Assuming it's the LS-series they're using, there are literally hundreds of thousands of those engines produced. They are manufactured by GM, but there are plenty of aftermarket producers as well (Dart racing blocks for example). The LS block will probably be more plentiful than the GM SBC 350 which can still be found locally or bought/built from new. If there's one thing I wouldn't be worried about for the next 50 years, it's LS engine components.
It's a disgusting travesty. Lyco/Conti build expensive 1920's trash
Sounds like it would be a simple chip change to boost the HP up to what a 182 needs. This would be a very slick business model. One engine, many HP possibilities and many application possibilities by just changing the ECU chip/programming to select how much HP is "de rated".
Is your intent still to only offer the STC version to the international market vs only the restricted/experimental market here in the US?
Doable - The nice people of Panama could just give you a Panamanian license and other credentials if you had a US equivalent - for a fee. That J.G. Wentworth guy could run the operation - I'm sure he's legit......
And what about the engines you build? Tell us about those.
That's Raptor logic, no? But the post was mostly hyperbolic anyway. My disdain for mixture tinkering and all the theatrics that go along with operating these engines is well known, I'm generally "over it" at this point but couldn't pass up this opportunity for a gratuitous "engines suck". I wish these guys luck
For sure. And same in marine world. Some outboards tolerate decades of salt water abuse with no real maintenance.. others not so much!
I've often wondered this.. any data? And if they are more reliable now is that due to a better understanding and operating habits by pilots or something else?
It appears that my Googling skills are not up to that task!
Yes, there is a higher "reliability" with engines today vs in the past but you don't need to go back to the 20s. It's mainly due to the manufacturing process has modernized and removed a lot of procedural root causes of previous failures. I haven't spent much time on the recip side but it's been documented on the turbine side. In addition to the mfg process upgrades the increase use and refinement of NDT technologies allowed less flawed engines/components from entering the food chain in the first place. And while we still see ADs against crankshafts or turbine wheel that are mfg'd based on 60+ year old designs, the issue usually falls to someone thinking they "improve" on how things are done vs following the tried and true "old" method. The FAA had a couple studies out years ago on this but not in place to look for them at present time.
Nor are mine
the recent Paul AvWeb video was pretty good. It does appear that there isn't much data on this unfortunately thoughPerhaps search for discussions on the single engine vs twin engine debate and on ETOPS. I seem to recall various engine failure statistics being used to discuss these topics. I had read a report by a top shelf oil company that switched back to single turbine helicopters based on their own research of failures. If I recall correctly they mentioned the mfg process angle which was similar to the FAA and other reports I've seen. Maybe search google scholar for engine reliability studies??
