Is my old Rover more reliable than small aeroplanes?

[Final 3 Greens]

I don't actually have any stats to back this up but I would bet money on a well proven design like the O-320 (as found in the PA28 for example) that is well maintained and not abused being significantly more reliable than a car engine.

How many crankshafts have you replaced on your car?

[jxk]

Lyco have finally done away with the really major weakness which was their "disappearing tappets", by bringing in roller tappets. But they have ensured that you need new crankcases to have these, which ensures that it will almost never be an economic retrofit.

IO540 - I believe the roller tappets have not necessarily fixed the camshaft/cam follower problem and from what I understand the rollers are still rusting and seizing.
Stand to be corrected!

[dont overfil]

It seem that a substantial percentage of the training aircraft in the area I stay are of 1970s vintage with engines designed a lot earlier.

Most car engines of this era were pretty unreliable. (unless they were japanese). One example which springs to mind was the 1200cc Ford engine which had a life of 40000 miles before the crankshaft let go. As a youngster running cheap cars it was a challenge to find a car which did not have a rattling engine.

DO.

[Contacttower]

How many crankshafts have you replaced on your car?

I don't think I've ever had to replace one...my VW, which now has more than 120,000 miles on it, is pretty reliable although I'd stand by my original comment. To an extent though although I do derive some comfort from that belief it doesn't really change my behaviour; I may not drive along thinking about breaking down all the time but I do spend a lot of time in the air wondering which field would be best if the the engine stopped.

[Choxolate]

Is the average car engine better at driving than the average light aircraft engine is at flying? I.E are cars generally more reliable at what they do.

I'm not trying to compare apples with pairs [sic] ... but I also know that there are similarities between the engines.

That is exactly what you are trying to do. The demands on the engines of aircraft and cars are very different, as has been said before - the average car engine is running at 15 - 25% power most the time, an aero engine is running at 60 - 80% most of the time, and sometimes at 100% power (e.g. on take off, go-rounds etc). They are having very different demands put on them, they are designed differently accordingly.
Apples and pears - how long would your Rover engine last if it was at 70% power most of the time with occasional bursts at 100%??

The overall reliability of both is high - i.e. within acceptable limits for most users for normal usage. Neither is "better" than the other because they are doing different things.

Which battery is "better" - those in flashlights or those in mobile phones?

[Hireandhire]

Talking of old Rovers
I used to rather worry about the Lucas electric fuel pump feeding our RR-Continental 0200, which is EXACTLY the same pump as the one in my 1955 Land-Rover.
This complex 1940's assembly of elderly rubber diaphragms, springs, contacts, coils, magnets and points (points for gawds sake) is heroically unreliable in the Series One (and the Jags it was also fitted to) at the best of times - so I fitted a hidden electronic module to do away with the points. Not an approved mod for the Condor.

When flying I'm only reassured by the knowledge that the Condor has an additional mech fuel pump, and I secretly suspect that it doesn't actually need either pump, since the tank is nearly all above the level of the carb inlet !

regards
HNH

[ericferret]

Cessna 150 unscheduled spares cost this year over 100 hours £0!!!!!!!!!!
Rover 75 over 7500 miles new clutch £500, new diesel lift pump £400, new tyre £50, new bearings at top of front suspension £250, new battery £50.

Still the insurance was about a quarter and no hangarage to pay for. Also I'm not going to have a large amount of money extorted for an ARC every year.

However to the question my 150 is certainly more reliable than my Rover!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by PompeyPaul

You have taken a sample size of 1 and compared it to a sample size of many. So you've got a warped view.

Over the last 25 years, I have owned approximately 15 different Rovers (plus a handful of other BL cars) - none of which has ever failed to deliver me to my destination. In fact, the only breakdowns I've ever suffered have been in VWs.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the light aircraft engines that I've had to deal with (and in which I've travelled far fewer hours and miles!).

Does anyone remember the "If only everything in life was as reliable as a VW" advert? Light aircraft engines appear to be that reliable - thankfully Rovers are more durable!

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by sunday driver

Well, 130,000 miles at an average speed of, say, 60mph (yes Rovers will do that) is more than 2000 hours.

In fact, the average speed of a car over its lifetime is more likely to be less than half that, so the "hours" will be at least 4,000.


vabsie - what sort of "old Rover" is it?

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by Choxolate

Apples and pears - how long would your Rover engine last if it was at 70% power most of the time with occasional bursts at 100%??

That's how I drive mine!

[vabsie]

1994 Rover 214 ... hehe

good thing this is not a dating website

[dont overfil]

Ah that explains a lot. It's a Honda with a Rover badge.
DO.

[Mike Parsons]

Car engines have more artificial intelligence in terms of sensing equipment than aero engines. This is mainly for the average joe who doesn't know anything about engines, but can jump into a car and drive - they don't need to know the 'green area' of the oil pressure and most of the time (unless it is a french car) won't even know the oil temperature (saying this my old 206 gti output oil temp and level).

However, cars are great at sensing problems which don't exist, the problem is the sensor. There you go the 'oh my god light' or Engine Management Light illuminates, retards the rev limiter to 3k rpm of which you will achieve 50% of total power which, on most cars will be achieved at just shy of 7k rpm (unlike my late prelude, i will come on to that...). This will be no good in an aero engine, so less is more <-- that is the key.

My last car was a 2.2 VTEC Honda Prelude which had 190,000 miles before I sold it on to someone else who was extremely keen in this car. Nevermind redline, it would get bounced off the limiter at least once in the 20 mile trip to and from work, of course when the engine is nice and hot - guessing when the oil temp is over 80oC - not rocket science. Even though there was nothing wrong engine wise, the 4 wheel steering would occasionally pack up. The previous owner had wired in a switch to reset tripping the fuse effectively which kicked in the 4WS again. Again, more computers to go wrong.

Liquid cooling versus air cooling; I am not an expert by any means, but common sense tells me air cooling is better, at any altitude. You don't need to worry about mixture of coolant at a certain alt which will freeze your coolant, remember - strong coolant (will not freeze easy) will eat through hoses quicker...not an ideal situation...Again, another thing to go wrong.

Last point to make with aero engines, if it ain't broke don't fix it works with me!

[Blues&twos]

I'd like to compare a monthly report similar to that produced by the AAIB which details all the car engine failures which occurred in say December. I'm willing to bet that in percentage terms you'd see a few more car failures than aircraft failures.

[david viewing]

Here's 177 years' worth of old Rovers. Reliable? Many force landing type incidents over the years suggest not in aircraft terms. Only one (the red one) has the original engine though they are all contemporary units. None of them has ever had a catastrophic engine failure as such, but ignition, fuel pump and lubrication failures have made the owner personally familiar with most of the lay bys on the A1. I'd rather not be flying in a Land Rover!



Interestingly, the red one (the fire engine variant) has beefed up radiator, governor, oil cooling, tropical fan and so on and can maintain full throttle (48HP) for a few minutes at a time. It's also the only one with an unrebuilt engine. Try that with the ordinary 2Ltr overhead inlet / side exhaust and small end knocking is a likely outcome.

[TheGorrilla]

depends on your level of abuse

[Hireandhire]

David V - aerospace quality thread-drift !

Mine is an 86"....the Burlen electronic conversion was a sanity-saver. Were you at Chepstow?


regards
HnH
(got a capstan winch for Xmas.....)

Where did my photos go? I'll try again.
Login | Facebook

[ericferret]

The Rover lies dead with a broken clutch cable having left me on the side of the road for the third time this year (see post above). Only 62000 on the clock.

Brilliant idea to sell Rover off to the Chineese. They will be on their knees in no time.

Meanwhile the 40 year old Cessna 150 sails serenely on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chilli Monster]

Required viewing for any Rover driver!

Rich Hall - Rover song

(I actually had a 216 GTi which had 130,000 miles on it before I gave it to the ex-wife. Needless to say she managed to kill it!)

[Old Fella]

Motor vehicle engines v's aero engines

If the same percentage of pilots were to abuse their engines as do drivers it is probable that there would be many more failures in aero engines and at least the majority of aero engines are regularly seviced by qualified engineers, unlike a vast number of motor vehicle engines which are poorly serviced. Also, most pilots treat their engines with a degree of respect which surpasses that with which many drivers treat their vehicles. The level of training required to become a licenced pilot is superior to that required to obtain a drivers licence and pilots are required to demonstrate their skill level regularly. Apart from that, comparing an automotive engine with an aero engine is like comparing apples with oranges, IMHO.