I hear you in general, but GA engines need to work more reliably and go through way more intense operational challenges than automotive engines. Picture this: you take off at 100°F on the ground at full throttle with only air cooling to save weight and reduce potential failure points, then climb to 10,000 feet where the outside air temperature drops to around 65°F (or even freezing conditions). The baffling is a bit worn, and the pilot maintains 70 knots in the climb, pushing cylinder head temperatures (CHT) to 420°F or higher. Then the pilot gets chatty and pulls the engine back to near-idle while CHTs are still at 350°F, before pushing the nose down to kill altitude—causing CHTs to plummet to 250°F in minutes. Through all these extreme thermal cycles and temperature swings, the engine simply cannot quit on its pilot.
GA engines may look antiquated—with their carburetors, magnetos, and mechanical fuel pumps—but this apparent simplicity is entirely by design. These “outdated” systems are actually time-tested solutions engineered for ultimate reliability when failure means catastrophe. While car oils use metallic detergent additives, aviation oils must use ashless dispersants to prevent spark plug fouling that could cause engine failure. The oils must handle sustained high RPM operation and brutal temperature cycling while meeting strict FAA specifications that prioritize proven reliability over cutting-edge performance.
Every component, from the dual magneto ignition (no electrical system dependency) to the mechanical engine-driven fuel pump, represents decades of refinement focused on one critical goal: the engine will not quit when you need it most. It’s not that these engines are behind the times—they’re precisely engineered for their mission-critical role where proven, simple systems trump technological sophistication.
Most of what you describe can be accomplished with diesel Jet-A engines. These used to be unthinkable for GA because they were too heavy, but clean-sheet designs are making it possible.
Much easier to fuel, no electrical system dependencies, no spark plugs to foul, liquid cooling to keep the temps more constant, and dual redundant FADECs. Plus much better range.
It is not true that reliability requires old-style engine design, it's more a question of cost. Modern jet airliners (their engines but also really everything about them) have a ton of complexity, including a myriad of electrical control systems, yet they are no less reliable.
It's just that this is not a fair comparison because manufacturers of said airliners have more resources for R&D.
Except now we’re back to one of the main points of the article - modern airliners cost billions of dollars to develop and certify, and GA aircraft will never get that level of investment.
Professional here also introducing an element that's unexpected. We expect that they'll have more training, they've often done simulator training which is more realistic, they have a lot more hours and so on.
But because it's a job they have much less Plan Continuation Bias aka "Get-there-itis". Flying New York to Dallas? I did that yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that. So if the weather looks bad and maybe we shouldn't, well then I guess we just don't go, I'll go tomorrow, or maybe somebody else will, it's just a job.
GA pilots are notorious for this problem, and it puts them in vulnerable situations where they're one problem away from disaster, as weather is worse than they hoped, things don't happen the way they expected, and gradually they go from "It'll probably be fine" to "I hope I live to learn from this experience".
GA engines use low compression ratios and high displacement to generate power at lower RPMs, reducing mechanical stress and heat buildup that would be catastrophic during sustained high-power operations like climb and cruise. The need for low propeller RPM means designs either go for a gearbox-driven high compression, low displacement approach like Rotax, or the low RPM, low compression, high displacement route like Lycoming—and given these constraints, the good old Lycoming design isn’t all that bad.
The comment was not AI generated. I had grammar spelling and language fixed because english is not my first language and culturally the way I express myself does come across as harsh to sensitive American audiences.
Do you believe anything I say is inaccurate or do I need to accommodate another “please don’t do X because otherwise I feel offended/cannot trust a random stranger/…” stance?
Sorry, it is very obviously AI generated. And yes, there are several inaccuracies or misleading statements in those three short lines.
>The oils must handle sustained high RPM operation
Flat out wrong, most GA piston engines are quite low RPM and even the "higher RPM" engines are rated lower than an equivalent car engine. Redlines are lower than car engines too.
>aviation oils must use ashless dispersants to prevent spark plug fouling
Also flat out wrong, lol. FAA allows use of straight mineral oil and although most people break-in with mineral oil and switch to oil with ashless dispersants, the use of straight mineral oil for an engine's entire life is perfectly legal.
>(the oils must meet) strict FAA specifications that prioritize proven reliability over cutting-edge performance
Another lovely LLM hallucination. I would love to see any sort of FAA "specification" on engine oil that causes a serious performance compromise.
The main thrust of your comment is - and I quote - that the use of carburetors instead of fuel injection is "entirely by design." That is entirely bullshit. Fuel injection was not a mature technology until the 80s and didn't even become the default in new passenger cars until the 90s. If you are designing, let's say, the Lycoming O-320 - one of the most popular GA engines today - in the early 1950s, you used a carburetor because it was the only real option.
I say this all as a supporter of old, simple systems, and as a man who has trusted his life to old, reliable, simple engines. I would love a debate about the actual reliability and factors of reliability of GA engines. But I would have that debate with a human. Because, for all their merits and uses, LLMs currently struggle to produce real insight.
GA engines may look antiquated—with their carburetors, magnetos, and mechanical fuel pumps—but this apparent simplicity is entirely by design. These “outdated” systems are actually time-tested solutions engineered for ultimate reliability when failure means catastrophe. While car oils use metallic detergent additives, aviation oils must use ashless dispersants to prevent spark plug fouling that could cause engine failure. The oils must handle sustained high RPM operation and brutal temperature cycling while meeting strict FAA specifications that prioritize proven reliability over cutting-edge performance.
Every component, from the dual magneto ignition (no electrical system dependency) to the mechanical engine-driven fuel pump, represents decades of refinement focused on one critical goal: the engine will not quit when you need it most. It’s not that these engines are behind the times—they’re precisely engineered for their mission-critical role where proven, simple systems trump technological sophistication.