PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Is my old Rover more reliable than small aeroplanes?
Old 21st Dec 2008, 02:21
  #43 (permalink)  
BeechNut
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, 130,000 miles at an average speed of, say, 60mph (yes Rovers will do that) is more than 2000 hours.
First of all, I would say that it is highly unlikely that your average speed, over 130,000 miles is 60 mph. My car has a trip computer; one setting gives you the average for a trip, the other a cumulative average over months. Your true average speed is more likely between 30 and 40 mph if you consider stops, running around town, etc.

Secondly, my car, a VW Passat, develops peak power at 5500 rpm. It cruises at about 2500 rpm at 70 mph in 6th gear, and that, at part throttle, i.e, the manifold pressure is probably quite low. So it isn't developing anywhere near the typical 65-75% cruise power of your typical Lycoming or Continental. It's more like around 25% power. Car engines are therefore quite under-stressed for most normal folks. A racing car engine would probably be a better comparison to an aircraft engine...

My wife has a diesel Passat with 110,000 miles on it. At 40 mph, that represents 2750 hours. While Lycomings are nominally rated at 2000 hrs TBO, many stretch them to nearly 3000 hours (not something I would recommend, but it is legal at least in Canada). But that's 2750 low-stress hours in the car, and 2750 high-stress hours in the plane.

I would say that our old air-cooled plane engines are very reliable. You rarely hear of one fail in flight due to a catastrophic mechanical failure. It does happen, but the most usual reasons are fuel starvation/contamination/mismanagement or carb ice.
BeechNut is offline