> I wondered if the same process could work for aircraft engines, and began the experiment of designing and modifying a V8 aluminum marine engine to meet FAA Part 23 and 33 requirements, then install it onto a Cessna 172 airframe
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34728405 [1]: https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...
I can't wait to get my hands on the new jet powered plane coming to the club I fly with.
My airplane makes about 225 horsepower during cruise flight, for 3-4 hours on a typical leg. My car makes 25-30 horsepower in cruise.
Take the airplane engine that has done 1950 hours of weight-off-wheels time so far (including some takeoff/climb, but also some descent), turn that into x8 the auto hours and give an average speed of 40 mph and you get an implied 600K miles worth of total cumulative motive energy produced.
Most cars will need significant maintenance on the road to 600K miles or on their way to 2000 hours of operation at 75% of rated power (as do airplanes on their way to 2000+ hours of operation, of course).
Airplane engines are quite reliable. As easy to operate as a modern auto? No, but I’m not sure they need to be that easy, since pilot training and certification is quite a bit more rigorous than it is for autos.
Also, planes use engines differently. They basically run flat out for hours, while cars only use peak power when accelerating.
This is often said but isn't really all that true if you dig in. Most planes have a cruise power setting that is below that used for takeoff, often 65-80%. Further, engine are often de-rated so that max throttle means something like 80% of the engine's max horsepower. Those two factors along with variable pitch props on some planes which act like gears, mean that even planes often cruise at closer to 60% rated engine horse-power rather than 100%.
Even more discouraging is the extremely backwards way of thinking that the old farts in GA have. There is nothing that the barnacles who cling to the walls of the FBO hate more than change, and they're the ones buying stuff.
Most of that equipment selection problem can be traced back to poor quality instruction and conflicts of interest in the industry. Unlike flying, there is no legal licensing process for diving. Training is mostly handled by a few different private agencies which set course curricula and certify instructors. Some agencies have minimal quality standards and will give an instructor card to almost anyone. And then most training courses are run by dive shops which also sell equipment, so instructors are pressured to not criticize anything the shop sells even when it's total garbage.
The 'certification cost' is just the threshold at which the FAA is fine with all the liability being offloaded on to them, for engines made and maintained to spec at least.
i.e. For this cost to actually decrease would require an entirely different society, one that doesn't settle things through the judicial/administrative system whatsoever. But then costs may increase somewhere else.