Why New Aircraft Engine Ideas Rarely Succeed

Aircraft owners and pilots often bemoan the lack of new technology in aircraft engines and complain--accurately--that most airplane engines are basically 1960s tech. But as Paul Bertorelli points out in this video, it's not for lack of trying. And it's not necessarily the new engine itself that fails to get traction, but the company's support--or lack thereof.

CORRECTION: The Rotax V-6 engine had single, not dual overhead camshafts.

[droge]

The best bit of aviation journalism I've ever seen. So well researched, written and presented.

[ndpcherokeesix]

“If the engine is warm, there is a procedure to start it that works every time, but nobody knows what it is.” You have got to love this guy! Absolutely hilarious...and absolutely true.

[modernwarghostrp]

As an automotive technician, I sometimes wish we did this more. I've seen manufacturers release an engine, find all its flaws and improve them to be bulletproof gems, or at least for us to learn their problems and spot them. Then as soon as everything is great, release a new design that we have to figure out and deal with all over again.

[jeffreyfwagner]

As a retired engineer who spent years in automotive and marine engine development, I found this video to be a gem. I omce attended an SAE ( Automotive Engineers) meeting in which Porsche was to show us the high points of their Mooney engine. They could not show us the plane as it was in a shop for repairs. Very prophetic. Thanks for an excellent video.

[tow.JanWinnicki]

Without a doubt, Paul Bertorelli is one of the most engaging and entertaining, yet factually sound, aviation-oriented speakers/presenters out there! I especially appreciate the no-BS, tell it like it is, approach which is so refreshing to hear nowadays.

[NickMurray]

Paul, these videos are just so well presented and produced. Just great work.

[KingJellyfishII]

"I'm sick of pie, let's use a cake chart" this is without a doubt the best sentence I have heard today

[cloroxmints]

I have little knowledge about anything he’s talking about when it comes to aviation but I gotta say this dude is awesome to listen to and I loved the video

[JimDorn]

"ability to recognize a turd floating by"....friggin' hilarious. Absolutely love Paul Bertorelli's deliveries.

[bodenwhitmore]

Came for the cake chart, stayed for the interesting information.

[wallacegrommet]

You’re the best. Detailed, low-key sardonic humbleness in presentation, and a real insider’s perspective

[SuperAWaC]

@12:43 Steam locomotive engineer checking in. Never thought my skills would be applicable on an aircraft video of all things, but here you go: How many levers it takes depends all on what you're doing. If it's just keeping the boiler fired, assuming it's running on oil, as most do or have been converted to do these days, there is the firing lever which controls the fuel going to the atomizer, a valve that controls how much steam is going to the atomizer (the fuel is atomized with steam, the water vapor isn't an issue), and three more valves that control injection of water into the boiler (technically two sets of three, since there's two injectors for redundancy). That's a lever and four valves just to idle it at a standstill. If you actually want to move the engine, there are five more required levers: The johnson bar (or power reverser on full size locomotives built after 1939) to pick which direction you wanted to go, the throttle, the cylinder cock lever (these let condensed water drain from the cylinders when getting underway) and the two air brake levers to control the engine and train brake. So, around six levers and four valves. There could be more or fewer depending on the exact configuration of the locomotive. If you want to be technical there's always bunch more valves for various things, drain valves or bypass valves or isolation valves or whatnot which while are necessary to operate the locomotive safely in all situations, aren't technically needed to move it.

[jimbiller]

Great job explaining the whole aircraft piston engine business. You must have done a tone of research and done it objectively, then you did a great job condensing it into a 23 minute video. An absolutely amazing piece of journalism.

[peterandersson]

Our flying club converted a C172 to use a Thielert diesel in 2011. The two main issues were the MTOW-limit and the uncertainty of the gearbox inspection interval (as mentioned in the video) which meant an uncertainty in operating cost. For touring, the aircraft was essentially a two-seater, but it you were only two people on board it was an amazing tourer: in a configuration where the MTOW was no issue, the range was fenomenal. As also mentioned in the video, engine management was very easy: you start it like a car, engine run-up is at the press of a button and in flight you just set the SLC lever to whatever percentage you want. No constant adjustment, no performance tables to read, no leaning, ... The turbo meant we had sea level performance up to 8, 000 feet. The club eventually sold it, but not because of technical issues: we needed to downsize the fleet and this was the aircraft for which we could get the best price. I still miss it. We have one Rotax-powered LSA (600 kg) now and that's also very easy and modern to operate compared to our C172 and PA28 Lycoming engines.

[aleksandrnestrato]

It's rad! The overhead cam design came into the automotive world from... aviation!

Back in 1920s sports car builders searched for more power at the same or lesser weight. It was very prestigious to have fancy airplane tech in a car back then. Non sports cars used flat-head design or pushrods. Now those two worlds kinda swapped places.

[markbrow]

It’s been awhile since I have watched your channel, my apologies ahead of time, but I just wanted to say that you are one of the TOP educators/presenters I have experienced in my short life of 72yrs!
Don’t ever think your work on earth has bee for naught!
We love you!

[MrWATCHthisWAY]

Paul your information doesn’t get any better than this. As others commented your clear, concision, informative understanding with just a hint of dry humor thrown in just to keep us smiling while we crunch the numbers in our little brains has us captivated throughout these segments. Thank’s Paul and I can’t wait for your episode of all the electrical propulsion designs that are currently under development that will eventually be scrapped in our near future. Technology rocks! Sometimes.

[obviousness]

I know nothing about aviation but these videos are so well-produced, it's mesmerizing.

[lekoman]

Paul, you are an asset to this community. Thanks for taking the time to put together such great reporting.

[pascalchauvet]

5:48 the OM640 was actually used in the two preceding generations of A-/B-class Mercedes cars, canted so that it can slide beneath the passengers in a heavy frontal crash. In the pictured A-class Diesel engines of less displacement than 2 litres are mostly from Renault.