5 ms·
Don't they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? Surely you're going to find an engine manufacturer that can build you an engine that's not half a century old.
by needusername 9y ago
Don't they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? Surely you're going to find an engine manufacturer that can build you an engine that's not half a century old.
- 24gttghh 9y agoIf it ain't broke...but the 172[R and S] has been using a fuel-injected engine since 1996[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360
- aphextron 9y agoAnd the flight hour cost of one of these is double the price of a 1970s/80s carbureted 152. Guess which one the majority of student pilots are learning on.
- mikeash 9y agoOf course, and if you want something like that, you can find aircraft manufacturers using more modern engines. Want a car engine in an airplane? You can have that. Want a fuel-injected digitally-controlled turbocharged water-cooled diesel? Step right this way. The big, old manufacturers like Cessna tend to be really conservative, though. They have something that's Good Enough and they have little incentive to make radical changes. Part of this is because a light aircraft's powertrain is safety-critical, unlike automobiles. In a car, if your engine explodes, you're stranded. In a small airplane, depending on where you are when it happens, you're probably hurt or killed. If you make a radical change to your engine, and that change results in a failure that kills a customer, it looks bad. Newer manufacturers seem more willing to push the envelope in this respect.