In my last column, “How the search for unleaded avgas is like two elephants mating,” I talked about how those who work at refineries view avgas.
When the story ran online at the General Aviation News website, there were a number of useful comments, which I always appreciate.
One comment stood out to me. PeterH stated: “The technologies that allow our antique aircraft engines to burn unleaded gasoline, such as electronic ignition systems, direct gasoline injection systems, and water injection systems, are well known. They will simply have to be adopted by the industry and subsequently approved by our infamous regulators.”
This is a sentiment that I and many others have held for years. In the 1990s, Caesar Gonzalez from Cessna proposed a spec for 87UL avgas that was basically auto fuel. His theory was that if general aviation was to go forward — and maybe even grow in the future — then it would need to utilize the large pool of motor gasoline and not a specialize boutique fuel like avgas.
A lot of 80/87 engines have been run on autogas for many years. But to really advance its use, we need to advance engine technology, as PeterH suggested.
Unfortunately, the GA world is stuck in a Catch 22. We are using engines that use technology from the 1930s and 1940s, which meet FAA standards that were written to cover the technology for those engines. Those standards do not apply to 2022 technology engines.
What is needed is a reasonably priced spark ignition aircraft engine that could be used in trainers and GA aircraft.
One of the reasons that GA has not grown is that flying today’s aircraft scares the hell out of young people.
I know that all of us old people had to learn how to pre-heat the engine and other functions, but that is a very poor sales pitch to bring in new customers. If young people are afraid to drive a manual transmission car, what chance do we have to convince them to lean out the carburetor after takeoff when they do not have the foggiest idea of what a carburetor is or what it does.
If a small aircraft could be developed around a liquid-cooled modern technology engine, it would make flying something that young people could relate to and would feel comfortable doing.
They would just go out to the airport, do the preflight checks, get into the aircraft and start it up. No pre-heating on cold days or setting the mixture strength and hitting the primer. Just turn the key and taxi out. No mag checks or mixture strength adjustment or waiting for the engine to get to temperature. Just take off and enjoy the fun of flying. No leaning out or anything.
An added benefit would be that modern technology engines could use modern engine oils. This would eliminate pre-heating, cam and lifter rusting, and almost every other oil-related problem in today’s aircraft.
The need for an oil change every four months would be gone, while oil consumption of a quart every four to eight hours would be greatly reduced. With the lower oil consumption, the problem of pre-ignition would go away and fuel economy would be greatly improved. (The engines would also have knock sensors for additional protection.)
And the cost and maintenance advantages go on and on.
And then there is the very significant emission reductions that will no doubt become mandatory in the future. The engines, even without a catalytic converter, would have almost no CO or hydrocarbon emission, reduced NOX and CO2 emission, and so on and so on.
So, what would it take to drag the GA world into this century?
It would take a concerted effort by the FAA and the industry. Change is very scary, especially when the spectre of liability is ever present.
But public pressure on emissions and high fuel consumption limitation may force us to change whether we want to or not. The general public and regulators do not care that we are aviation. If the rest of the world can do it, so can GA.
Most young people have been taught to fear aviation as has the general public.
For fun entertainment, sitting on a couch playing video games is much safer. For practicality of travel, why fly your own aircraft if you can rent a cigar-tube seat anytime you wish?
Having flown hundreds of Young Eagles and seen thousands pass through the airport gates, the conversion rate to pilot training has been amazingly disappointing. Observation is that each generation after the “greatest generation” has appreciated aviation just a little less. The trend just continues on.
Thinking that some one av-technology or another will change the perception of aviation in the non-flying public’s eye is wishful. We can all wish that. But aviation of the future will look more like an autonomous electric quad-copter than a C-172.
People who are truly interested in aviation will not be deterred by pre-heating or adjust the mixture. Flying GA is complex, yes, but it’s not beyond the comprehension of the average IQ twenty-something. WHY we WANT to fly is beyond their comprehension when virtual reality exists in a safe environment. And when an airline seat to go mosot places can be purchased for a day or two’s pay.
This article clearly hit a nerve. The clincher for me is that my co-owner in a very pristine 1965 Cessna 150 says that without being able to split costs 50:50, he could not justify owning an airplane. I agree. What does that say about the future of GA when two well established professionals with a good (some would say great) income can’t afford to jointly own more airplane than the 150. Don’t get me wrong – we love the 150 but even a 45 year old 172 would be a step too far! With the insurance, annual, hangar and fuel we are each out about $4,300 per year. Flying the airplane around 70-80 hours a year (short trips once a week) this equates to around $115 per hour. Houston we have a problem!
If I only had 1 co-owner, my costs would be the same as yours for our 1961 C175B [ like a C172 but with a 180 HP, GO-300 engine ].
However there are 4 of us, so we split the fixed costs and each pay for our variable, mainly fuel.
So, all up It is $60 per hour for the 70 + hours that I fly .
We also do owner assisted annuals, where we do all of the ‘grunt’ work, and the A&P I/A only has to do the inspecting.
We are in a moderately costly area of Northern California, near Sacramento. If I was in a more rural area, the fixed costs would be almost 1/2 of what they are here.
Something like ten years ago, I got interested in a Wankel aircraft engine being made by VAZ, the Russian car company (this was before Russian products became shall we say “unpopular” on the market). They built two and three rotor engines, with gearboxes, and they came complete with propellers.
I made inquiries about becoming the US importer and got totally ignored. Turns out a friend of mine is related to the general manager of VAZ, he put the word in and suddenly they were interested in talking to me. The engines were interesting, but some of the accessories looked pretty agricultural.
I looked into FAA certification requirements for engines, and they are actually not all that bad – run at 100% power for 150 hours and not blow up, stuff like that.
They wanted me to come visit their factory in Samara the week between Christmas and New Years – except the average daily temperature there that time of year is 40 below zero . . . and I live in Florida. Nah. Not going.
We got past that, and they advised me that I had to order 1,000 engines, payable in advance, delivery when we get around to making them.
They thought that Cessna and Piper would jump on these engines, I said no, they’d have to recertify the aircraft and they can sell what they are already making so they aren’t going to do it. The market was going to be homebuilts, and VAZ couldn’t believe that – “They let you build your own airplane in America? How is that legal?”
There was also the “minor” problem of products liability insurance. Ha. Aircraft engines from where, from Russia? Non-FAA approved? The premium would have been a billion dollars per engine.
VAZ stopped making the engines because there was no market (wonder why not) and GM bought a piece of VAZ for a while, it went bankrupt shortly afterward. Some of the engines were used in various VAZ cars, civilian models got the two rotor engine, cars going to the police got the three rotor version.
I have photographs of the engines, taken at the Moscow Aero Exposition (by my friend), and I may still have three-view diagrams somewhere.
Everyone’s comments expose GA flying as a complex topic. I suggest we expose our changing culture and business trends, which Follow the Money. A 1966 C 172 cost $12K while my Dads salary was about $9K. At that time there was a booming business for flight training for the airlines as well as aircraft purchases by the WW2 generation. Cessna was preparing to sell 1500 C150s by the end of the decade. By the ‘70s the aviation market deflated to a trickle.
Today we still fly these ‘60s aircraft while new ones run 400K and up. Cirrus are now a million! I believe our new generation of pilots and owners view aviation from a different perspective. Aircraft Corporation have focused sales on the turbine and jet market because that’s where the money, profits are rewarded. I don’t picture GA as a Gulfstream G500 but it is. The FBOs see it as well.
The present GA market of home built and light trainers suits the need for local personal flight. However, from what I see kits are up to $150 K and fully built plus $250K. A Carbon Cub near $400K? For many, this is an expense beyond affordable.
Technology during the past decades has transformed aviation with new gadgets and automation. It’s what motivates our new entrepreneurs. Electronic Automation of Commercial Piloting procedures and techniques have created repeatable piloting results by using automation to mange and dramatically improve safety from point A to B. This is where the development money goes.
I see our technology driven young people focused on AI, virtual reality, and gaming. GA is not growing because it’s not where the interest and money lyes. These days, GA Training is a pass through vehicle to the aviation industry at large. While Experimental and light aircraft markets are for those who enjoy the beauty and joy of flight. It appears the rest of GA is for businesses trying to make profits.
Let’s see, looking for an airplane with an 1) automotive engine, 2) runs on mogas, infact perfers mogas, 3) No mag check required, ( only has one mag), 4) No mixture control to worry about, 5) store easily in a garage. Sounds like the Volk Plane VP-1 to the rescue!
This new generation that doesn’t want to fool with pesky mag checks or leaning the Carburetor, tell them it’s a virtual reality hover board.
“One of the reasons that GA has not grown is that flying today’s aircraft scares the hell out of young people.”
This is absolutely false. As a young pilot, I can tell you that there are many reasons why GA has not grown, but this one is definitely not one of them. Main reason is cost. Young people do not have the financial liquidity and affluence as baby boomers do. Just to put a Garmin 430 in a 172 costs over $10k.
In addition, younger folks are used to turning an ignition key and the engine starts—hot or cold. With existing Lycomings and Continentals, the negative anticipation of a failed hot start resulting in a dead battery and an abused starter is stressful and not attractive especially to young people.
In my 51 years of flying and after having owned 5 aircraft, I don’t miss ancient engine technology coupled with the the ridiculous cost of airplanes and all of its components.
Seriously—-a half million dollars for a new Cessna 172? Even worse, used 50+ year old trainers (Cessna 150, Piper Tomahawk, Beech Skipper, Grumman AA1) with prices north of 35K with lousy paint, lousy interiors, ancient nav coms, no ADSB and engines close to or beyond major overhaul is absurd. All of this makes flying unreachable, uninteresting and not worth the bother for younger folks. I can relate as having had the greatest passion to fly and own airplanes my whole life and having done so, I sold my last airplane 3 years ago and surprisingly don’t miss it. At the end of the day, I’m tired of all the “fighting” required of flying and owning an airplane not to mention renting one at North of $150.00 per hour. There is a reason for the shortage of airline pilots, and I don’t see that picture improving given the cost, hassle and ancient technology in aviation. Young folks saying, “I’d love to, but I don’t need the hassle and don’t have the money” is common. Makes me sad.
Outstandingly said! Plus fighting with the “authorized, but unaccountable” FAA is a HUGE PTA! Kids from 14 to 104 can take up boating, building, auto resto, or a plethora of hobbies to build life skills and have fun. Why fight city hall, let them fight among themselves until there is nothing left!
Perhaps part of the equation is a fairly risk prone endeavor, flying, is mostly populated by low level hobbyists, maintained by less than competent mechanics, and dictated by less than knowledgeable administrators……trying to now appeal to a meme generation who are traumatized by everything.
Granted, owning an airplane is a expensive hobby … dunno if I’d call it “low level”
Low level in terms of pilots who are not “captains of their ships”, I did electro-mechanical stabilization on target drones for Beech. That limits control surface deflection, which would greatly eliminate many avoidable errors like stall spins.
You can FLY the aircraft or let it fly you. If you prefer the latter, simply be a passenger and let us “PILOTS” fly our aircraft!
We all understand the risks and the hazards of an off airport landing.
Here in Nor Cal, a lot of pilots are engineers, current and retired Air Force, [ Beale AFB is nearby ], business owners, and other professionals. Oh, and a number of instructor/ CFIs.
Two of the local A&P/IAs are retired Air Force mechanics, and are very well qualified to work on our ‘little propeller airplanes’, vs the B-52s and SR-71s.
I don’t see any ‘traumatized’ youth here, just Young Eagles, excited to fly with us at our EAA chapter.
I take exception to “less than competent mechanics”. I spent 20 years maintaining general aviation airplanes before selling my soul to the airlines for the last 21 years. There are other mechanics that got to the airlines that way. Think about that the next time you board an airliner!
Ben,
I have an issue with your sentences… ‘ Just turn the key and taxi out. No mag checks or mixture strength adjustment or waiting for the engine to get to temperature. Just take off and enjoy the fun of flying’..
Auto manufactures advise to drive slowly at low power after a cold start, until the engine is up to temperature…. the same as aircraft engines.
And, an aircraft normally uses the full 75% power for takeoff.
I doubt that an auto engine would last long if it was cold started at 32 degreesF, and then immediately driven off a 6,000 rpm. ! [ I can con rods poking through the block !]
So, the newby pilots, flying new , advanced engines will still have to sit in the area and wait for the oil and cylinder temps to come up….just like us old guys flying ancient engines.!!
It’s the checklists that must now be memorized in addition to the written check lists that lead young people to conclude that the FAA makes it up as it goes along.
AV1ATE, ARROW, PAVE, IMSAFE, SAFETY, NWKRAFT, ATOMATOFLAMES, and FLAPS are all check lists that are required in addition to the published check lists that are furnished with the aircraft. As aircraft manufacturers strive to make flying more accessible, the FAA strives to throw ever more stumbling administrative blocks to discourage new pilots.
Like I said, the FAA is “authorized and unaccountable”! Prove me wrong!
The arguments for more ‘modern” automotive type engines are valid as the Rotax 900 series shows. However the culture problem is real as well. In the 80s a little company named Porsche built and certified an great little six cylinder engine. The PFM 3200 was available in Mooney M20. Too many new owners cry for the new but when asked to purchase or operate it will not do so. Sadly as Pogo said “We have met the enemy and he is us”.
The Rotax 900 series ‘owns’ the 80 to 140 hp market, once pilots got comfortable running an aircraft engine at 5,800 rpm, more than 2 x what a Lycoming or Continental red lines at. They’ve got the propeller reduction gearbox design to be very reliable.
The Porsche-Moony suffered from the tach showing engine rpm vs propeller rpm.
Again, running the engine at 4,000+ rpm scared a lot of pilots away.
I fly a 1961, C175 which has the GO-300 Continental, and has a 3:4 reduction grearbox. The engine is redlined at 3,200, but we run it at 2,800 to 3,000, and it has been very reliable
Our ‘antique ‘ engines can be brought to 2022 with adding the available experimental EFI and stc’d electronic ignition. The only downside to adding these systems is the need for a backup battery, in case the main electrical system fails, the engine will continue running for an hour or so, depending on the battery A-H capacity
Most jet engines that use FADEC have incorporated a tachy gen into the fadec system that takes over early on during the start sequence and provides electrical power to the fadec system so it remains powered even with the rest of the aircraft electrically dead, same system could be incorporated into GA piston engines
No argument from me about the operators being scared to run the engines as designed.
I fully agree that the old Cont. GO-300 is a great engine. I believe the GTSIO-520 was (is) a factor in the dislike of geared engines. They are powerful but finicky and maintenance intensive. Most of my geared engine experience was with a geared R-1340 a great running engine. We also saw a GO-300 once a year, a testament to it’s reliability as well.
I was full time in GA when the Porsche-Mooney came out and the Continental Tiara was to be the next GREAT thing. Neither lasted due, in my belief, in part to the inertia of the status quo.
I can’t understand aviation enthesis using the argument that a geared propeller and water cooled engine is unreliable and a bad thing. The best fighters of the second world war were all water-cooled and many even had gear driven propellers. Most air cooled engines have an external oil cooler. In my experience as an aircraft maintenance engineer is that its hard to find an engine installation that is not oozing oil all over the place. As a pilot, loose all the oil or loose all the coolant, I am going to go with loose all the coolant as the engine will run for some time without it. Not so for the oil.
These automotive engines have accumulated together millions of operational hours on their engines and the electronics that goes with them. The FAA reports one piston engine failure every 3,200 flight hour. If we were to compare to the automobile and say 200,000 miles is equal to 3200 flying hours, as of 2021 there are 289.5 million vehicles in the US with 1.2% or 34.7 million have 200,000 miles or more. which means there would have to be 34.7 million engine failures to be comparable.
Perhaps its time to embrace the new technologies and dialogue about how to do this rather than trying to say its not as good.
the statistic used where gather using google
Well , one of the high hurdles to get over when comparing automobile engines to aircraft engines is the difference in power outputs they operate at . I remember reading a study which concluded that the average power put out by the former over their lifetime was about 20% of max , whereas for the latter it was about 70% !
If you ran your car’s engine at 70% of full power continuously the pistons would probably be elliptical in shape before you’d got 1,000 hours out of it I’d guess ?
A good example of high output auto engines is Nascar, where the engines make about 600 HP, run at 7,000 to 8,000 rpm, and barely last 4 hours and 500 miles.
Also, LeMans engines are a bit de-tuned to last 24 hours and about 2,000 miles.
My guess is that most auto engines would overheat, running at 70% power and about 100-130 mph. , before they ‘came apart ‘ !
Excellent replies! And I would like to take my hat off to Mr. Visser. He has been a boon to the the aviation world for decades. Thank you Ben! And thank you GA News for having him!
What no one has mentioned, that has caused the majority of the stagnation, is liability. “The pilots widow” or better to say her attorney, has caused more damage to the GA industry than any lack of ideas or forward progress. I’m very sorry to say, the people we vote into leadership positions in our government allow the litigious to pilfer GA. The system we allow to be in place simply does not allow GA to move forward.
The Rotax motor is supposed to be mass produced for millions of cars and can be used in aircraft. So, why does one so called aircraft engine version cost over $25000 dollars, more than most of the total car they are used in?
Actually, the Rotax 900 series is a dedicated aircraft engine. They also make ‘dozens’ of other 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines for marine, motorcycle and ultralite aircrft, and a couple of backup alternators.
[ check their website https://www.rotax.com/en/products/rotax-powertrains.html ]
As a $6 Billion company they are engine specialists.
Textron is a $17 Billion company, but Lycoming barely does $250 million in commercial business….not much capability to spend millions on a new design.
Continental is probably in the same situation, but as a Chinese Gov’t owned Co., I can’t find any financial info.
So why has my “straight-tailed, fastback” Cessna 150-C, soon to be 60 years old, doubled in value the past few years? The guy in the next hangar with his Archer looks down his nose, but I just bring a five-gallon can of ethanol-free regular from the local gas station, filter into what’s already in the tanks, and enjoy another hour of flying to keep the O-200 healthy. You might call it legacy (not general) aviation — and kids with eyes on airlines will never appreciate it — but I love it.
The world’s largest producer of aircraft engines is Austria’s Rotax. But aircraft engines only makes up maybe 10% of their total production. Thus Rotax users gain the benefit of larger production, something the mainstream Avgas engine makers do not have. Then there is the Continental CD Jet-A diesel engines, based on proven Mercedes engines built in vast numbers compared to aircraft. These are proven and available, are highly efficient and use a FADEC. Lastly, Jan Eggenfellner’s Viking and Valkyrie engines are really proving themselves. Too bad they are not certificated, perhaps one day he will do this. Or maybe Honda should team up with him given their success as an aircraft manufacturer. American aircraft owners remain myopic as the rest of the world passes them by. In Europe, pilots often have the choice of Mogas (ETHANOL-FREE), Avgas, Jet-A and the various boutique Avgas replacement fuels out there on occasion. But suggest adding a small self-service Mogas tank to a GA airport far more active than those in Europe and you’d think the world is coming to an end. But these same GA airports somehow have money for gold-plated terminals with fancy board rooms, high fences with razor wire, red carpets, Follow-Me golf carts and all kinds of other frills that do nothing to lower the cost of flying for the majority of aircraft owners.
The culture of general aviation is built around preservation and operation of obsolescent airframes. That ties us to obsolescent engines, which in turn binds us to obsolescent fuels and technology.
To change over to a new generation of engines means, for the most part, ditching the Cessna 182s and Beech Bonanzas and Mooneys that are the mainstays of the personal aircraft fleet. To change engines is really to let go of past airframes and start over, with the associated costs and other compromises. There are already FAA-approved electronic ignition retrofits and other engine updates, but they have not been embraced by aircraft owners.
This is a huge culture shift for aviation and not one I think many pilots are willing to make even if they can afford it.
Many (myself included) are flying behind a Viking (Honda conversion) in our experimentals. Cost around $12K. Starts right up, no mags, no carb, starts just like my car. Oh, wait…..
I just don’t understand the reluctance unless it’s old school thinking. Please, no fist fights.
The Rotax 9XXis engine series addresses all of Ben’s concerns. Take a look at what Sling Aircraft (and others) is achieving with them in the TSI’s as well as the NGT trainers in their pilot academy.
It is crucial for the safety of the Aviation community to keep 100LL AVGAS accessible, since not every airplane is going to get a brand new engine right away. Many aircraft owners can’t afford a new engine. It would be highly irresponsible of the FAA/DOT to ban AVGAS completely.
Ul 94 was always the answer to the problem but no one could see it. The problem was no one was willing to accept that mods to existing high octane engines could be achieved.
The problem is going to be money. You could get a modern engine past the FAA approval if you spent enough money but when you did the engine would be a $100,000+ engine so you could pay down the development cost in a reasonable amount of time given the very small GA market. When a car company develop a new engine they have more sales in the first month than GA has for all piston engine aircraft in 2 years. Young people today are already having financial problems as it is they are not going to be able to afford $500,000-$700,000 dollar aircraft even as a rental. We have a real catch 22 in that we can’t get modern engines without a larger market but we can’t get a large market without modern engines. What we need is a very rich person (like Elon Musk rich) that is willing to take a chance on spending large sums of money on a chance of expanding the market in the future. You can’t really do it by raising money from a lot of middle class stockholders because most of them are getting into retirement and are unwilling to risk money on something that won’t pay off in the next couple of years.
Well, traditional aviation engines vs. automobile engines are sort of like apples vs. oranges. Auto engines are almost always high-rpm, while aviation engines get a lot of power at lower rpms. So you’d need to lug around a gear reduction system to get that auto engine to turn the prop at an efficient (sub sonic) rpm. So, added weight, and associated failure points that mean added inspections.
Then, why would you carry around a cooling system (more weight) and all of it’s associated failure points when there is a weight free (almost trouble-free) cooling media right there in the clear blue sky?
The aviation engine manufactures are not sitting by idle either. FADAC systems are here now and will improve as time marches on.
Also, flight training has evolved too. Cranking out commercial transport pilots is the new world. Recreational flying is increasingly a smaller niche market.
This is a worthwhile discussion and I’m glad you brought it up, and happy to add my 2 cents.
DW
47 years AMT/IA
Sounds like he just described the Rorax 912iS engine used on many aircraft the world over.