Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: