When I started in the fuels and lubes research business in 1967, a big part of my job was to monitor changes in automotive technology and the effect that these changes had on the fuels and lubricant requirements.
I remember the first emission control engines and their effect on temperature and operating conditions. I followed the technology through VW’s electronic fuel injection to electronic ignition, EGR, catalytic converters, and on and on.
The new technology worked very well, except for a few initial problems like when one of the manufacturers used aluminum connectors in its electronic ignition circuits. Just a small amount of corrosion increased the resistance and the engines died. But these gremlins were worked out and the new systems work very well.
Then in the early 1980s I went over to the aviation area. What a culture shock. They still had magnetos, carburetors, and mixture controls. However, since I had grown up on a farm, I was familiar with 1940’s technology, so just adapted to it.
But now, 50 years later, the gap between the technologies that people are familiar with and comfortable operating and the 1940’s technology used on “modern” aircraft has widened greatly and become a significant problem.
So whose fault is this? Is it the old guys who have learned how to fly with the current technology and do not want to change? Is it the airplane manufacturers who don’t want to change and their lawyers who say that change is dangerous and opens them up to additional liability? Is it the FAA? Or is it the millennials, who I picked on in my February column, “15 reasons why teaching Millenials to fly is tough“?
Many years ago, a reporter asked Bum Phillips, the coach of the Houston Oilers, who was the cause of a bad loss: The offense, the defense, or special teams? Bum stated the loss was a total team effort and everyone had contributed.
The same applies in general aviation. So why did I pick on millennials? I probably should have said the younger generation or young people. But millennials is a more recognizable term and they do represent the beginning of the widening of the gap in technology that I referred to earlier.
The point of the original article is that one of the significant problems in general aviation is the lack of new technology.
I know there are a number of millennials and other young people who are into GA and understand the show.
But I also believe strongly that millennials who know how to fly old technology aircraft, as well as old people who have been flying forever, would all appreciate new technology in engines.
Just think how nice it would be to go out to the airport, do a walk around, then climb into the aircraft, turn the key, and fly off. No pre-heat, no priming, no mixture strength adjustment, and no worry about carburetor icing. Then in the air, it would be very smooth, with almost no engine noise.
And you do not need to stay awake nights worrying if your engine is rusting away and how you are going to pay for a $40,000 rebuild.
The bottom line is that if we want to attract a significant number of young people to general aviation, we need to update the technology for GA aircraft engines.
So here is the challenge to the younger generation: Start working on the GA line up to incorporate some new technology into the aircraft. Some of this has been started with the light-sport aircraft (LSA) program, but it needs to be extended to other aircraft.
Hopefully this will prevent you needing to write articles like this when you are old and gray.
DeltaHawk Engines, with our highly talented team of young and “seasoned” pilot engineers, is shaking up the GA industry with ground-breaking technology. Our multi-fuel GA engines are purpose-designed for aviation’s high-performance requirements and fewer parts that improves reliability, lowers weight and aerodynamic drag, is simpler to inspect and maintain, and reduces cost of ownership.
I truly think the reason we are still flying with old tech. engines is money, money and more money. Does anyone have an idea how much it would cost to reinvent the airplane engine’s with the new tech. you all are talking about. You think it cost much money to o/haul today’s engine’s , haha that’s nothing compared to what it would cost if a new engine were to hit the market with all the bells & whistle’s everyone would like to have. I venture to say approx. $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 for a new engine. Now you can perhaps have the same performance with a $30,000.00 engine, which one are you ready to go out and buy??? There is absolutely no guarantee that the new design will be any safer than the old engine. It sounds like a lot of people want this and want that, but not having any idea of the cost involved..I think I will stick with the old and proven Lycoming engine thus far, & as far as electric motors go forget that too. Until we can fly an airplane cross country on one charge of a battery, I’m using av-gas..
Well said Ben!
There are way too many magnetos and carburetors out there.
We mostly missed the change over to EI/EFI in aviation 30 plus years ago.
In the automotive world the changeover was mandated for emission control reasons. As a side effect, most of us now have reliable 300+ HP cars!
Funny how that works.
Klaus,
You’ve been in the electronic ignition for aircraft engines business for 30+ years, and we’re just seeing EI on certified engines.
The experimental aircraft builders have been adding modern EI and EFI to ‘old’ aircraft engines and are getting ‘modern’ performance from them.
We don’t need new engines, just the FAA to make it easier to certify the modern systems to our existing, very reliable engines.
From other posts; marine and auto engines would self destruct if they are run at 75% power as aircraft engines are.
I’d like to see how long that 300+ hp engine will run putting out 225 hp continuously for a few hours.
‘old gray haired guy’.
Many here are missing reality.
Fuel injection is great, but instead of comparing it to a car engine that gets run every day or so lets compare to something more akin to aviation use, marine outboard engines. The marine outboard is very reliable today, if and it is a big if, it is properly maintained, filters changed, fresh fuel, used often. Even so I change a lot of fuel pumps! I flow a lot of clogged injectors. Most FI outboards by 5 to 7 years of use are due for some expensive work. 15 to 20 years, go buy a new motor. Could you imagine a large HP marine outboard lasting 30 years? neither can I.
For those citing cost… well you can go inexpensive in aviation with an older plane.
In the marine industry go to any large marina and count the number of $250,000 and up boats sitting in their slips or on a trailer. Today about $10K per foot with some boats reaching $20 to $25K per foot!
The problem is desire. To became a pilot takes time, dedication. Add to this the limited uses for most aircraft, how many pancakes can you eat, can’t fly in bad weather. What to do at your location and the uses become more limited. We also don’t celebrate aviation in popular culture like we did. Look what Sky King did for aviation, or Don Johnson in Miami Vice did for offshore go fast boats.
It isn’t the technology, it is the desire to fly.
I’m one of those ‘old and gray’ guys, who is also a retired electrical engineer with a lot of experience doing reliability engineering. I fly an old Cessna and like the reliability of the aircooled, carbureted, magnito fired engine, and gravity fed fuel from both tanks.
Having an engine or instrumentation malfunction in an aircraft vs automobile has very different consequences. In a car it’s an inconvenience, but in an aircraft it can mean an off-airport landing and potential injury..
Reliability is paramount in aircraft systems. Our old ‘steam gauges’ work just fine without electrical power, but not so with the electronic PFD anf MFDs.
FAA certification is certainly a barrier to new technology in aircraft, but we shouldn’t add new ‘stuff’ just because it’s new and maybe better. reliability must be maintained in all systems.
VORs and a gps moving map tablet work very well for navigating. Heck, I still carry a current paper chart.!
Having multi-piont EFI vs a carb would be great, except that now it requires a reliable supply of 14 volts to keep the engine running, meaning a 2nd battery to maintain and keep charged.
Most light GA aircraft fly straight and level when properly trimmed, without the need of an auto pilot.
I really like the Johnson bar flap control vs electric motor control; no volts required and I can quickly change the flap setting.
So, maybe I’m just an ‘old, gray haired ‘ guy, but flying at age 72 is easy and I feel more in control with the ‘old’ technology..
Sounds like the author of this post needs to get caught up on the technology out there GA has everything available that the major airlines have and more. Affordability for the average GA pilot is another thing
New technology is available, but until it becomes affordable, it isn’t going to flourish in aviation. It would be wonderful to have smoother, quieter, more reliable engines, but again, at what cost? Blame the FAA, blame the lawyers, blame the low volume, blame the manufacturers, blame ourselves. But until it becomes affordable, it’s all just pretty stuff you see in the aviation rags, but nobody’s buying.
I came from the technology world and when I started flying I wanted as much technology as I could buy…I have that in my Cirrus SR22T G5. What is lacking? A Diesel engine, but little else.
Who objects or ridicules or even ignores the advances in carbon fiber airframe, ADS-B, AoA, moving maps, GPS, terrain awareness, digital displays, RNAV/LPV/LNAV+V, GFC700 autopilot, sat phone, parachute?
The older guys who fly the tin Cessnas, Pipers etc. with a mix of round gauges and tiny EFD displays.
Who is fascinated by it? The young students and millennials who fly with me as passengers.
How much did all that tech cost Biggs? Is it scalable? Do you care? Most people can’t afford a half million dollar airplane. Most people can’t afford a hundred thousand dollar airplane. Just how small do you think GA can get before it goes away, even for people like you? Will the kids stay away because of the antique tech? Maybe most will but it won’t keep all of them away and on any given day only about 5% of the people in the room have any interest in GA anyway. I don’t see the gee whiz stuff as a big attraction to aviation. Its about flying not moving maps and autopilots and the engine in your whizzy wonder is just as hard to start hot as the one in my old tech Bonanza. Ben is right about that, engine tech should be improved and the biggest impediment is FAA not the size of the market or the lawyers though both are a part of it.
By the way my $100k tin Bonanza with the round gauges and little bitty MFD will get me anyplace your plastic wonder will and you’ll still be zipping your pants in the rest room when I walk in, that’s the performance delta you’re bragging about.
I have to disagree with you in some ways. First of all, I blame the FAA primarily for the technological stagnation, with the cost and difficulty of getting designs certified. It is t profitable to bring new designs to market.
Second, I’m barely on the cusp of being a “millennial,” but in this case I’ll say I’m close enough: I’m one of the ones who you say “gets it.” I actually appreciate the steampunk aspect of flying and love that it does require so much effort. It makes you think. Look at the phenomenon occurring in driving, which I have heard called “de-skilling.” Aviation doesn’t let you put your brain on autopilot, even if you can do that with the plane! That’s a good thing. The costs certainly need to be controlled. $38k to rebuild a four cylinder air cooled engine is obscene, but once again there is a reason for that.