the engines available.
See, the FAA is just loving us out of the skies. We have a good engine, but it takes how much money to run through all the testing that the FAA needs/wants before you get that cert, and then you get to start the process over to get the STCs *unless* you get a manufacturer to put that engine in their airplane.
I’ve know of two different engine designs that are now being used that I think need to be pulled into aviation. How much will it cost to get through the FAA to get the initial certificate for the engine. Now how many engines do you have to make and sell over ?? period of time to finally start dropping the price of the engine because you have recovered your developmental costs?
I can say right now that the market acceptance for the opposed piston gas and diesel engines is just not there because of how much it will cost to get one of these engines. And then there is the rotary engine that just loves to run at 10,000 RPM — and market acceptance is just not there because of what it will cost after getting that FAA certificate.
Do not get me wrong. I want to see these things in the GA world. But I work with money and the cost of money and biz plans, and the like. The entry into the market place is blocked by the FAA and their requirements and what that does to the cost of the engine.
Abandon the quest for an unleaded fuel solution? I guess you’re okay with continuing to pollute the environment and poison all the people below? Has the lead affected your thinking?
Thanks for listening we all know something wrong hear but I do not know how to fix it. It is like some one had the foot on the brakes holding the progression of things back. So how to fix it. That is above my pay grade. It is like listening to well played music & when some one miss plays a note we all know it , but could
not play it our selves. Keep thing & maybe some one will come up with something.
You all need to pay attention to JimH in CA above.
The FAA has little to do with this problem. The Ford Ecoboost 1.5 liter engine is designed to produce its rated horsepower for seconds at a time. It will run (potentially) to 200,000 miles as long as it is operating at 15-25% of its rated output. If you try to run it at 75-85% of it’s rated horsepower, it won’t make it to 200,000 miles. It won’t make it to 20,000 miles, and probably won’t even make it to 2,000 miles.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer on this, but you’re going to have to come up with a powerplant specifically for aviation and take it through the art process before you have something that works to your expectations – much less the FAA’s
One potential solution is to use a hybrid powerplant. You fly with an electric motor and enough battery power for, say, 20 minutes of flight. You then use an engine such as is described above, but it is not certified. It doesn’t need to be because it’s not the primary powerplant – it’s a range extender. If the engine fails, or you’ve used it up because of the performance level you’re driving it to, you land safely on battery power, and replace the range extender. A $5000 range-extension engine is a lot easier to replace than a $40,000+ certified aircraft engine.
IF the opposed piston gas or diesel engines can be made lighter than the equivalent Lycosaurus while being water cooled, then the ignition systems go away (compression ignition), and one has an engine capable of 100% power for at least 20 minutes, with 75% power sustained — and that is without doing a lot to cool the engine.
I’ve contacted the FAA about what it would take to certify a rotary engine and I got back a letter. The person that is to be my contact has yet to contact me (been 3 months now). The rotary engine that I’ve looked at was used to set the time to climb record to 3000 meters. It was using a turbocharger providing something over 50# of boost. They actually had a turbine runaway and got it stopped at 84# of boost as I recall (they did an immediate tear down and check of the engine and no problems!!). With only 3 moving parts in the engine (not counting the turbo unit, oil pump and water pump), the expected TBO is > 5000 hours. Oh, the biggest headache with the FAA is it appears that a magneto is not able to handle the operating RPM of 8000-11000 RPM.
If these types of engines can get certified under part 23, then Lycoming and Continental are looking at a LARGE loss of revenue. Imagine a 40yr old airplane with an STC for a turbo-normalized engine, FADEC, that allow it to go to FL240, where as today its normally aspirated engine struggles to get to 14,000 MSL.
This is what we have to get past the FAA.
How about some thing new. Like plastic skin instead of an aluminum skin. Hey lets look at some thing like a Colman ramxplastic for the skin. I have carried a canoe with cloth skin 19 1/2 foot. It took 3 people to Carrey it. Carrying an aluminum one takes 2 people. Now I can carry the same size
my self in ramxplastic. This is almost indestructible as a canoe. Now I don’t know if this can translate to an airplane but it is some thing to think about. Carbon fiber is grate but it is ultra expensive. Also it is affected by the ultra violet rays of the sun. We have to think of new ways to doing things & not fighting the obstruction FAA, but working with them.
Go for it. We have had fabric covered certificated aircraft. So, if you can cover a plane with this, and take it to 250Kts and it not come apart when one flies through rain, I think you have a winner.
But then there is freezing precip and hail. What happens with those?
But perhaps we need to stick with the subject — Engines. When the engine of a 40 year old airplane controls the value of that airplane (based on its TBO and how close it is to that), we have a problem.
If I want to replace that engine with other than the certificated engine, but with another certificated engine, I might be able to get it done with a field approval — emphasis on might. But if I have to go the STC route the replacement engine better give me better economy (such as a TBO of 3000-5000 hours, and/or fuel burn of 20% less for the same amount of power, etc.) that STC is going to cost too much money to get. But if I can get it, then I can sell copies of it for exactly the same aircraft and I might make my investment back from it.
This is because the FAA is loving GA to death.
I know we were talking about engines but this said a wild idea. So if we look at all these things together they might make up some thing of a total project will make up a better idea. So I look at the engines on motorcycles. look how the evolved. Grate !
So what happens when you put them on an airplane? The efficiency & power they put out is fantastic, But what will happen when you need 100% on take off? Now think this has to be done a 1000 times over the years of an airplanes life. Will it last? I do not know. I think the engines are uniquely suited to the mission they accomplish. I know they can get better. We just have to convince The FAA to let some ideas to be tried.
I still thing the engines for aviation is piacular suited to our cause, but they have not evolved! So why is that? Lets look at cars. They have greatly improved the last 20 years, more reliable to. Then check out motorcycles from the 70ties. Wow 80ties & then now. what a change! Now check out airplanes! the 50iftys & 60ifites have never gone away. We are still using them now. I know they seam near perfect. So what is standing in the way of improvement? Is it certification, I do not know. but if you look at the two examples I gave every things gets better over time. So why not airplanes engines? I know small increments have been made , but not much. I know there must be better ways are coming along all the time, I think they are not reaching us in aviation. Cars cost for a medium of $2,500 bucks, now they are $18,000.00. or about
9 or ten times. What about airplanes 1968 to 1970 what was a 172 8 to ten grand. What is it now just under $400,000.00 grand. I have not flown in 6 or 7 years & if thing keep going I will never will. I do not want to see this go away, but in reality it is heading that way.
The government over regulations. I can give you an example. how long did it take to put the 172 in to production after getting it certification, or the 150 for that matter? What did it take about a year I am guessing here. How long dose it take to get a type certification now? about 5 years? So they say the 150 is a very safe plane & it got to market & many are still in use today. It started in 1956 & the first ones rolled of the 1957 the production line in. It is the 5th most produced airplane still to this day. So what happen with the Sky catcher. My opinion people hate the Idea of an American plane coming from china!
To many government regulations pilled on the plane, and to much money for to little of a plain. Lets throw something else in the mix. To many lawyers chasing every plane accident driving up the costs.
Rotax builds high revving small displacement engines that are thriving. Each has a gear box. Imagine a 6 or 8 cyl Rotax like engine to replace the LyConsaurus that we are forced to endure. For the cost of an IO550 you can buy 3 or 4 good cars. Don’t think the pure electric will solve any problems in the foreseeable future. Maybe Hybrids, but those get heavy.
Even our existing engines would be much better with FADEC systems. The technology is there the FAA is the big obstacle.
One other thought, the automotive world has benefited tremendously from removing the lead from our gasoline. So, if we could go to FADEC and get the lead out, there would be a good improvement in aircraft engine performance.
Poor metaphor.
A car can weigh anything it wants, have anything on it it wants, is built by robots, is in demand by billions of customers, takes little to no time to learn to operate, and has a supply chain of standard parts that are the largest in the world.
Aircraft and the parts that go on it must weigh the least possible (at a high cost premium), is hand made, has a handful of customers, requires extensive cost and time to be trained to fly one, often has 1 of a kind parts and must comply with standards as strict as anything the FDA approves. Why? They can kill very quickly if they break in the air, versus just pulling over in a car.
The FAA is not to blame. Flying is to blame.
A Formula 1 race boat fits all the criteria you mention. Uses lightweight composite materials, hand made, low number of purchasers and only a very few will ever drive one. They use a custom built outboard engine and cost 20% or less than a common 172. Same with other race vehicles.
The reason I use race boats as an analogy is they meet every criteria you mention. It isn’t flying that is the problem it is the manufacturers and the FAA regulations. Why do you think so many are flying Experimental?
There are two sides to every coin. While we see the new cars out there that are maintained and running well, how about the clunkers next to you. Do we want this in aviation? I am by trade a 45 year marine technician. Over the last 10 to 15 years, the industry has all but abandoned the 2 stroke engine in favor of 4 strokes. Less emissions, better fuel economy, quieter, smoother, what’s not to love? I bring up marine outboards as they are used much like airplanes, occasional use. We see major problems with dirty, contaminated fuel, clogged injectors, fuel blow by into the crankcase, clogged filters., bad MAP sensors, faulty TPI sensors, and yes fouled spark plugs. Most of which is from sitting and disuse. You can’t compare to your late model everyday driver that gets started and run every day, always fresh fuel etc. So lets compare apples to apples, the marine industry to aviation.
The second area to discuss is certified parts vs the same parts in an aircraft like an experimental. It is about time the FAA set standards and let the industry sort out the use of the parts. I’m referring to things like com radios, ADS-B out, etc. The FCC sets frequency regulations not the FAA, so why as long as my radio meets specs, do I have to use a TSO’d radio instead of the $500 cheaper radio used in the experimental? We are calling the same ATC! Same for stuff like ADS-B. For instance it took uAvonix over a year to get the SkyBeacon certified and it cost over $500 more than the exact same deal for experimentals. Then they develop the Tail Beacon and are still waiting on certification, yet from what I am told it is the same thing as the Sky Beacon with different mounting and minus a strobe. So those of us waiting for it will probably miss the FAA rebate. Of which the experimentals are not eligible for! What’s up with that?
Oh and fuel? As the Congress and the administration approves and demands greater amounts of ethanol in fuel, despite the objections of industry, they should also mandate the availability and use of ethanol free fuel in the common marketplace. Let the market decide on the use of ethanol in fuel, not the ethanol lobby.
So is the use of automobile type technology the panacea we are looking for? I don’t think so, at least not as a drop in solution. But at the same time the FAA needs to set standards and let the industry innovate and figure out how to best fill the need.
I don’t think an auto engine will work. The additional weight of an RGB (reduction gearbox) would negate any advantages.
Existing aero engines continue to be considered thoroughbreds specifically because they develop their rated power (say, 100HP) at ~2,500 RPM. Most currently produced auto applications would be delivering roughly half that, or 50HP.
We aviators need to come to the realization that the usefulness of the reciprocating engine is at the end of it’s life cycle and utility. Call it heresy, but the way forward is to incorporate drone technology into GA. It’s far more feasible to design new aircraft around quad, hex and octo-copter platforms than what is arguably kicking the dead horse of sustaining mono-winged craft.
…. and with that said, let the hate mail begin.
No hate here. Let me know when your seven-legged whirly-bird can do 800 NM in six hours on a tank of gas with four people onboard. Yes, I know that the 70 gallons of avgas will cost me around $350 – but it gets me there.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, get the FAA out of the way so that we can get the same power and much better economy burning mogas in an engine equipped with dual electronic ignition and high-pressure direct gasoline injection.
From day one of flight training your taught to look for a place to land for when the engine quits. This training while necessary has also been a band-aid to fix the reliability issues of ignition and fuel systems.
Modern auto engines rarely fail, need oil, foul plugs and they sip fuel. And I haven’t had carb ice in a car since I drove a 1970 VW in high school.
With new electric motors combined with some sort of hybird system loss of power should be a thing that is only talked about in aviation museums. I envision something like a Cessna 337 with one gas and one electric motor for backup and or extra climb rate. The FAA should be asking for these solutions rather than hindering them. If a 50% increase in safety can be be achieved but is being held back by regulations then the FAA needs to figure out a better process to get things changed with out killing what already exists.
If General aviation had of led the auto industry like they did through the 50’s loss of power incidents could have ended in the 80’s and then we could have been looking at the other elephant in the room which is loss of control.
For ASD-B out, if the FAA had of said to the industry that it would pay X$ for testing for certification for the first company that could develop a safe sub $500 system that could be installed in any plane, how much would they have saved over the $500 rebate program.
The real issue is selective over-regulation –for the sole benefit of the regulators.
In most states a (rich) 16-year-old kid can buy a street-legal 840-horsepower Dodge Challenger SRT Demon, which is produced and sold that way without any lengthy and costly FAA-certification process – or for that matter any other Federal certification process. Can you really with a straight face tell me that a hypothetical, non-FAA-approved 180-horsepower puddle jumper flown by a licensed pilot would be more dangerous to the public than this Demon driven by a 16-year old kid with a fresh driver’s license??
Similarly, in many states 85-year-old great-grandpa Bob can legally drive his 60,000-pound (non-FAA-approved!) Mega-Motorhome with a 600-horsepower diesel pulling a 20,000-pound toy-trailer on a regular driver’s license. And, in some states he will even get to enjoy the same 80 mph speed limit on the Interstate as passenger cars – and without any kind of medical certificate!
And, btw, thanks to the FAA’s over-regulation the FAA-approved 180-hp puddle jumper costs roughly the same as the 60,000-pound Mega-Motorhome – which is one of the main reasons why private light-aircraft aviation is dying.
We absolutely need to get the FAA out of the private light-aircraft approval and certification business, and right now the political environment is better than ever to make that happen – regardless how you otherwise feel about President Trump. Are you listening, AOPA??
This is ABSOLUTELY the problem with aviation these days. Regulation. I have been making very similar arguments for awhile, now, to anyone who will listen. But that is a very short list.
My thoughts on this;
GA aircraft engines are best suited for aviation use. However they can be made more efficient without reducing their reliability by adding electronic fuel injection the electronic ignition. These are available now for experimental use and are well proven to improve power and fuel efficiency.
There are a number of auto engine conversions; VW, Sabaru, and Corvair. These work well for low power needs, 100 HP. But the current, modern auto engines normally run at 10-20 % power and and rarely run near 75% power for any duration. The turbo engines I drove had a max. time running at max boost pressure of 10 psi., 10 seconds.
I don’t think an auto engine, running at 65- 75% power would run for long without overheating or mechanical failure.
Most cars will run to 200k miles. but they average about 30 mph, [ low power levels ] ., or about 6,000+ hours. Running these engines at 75% power would probably shorten their life to 1,000 hrs, or less.
The low GA aircraft production volumes do not lend their manufacture to any automation, other than CNC of parts, as the RV series is so successful in doing.
GA aircraft are in the same category as exotic super cars; low volume, high cost, and hand crafted.
I totally agree. The FAA thinks that they are saving GA, but in fact are killing it. Allowing modern production procedures would in fact enhance safety, lower costs, and improve availability. It is hard to believe that at one time the aircraft industry led the auto industry in engine technology.
Has anyone ever thought that ” aviation survives not because of the FAA but in spite of the FAA.” What kind of job justification will they have when “all these pesky little airplanes are out of the way.”
It’s hard to believe that there are apparently still million’s of Americans like PeterH who think that Donald Trump is in the white house for any other reason than to enrich himself. (Drain the swamp? You’ve got to be kidding.)
He couldn’t care less whether GA or any other American Institution dies off.
We have the politicians we deserve, the government institutions we deserve, and the quality of life we deserve. And it will continue until Americans stop voting In their own worst interests. The problem isn’t the FAA, we have seen the enemy, and it is us.
Yeah Rayboy, you’re obviously right, we’re all just deplorable, ignorant, uneducated, dishonest morons. Thank you for setting us straight!
Yeah Rayboy … and that’s the reason he fills gigantic stadiums too. Lose the politics in this aviation blog, will ya !!
The FAA isn’t run by the President, it’s run by unelected bureaucrats who are beholden to no one but themselves. THAT is the problem. Just yesterday, my wife told me that doctors who accept Medicare are now going to have to start showing success in order to receive full payment. What a novel idea. If the FAA were measured and compensated for success instead of static positions on everything … things would get better fast. I think it should go deeper. Produce or we take Class I GA oversight away from you !!
For the first time in many years we finally have a President who is interested in aviation and who has the spine to stand up to the regulatory swamp in Washington DC. Now would be an excellent time for AOPA to push (hard!) for getting the FAA completely out of the light aircraft approval and certification business.
Under the FAA’s “leadership” light-aircraft GA in this country has gone from “thriving” to “on-life-support and dying”. Some of the worst junk flying around in today’s airplanes is “Certified” or “FAA-Approved” and the current regulatory structure simply assures that we will continue to have a glacier-like FAA bureaucracy writing more rules simply to ensure their own continued employment. At this time they are merely tinkering with ways to change the bureaucratic approval process for the next version of the half-million-dollar flying equivalent of the 56-Chevy. The mere existence of this flying equivalent is solid proof that the FAA’s ridiculous process has completely failed. Accordingly, the only way to fast-forward through the lost 60 years of small-aircraft development is to get the FAA completely out of the regulatory business for light aircraft.
There are plenty of small-aircraft experts out there who could be part of an ongoing effort to write a set of adequate standards that would apply to various classes (0-1,500; 1,501-3,000; and 3,001-4,500 lbs gross weight?) of Part-91-only aircraft, which could then be manufactured, sold and flown without further involvement of the FAA or any other activity-killing bureaucracy.
Great idea, PeterH. I’d cut the cake slightly simpler. The recent trial balloon floated by EAA would be a good start. Everything under 3600 pounds is light sport and from there to 6000 would be Class I Recreational airplanes. But no matter how you’d cut it, getting the FAA out of our business and wallets would be a good thing.
I agree with you PeterH. The FAA is not the solution, it is standing in the way of progress. Unfortunately, it will take more than a Trump in the White House to make significant changes. He has and continues to cut regulations that are helping businesses stay in business, hire more people and make more profit. Until the FAA is revamped, experimental aircraft will continue to lead the GA industry.
Could you imagine an automotive world where the FAA was in charge? We would have four choices:
1. Buy a completely un-affordable luxury car;
2. Buy a $100,000 ’56 Chevy;
3. Build your own car;
4. Take the bus.