Piston and Turboprop engines | What is the difference?
The fiery hearts of planes and helicopters are quite varied and are represented by many engines that are fairly easy to recognize. However, observing the aviation industry, you can see certain confusion when comparing piston and turboprop engines, since both of them rotate a propeller. Disputes about their similarities and differences have been going on for decades even among specialists, while most ordinary people hardly distinguish them even externally - a propeller is a propeller. But there are differences and they introduce many nuances in all aspects: from cost to capabilities, advantages and disadvantages.
Today we will try to understand the interplay in the battles between the piston and the turbine.
Thank you for watching!
Subscribe to the channel, comment, like!
If you want to support Skyships and our work, welcome to our Patreon. We will create some special content for you there: / skyships
Our Facebook: / skyshipscom
Our Instagram: / skyships_world
The REAL case for a piston: there's always a guy around who knows how to fix your piston engine at any airstrip :D
Even if he doesn't have an airplane. Might own an airboat.
Real case is that its means MONEEEEEEYYYYY
If that guy doesn't have an A&P license, I don't want him touching the engine. If he has an A&P, he has learned how to work on both piston and turbine engines and knows when to send stuff out for specialist work.
Congratulations 🎉👏🎉👏 of being the top comment!!!! 😁😁😁 (As of now 😈😈)
@@Markle2k it's not that hard nerd, maybe should do it yourself than you will understand.
"...you'd need to be some kind of genius of self-destruction..." What a great line Sky. LOL.
I thought that was a great line too!
*obi-one kenobi voice* Well, of course i know him. He's me.
Lol. I once saw a dinosaur from Jurassic Park shred a turbo prop to pieces
For some reason I kept getting a mental image of Admiral Ackbar narrating this. This line is genius.
"If you are mach 3 high altitude recon plane or a mach 3 interceptor of that recon plane". God, I love the writing style of your narrations.
It WAS clever, as is He! Too bad the Mach 3 Interceptor NEVER caught the Mach 3.3 Recon.... 😜
It was a classic line.
The interceptor had a minor drawback that the engine would turn into a lump of molten metal halfway through the intercept.
too bad the interceptor never caught the recon plane because the interceptor was made by Iow iq sbhumans. LOL the sr71 was flying all over moscow and they never caught it!
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 Hey bro calm down... 1: The SR-71 never flew over moscow, just around the USSR, never too deep in the USSR core. 2: When the Mig 25 was in service, The SR-71 reconnaissance missions were extremely careful, because although the MiG 25 could not reach it, if it fired a missile at its top speed (Mach 3) the missile could hit the SR-71, because it was never shot down by A MiG 25 ?, you will say, because the SR-71s stopped flying very often within areas where it was believed that there were MiG 25s in active service, in addition to detecting a possible threat they retreated quickly. 3: Yeah, the MiG 25 engines only could go at Mach 3 for like.. 10 mins? before the engines melt, but 10 mins is more than enough. ( also this was ¨solved¨ in the next MiG 25 variant, MiG 31. ) And the MiG 25 is considered a masterpiece of military engineering, not only Russian, but the world. It is the fastest fighter in the world and much progress was made with it on the 60's.
If I remembered correctly, the engine on sr71 is a hybrid of turbojet and ramjet, which has different modes on certain altitudes and speeds.
This is true. The Front half of the long Engine Nacelle was a large Cone (that everyone sees), connected to an Hourglass shaped Tube (oversimplified term) that moved to either break up Subsonic Turbulence, restrict Intake Velocity - to prevent Compressor Stall at Supersonic speeds... OR act as a combustion chamber itself, compressing and burning Fuel at Trisonic speeds - RAMJET - bypassing the main Turbine Assembly. Simple! 😜 [My Dad flew the HABU from 1969-74, and was friends with Kelly Johnson]
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks SOUNDS --Soooooo KOOL!!!!!!!!!------BUT just HOW DOES ONE make SUCH A FATHER PROUD??????????????
@@packardexelence I never felt like I accomplished that... He seemed to think I did.
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks WELL; if HE was HAPPY; you should take some PRIDE, & COMFORT in that, & I am HAPPY for you!!!!!!
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks I believe WE have in COMMON that our DAD's KNEW we were the BEST people WE COULD BE!!!!!!!!!
You made these concepts so easy to grasp, even for a non-engineer person like me. You deserves a hats off.
Amen... Well said... This is one of the most well-written scripts I've ever listened to someone narrate based on mechanical engineering. So easy to understand and so elegantly written. No redundant inefficient explanations that lack clarity, just one easily understandable concept followed by another. Perfect.
High-bypass Turbofan engine is like a turboprop but ducted.
Yeah, more than once he just calles them "jet engines"..
This leads to a question always puzzle me: In the turbofan industry there is always a saying that the higher the bypass ratio, the higher the efficiency become. A good turbofan engine is the one with high bypass ratio. Then, why don't just use a turboprop engine, which is in some way a 100% bypass ratio?
@@ytpoon666 I'm no engineer or aviation expert, but I think one issue is propeller - or fan - diameter. The propeller of a turboprop has quite a large diameter. this limits its rotational speed and thus the speed of the air pushed back by it, as you don't want the tips of the propeller blades go supersonic. A fan with many shorter blades can spinn faster and move more air for the same propeller area. Afaik, turboprops are more cost-efficient in smaller planes flying at low altitude, while turbofans are superior for larger planes flying in thinner air.
@@ytpoon666 the advantage of a ducted fan than an open fan is the thrust. Ducted fans has higher thrust than an open fan/prop. Having a Turbofan is like having the characteristics of a jet and a turboprop. Power and efficiency
@@ninjasiren not realy: a ducted fan is limited in diameter: bigger the diameter bigger is the drag (and the weight) from the duct, over 4 meters is the drag so high that the gain is zero... so the propellers diameter from the AN22 is 6,20m (15000hp engines) and 5,30m for the A400M (11000hp engines )
"Pistons are cheaper to fix" -Laughs in Porsche Mooney
Some pistons are cheaper than others... but imagine the money it would take to fix Porsche turbines.
@@nikolatasev4948 yikes
L
Porsche car owner: I need to replace a burned lightbulb. Porsche dealership: lightbulb has to special ordered from Germany, and will cost 300$, not including labor cost.
@@danielaramburo7648 that's why i will never, ever, *ever* be caught dead owning a porsche.
P-51 guys are like: I fly just as fast as most single engine turboprops.
Good old days :)
But a P-51 with a turbine would out perform the Merlin powered one.. and be way more reliable!
It wouldn’t be a P-51 Mustang anymore, but a F-51N Warhorse.
Billy Badswede actually it didn’t. There was a turboprop powered P-51. It was slower. 🤷🏾♂️
Billy Badswede it was the P-48 Enforcer
To quote a well known youtube educator, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs"
Woat? Who?
@@mayankraj2294 Thomas sowell? Maybe.
@@mayankraj2294 I've heard something like that from Thomas sowell
@@NervaTraian11 That's the person who came to my mind as well.
Maybe forgotten weapons
Thank you PROFESSOR SKY, it's hard to miss your aviation class.
You're absolutely right when it comes to piston vs turboprops. Piston engines can't grow power as efficiently as turbines without an enormous increase in weight and complexity
Not true for modern engines. All these videos are comparing piston engine designs from 1930. There are currently very little modern aircraft piston engines. An engine that makes about 300KW is about 85 KG for turbine and 200KG for piston. The turbine consumes 400gkwh and piston 200gkwh. so the 85kg engine needs 220kg for 2 hours flight while piston needs only 110kg. So 305kg for turbine and 310kg for piston. Extend beyond 2 hours, say 3; you now have 415kg for turbine and 365kg for piston. Turbine is good for short distance at the expense of high fuel consumption. At 6 hours that is 745kg turbine vs 530kg for piston.
@@chippyjohn1 Consider fuel economy, not just fuel consumption - yes a turboprop may consume more fuel per hour when the engine is running, but as turboprop aircraft often fly considerably faster they may complete their flights in far less time. Thus per unit of distance, they may burn equivalent or even less fuel. To counter your other point, because taxiing, takeoffs and landings use lots of fuel over shorter distances than cruise, proportionally speaking longer flights are actually *more* efficient for a turboprop aircraft, as it will spend more time at a lower cruise power in the flight. Short and slow hops are actually piston aircraft's forte and they have certainly improved in recent years with engines like those from Rotax, which use a lot of modern design elements, run on standard cheaper automotive gasoline and produce high thrust to weight ratios. Nevertheless, both engine types still have their place.
@SilvyYT turbine engines are less efficient at lower power settings. Fuel consumption doesn't change much from 40% to 100%. Modern Piston engines are far more efficient. Obsolete air cooled push rod engines are not as efficient as modern engines.
This is a well-scripted, well-illustrated videos. Thumbs up to you. You earned yourself a new subscription!
Don't have to have three house mortgages on a piston engine.
Truth. I work for a small airplane manufacturer that makes a high performance turboprop. The engine costs about $650k. But for people that have the money and want to fly far and fast to get to their destination, it beats a piston engine plane. by a lot.
And spend thousands of gallons of gas..
This was a great comparison, quite educational. One of the points you made early on,was that they both spin propellers. I would like to see an episode on the differences in how each type of engine spins that propeller, and the differences between the propellers themselves. Most, but not all, piston engines drive their props directly. That is, the prop is bolted directly to the engines crankshaft (output shaft). Some piston, and all turboprop engines, employ a gearbox between the engine and prop. There are also differences in the design of the propellers themselves. A number of the Soviet era design bureaus produced some very impressive gearbox/propeller systems for the turboprop engine. I believe that would be a great follow up to this video. I very much enjoy learning about the "Eastern Block" designs. I truly appreciate that you bring that part of aviation history into the mainstream. I grew up during the Cold War and knew very little about those aircraft. I saw an Il-62 for the first time when I was in my late twenties and was fascinated by the design. I hope you make such a video. Thanks.
Sky your presentation was a very good and accurate one! I was a Crew Chief in the USAF. I worked on the B-52 G & H models.
listening to this for the whole clip is like having finish a book for only 20 min...So worth of your time
Stumbled on your channel. A pilot and engineer myself I love your channel. Your delivery and explanation is great.
Made me smile seeing the Aircraft that my Dad flew from 1969-1974.... You know the one - it's BLACK, it's BADASS, and in YOUR measurements... flew at 3800 Kilometers per hour!!!!! One proud Son.
The dad you won't mind showing up when with friends.
@@TheNicestPig He always drew a Crowd!!
Thats what a guy who tried to sell me a leather flight jacket told me. Claimed that it had been used by some soviet test pilot in the 70s. I think he was lying. I didnt buy it.
@@jackgrant7356 Not sure what that means.... I'm not trying to sell anything.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
This script was next to perfect. Great job. Probably one of the most under appreciated narrator voices on YT!
please make more comparison videos . not only about power plants but also about wing configurations or anything else you want . this was very informative.
An interesting concept: both engines (reciprocating piston and turbine) are four (4) stroke internal combustion engines. The essential principles of suck, squeeze, bang, blow apply to both. One key difference is that in the reciprocating engine, these strokes are delivered sequentially, as a series of pulses, while in a turbine engine they operate simultaneously. One could suppose that the power stroke in particular, being delivered in a series of pulses in the reciprocating engine, rather than a constant as it is delivered in a turbine, explains the power to weight ratio between the two (2). Furthermore, the jet equivalent of that pulsed power would be the pulse-jet as immortalised by the V1 bomb.
Then a 2 stroke engine would be also a 4 stroke engine
i kinda disagree with you. But essentially, every heat engine has the equivalent of "Suck squeeze bang blow". The differences is just like you said, ones is continuous ones is discrete
It makes little sense to stand the definition of the word "stroke", as it applies to an internal combustion engine, on its head to make it apply to turbine engines. A "stroke" of an internal combustion engine refers not only to the phases from intake to exhaust, but to the travel of the pistons. You will not find pictures of turbine engines in an online search for four stroke engines. And then to say one key difference is the sequential vs simultaneous delivery of the strokes, conflates the concept of "stroke" with the meaning of the word "continuous". Once you get past the principle of "intake, compression, ignition, and exhaust", about all that is left are "key differences". In the case of a jet engine, the energy that is released is used as thrust rather than to turn a propeller shaft. I understand your point regarding the phases of the air and fuel mixture, I just find it more of a side note than of much use in distinguishing the different classes of engines that have evolved over time.
My grandparents lived through the Blitz and all of WWII in the south of England. Our ancestral home is in the direct path between London and where those v1 rickets were being launched from. Sometimes they wouldn’t make it all the way to London and instead would fall on the towns and villages along the path. Such is what happened to my grandparents neighbours home. A rocket fell on it and in the morning all they found was a giant crater. I hate the v1 and v2 rockets for they are a nazi invention that reeked havoc on my family and my country. Also, your entire premise or theory is flawed and makes no sense due to your misinterpretation and poor definition of key words. Others have left detailed comments explaining the shortcomings of what you had to say. Good day to you
. "Wreaked|"
You covered everything! Well balanced and beautifully directed. A rare given in KZhead world.
Nice overview. Having spent over 40 years around Pratt & Whitney Canada, I have some background in turbines and being a private pilot, I have met a few piston engines.
Great video. Simple enough for someone who isnt an expert on math, planes or engines to understand. I wasnt aware that the piston engine had so many advantages.
You've convinced me that visible fan blades are not trash.
Your channel is one of the best aerospace channels on YT! In fact, in terms of neutral and knowledgeable information, it may be the best.
This was an EXCELLENT presentation about a question I've had for years. Thank you very much.
Really appreciate your straightforward explanations. The way you break down this complex stuff is super helpful. Thank you!
Gorgeous explanation sir! I can't resist a nice example of basic engineering class.
11:50. That's no house. That's a high rise apartment building turned on it's side. For those who don't know, that is the Mighty *Mi-26 Halo.* The largest flying helicopter in the world. Just shy of twice the length of a Chinook. The only helicopter to have 8 blades in it's main rotor. This thing is likely to be taller than your house. From the gear to the top of the swashplate, it's right around 3 stories. And boy oh boy, when it takes off, it produces a *hurricane* of rotorwash and down blast. I soooo want to see one in person.
'A Whale called Blenda' eh? - sounds like she has eight blades & a massive fan - hope you get your wish : )
Good luck! I love to see people who are passionate about planes, boats, helicopters, trains, rockets, etc. For me kts rockets. I want to see the mighty Saturn V some day.
I have. Its incredible, just by the sound you feel the power it haves.
You make excellent videos and I enjoy watching them. Thank you!
Excellent presentation, I finally understand the difference in the engines. Thank you so much.
Great overall analysis - the only part I disagree with is the discussion of fuel at 20:00. Fuel economy isn't just about the PRICE per liter. It also impacts your range, how much space you need to dedicate to fuel storage, and how much takeoff weight you need to dedicate to carrying fuel. Petrol engines may cost more per liter to run, but pay dividends in other ways.
Exactly correct, and regular petrol is much cheaper and adequate for modern engines. No one ever mentions the fuel consumption of a turbine, after about 2 hours endurance of fuel onboard a piston engine+fuel is actually lighter.
Very informative, love it! :)
Thanks for the great detail into both designs!
Greaaaat video! Fantastic visuals. Thank you
Thanks again for a really interesting video.
I enjoyed this informative and well-presented video. As we are now at the beginning of a transition to electric propulsion in terrestrial and marine applications, it would be great if Skyships Eng could guide us through the current state of the art - pros and cons -, and prospects for the near future regarding electrical propulsion for aircraft. Harbour Air of Vancouver, Canada should soon be starting commercial seaplane service using De Havilland Beaver aircraft converted to Magnix electrical propulsion.
Really well done. Answered questions I didn't know that I wanted too know. Good job.
Wow, I learned so much from watching this video! Thanks for uploaded, there's a prop flying outside my window the moment I type.
"when the temperature is close enough to freezing" Yeah no. I've had carb ice occur when it's been 22 degrees out haha. (72f)
Bet the outside temperature wasn't 22C at altitude though...
@@patheddles4004 It was after start-up when we were on the ground.
@@santiagokiwi3187 Fair enough, I stand corrected. That does surprise me though.
@@patheddles4004, Believe me, it surprised me too! Very unexpected!
Yup. That Carb Heat “ain’t there just to make sure your feet are cold”
Great video as always, but our Canadian viewers might be a little miffed that you neglected to mention that it was P&W Canada that designed and developed the PT6.
A really great episode.Thank you
WOW. This was an awesome overview. Subbed!!
Damn this video is better than 90% of my atpl courses😳
I prefer metric units in most situations, but can you please convert altitudes to FL on screen?
Excellent exploration - thank you
Thanx for the informative video!
Fascinating and informative as always! Thank you. I would be interested in learning why modern gas-turbine helicopters have relatively small ranges compared to fixed-wing turbo-props. I assume it is because the rotors are providing lift AND thrust whereas planes obviously have wings solely for lift. Thanks
That and also maybe because there's not much room for fuel in most helicopters compared to aircraft
@@bt_the_yank6234 Of course! Thank you.
God never ment for all of those moving parts to fly (rotary wing) in such tight formation. 🤣
There was a time I spent a lot of hours in a helicopter - and the pilot told me planes glide through the air like a bird, whereas helicopters simply beat it into submission. This followed by his admonishment that if the rotors stop, we had all the aerodynamic capability of a free-falling rock.
Off-road aircraft 🤣 thanks for this explanation and your amazing illustrations
Wow, Clean And Clear Explanation Of Everything 🛩️🛩️👏👌👍
Thank you for such an informative video. Brilliantly done.
Jet engines are really high performance. The MiG-25 was designed to catch and shoot down the XB-70, a program that was later canceled. Later it was used to go after the SR-71/A-12 something it could not actually do because it was not able to maintain high speed. The Soviets lacked the metallurgy to make engines that could withstand the stresses needed to fly at Mach 3. Ironically, the titanium used to build the SR-71 was mined in the USSR, purchased by the CIA through bogus companies.
THAT my Friend, was the Genius of Kelly Johnson! Still one of the most fascinating People I've ever known. The ONLY thing that frustrated him, was never finding a WORKABLE solution to the HABU leaking like a sieve until breaking 1.7 Mach!! (I'm pretty sure that's no longer classified) It bothered him. Ben Rich too.
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks Yes, Brian Shul talks about that as well. The leaky SR-71. I agree, Kelly Johnson was a genius. We were lucky to have had him. Have you seen this? kzhead.info/sun/oZykcs2xbYShgqs/bejne.html
@@erictaylor5462 We were lucky indeed!! You should have seen some of the stuff he DIDN'T get to build! 😲 I hadn't seen that before. Thank you! Another lost treasure. Kelly LOVED the J-58. He would get Livid discussing how Pratt & Whitney was PUSHING the J-75 instead, because they could not perfect the Ramjet Assembly in the J-58. Major development issues. The A-12, which flew first as "Oxcart", flew with J-75s..... Not a slouch, it had more Thrust than the F-15 Eagle has. But the J-58, in full operational trim - had MORE Thrust than BOTH Engines on a 777!!!
BTW, my Dad trained Brian, and Terry Pappas and one other 3rd gen flyer.
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks That's cool.
Interesting story. Can we wait for a video about other engines? Rockets)
I must say, this is one of the best videos on this topic I have seen.
I love the metaphor of comparing the turbo prop to the automatic transmission such a good comparison, I'm a manual lover personally
There are some piston planes that can fly that high, like the Cessna P210, the Piper Malibu, and the Beech Baron 58P
Concorde flew at an altitude of 60,000 feet which is 18.288km. It also flew at Mach 2 had afterburning turbojets, and had the ability to supercruise, so to be fair it is a massive outlier. I thought it would be interesting to mention though, after what you said about the altitude ranges of the different engine types.
Well yeah, and to be fair he accounted for those outliers several times.. I think at least half a dozen times he mentioned this exact scenario (non-specifically) that you raise. So yeah, I would say it was pretty well included in the script. If you missed it, I'm sorry.
@@stanley1554 as you said he didn't mention it specifically so I included it in the comments incase anyone was interested in the stats of an outlier (which I acknowledged it was).
@@westonloomis You missed my point, he didn't mention your specific scenario but he did describe The point you made without using a specific example. He generalized in making the exact point you made with a specific example. Get it? Is this seriously going over your head?
@@westonloomis It's embarrassing that I anticipated the comment that you were going to make in response to my comment. 100%, I knew that that's what you were going to say. I saw that coming a mile away but I don't care because my statement is 100% correct and if you can't understand it I can't help you. It isn't difficult. Turn your brain on.
@@stanley1554 that's not the case at all, I was stating that my motives for publishing the stats of the outlier wasn't to discredit the video, but add to it something someone may have found interesting. I fully comprehend what was said in the video. It appears you either misattribute or don't comprehend my motives for the comment and are using them as a vehicle for pedantry.
Thank you very well explained to a layman like myself with great visuals.
What an amazing video.......I enjoyed it from start to finish. Really learnt alot!
Well, you could overcome the altitude limitations of piston engines with superchargers and turbochargers, but that adds a *LOT* of complexity to the engine. For example, the Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 has 1,600 bhp, but that two-stage supercharging equipment makes it far more complex than the original Merlin models.
Also, look into the forced induction system for the Grob Strato 2c.
Just another procedure or so.
You seldom miss anything Sky, but how about the new diesel engines that run jet-a? Several are very popular today, and the new high speed prototype with the V-12 diesel. Just a thought.... --gary
No, sky was correct about the general purpose of each engine. Diesels, mainly used in Diamond Aircraft and others, are great. They are efficient and probably more reliable then petrol ones. But for large part/far 25 aircraft, pistons are a dead end due to the scale, weight and complexity issues that are well explained in the video.
Diesel is far-far heavier than already heavy normal avigas piston engine when still maintaining same power due to self-ignite super-high compression demand. The goal of the aircraft diesel engine is only for efficiency. Not something that solve the world problem. Heck, we already have Napier Nomad with complex exhaust energy recovery system to overcome really bad power-to-weight ratio, and still pain in butt to use
@@bocahdongo7769 Yeah, you are absolutely right. Let’s make a direct comparison. DA-40 NG with Austro AE300 engine and a little older DA-40 XLT with Lycoming IO-360-M1A. The Austro diesel is a 131 LBS heavier than the Lycoming. MTOW grew a little bit also, DA-40 NG at 2888 LBS vs DA-40 XLT at 2535 LBS. But don’t let the increase in the MTOW fool you. Seats full range for the NG is whopping 561 NM against the XLT with just 410 NM, both 75% power setting, 6000ft, still air. See the difference? Heavier aircraft with heavier engine and still itcan fly further, much further. Why? The diesel is simply that more efficient.
@@Gemini1721999 Epic answer.. Kaito lived in the past...
@@flexairz Yeah, the future for GA is the diesel. But don’t let my answer fool you, I still love Avgas engines. Mainly because I fly the old Zlin Z-142 with Walter/Avia M 337 inverted inline six cylinder engine with radial compressor (supercharger), burning 40 litres of Avgas per hour :D. It’s a good feeling having 210 hp at 6000ft, +6g -4g acceleration capable military trainer aircraft. Oh, btw, rental cost is not bigger than a Cessna c172p. That’s a win win I think.
Entertaining and Informative at the same time
Superb quality and interesting videos. All are very well made and not too long - enjoy watching all of them. Like me, you deserve more subs! :)
Very well put together piece. Excellent Clear, Concise, Comparative. Well done !! Thank you. Altitude, speed, horsepower were covered brilliantly. Range and fuel consumption could have been tweaked a tad, and the wonderful ISP might not have been needed here but perhaps the next one. I think rockets vs jets is going to be a big factor in the future as trans continental travel moves towards rockets to get into hyper speeds. Also another one is to cover electric vs jets.
Great content keep it up 💜
Great presentation; factual, clear, balanced, spassiba!
Question to the experts here: If I stand on the street and some Cessna flies couple hundred meters above me, how much of the sound I hear is from the engine and how much is the prop?
Warbirds sound miles better than many turboprops, but I don't know if they are louder
Interesting point you made there. I do wonder how a modern ~1200 hp piston engine would look like. Much smaller than the monsters of the 40s, for certain
Still pretty much the same. Yeah-yeah, there's tons of auto engine that can reach 1200 hp. But, they lack of sustaining time due to nature of high boost and high RPM. You can tune down the RPM, but in the end you must shove more displacement, make it bigger. And still more or less same with engine from 40s
Heck, even GE T700 is lighter than Bugatti Veyron engine, but produce more than twice the power
@@bocahdongo7769 you get a fuel consumption reduction tho. For example: MB M103 inline 6 SOHC (3.0L) with KE-Jetronic (electro-mechanical injection) get's around 8km/L, while the M104 inline 6 DOHC (3.2L) with electronic injection, can get up to 22km/L when properly tuned.
Liquid-cooled V12 Bore: 120 mm Stroke: 100 mm Displacement: 13.6 liters Power: 1,200 hp @ 4,800 rpm Mean piston speed at full power: 16 m/s BMEP at full power: 240 psi Edit: Weight would probably be 1,000 pounds, or less. - A modern engine could be even smaller than this (~10 liters), as BMEP was up to 300 psi by the end of the piston age, but efficiency might begin to suffer at higher pressures. - The compression ratio could be much higher than engines from the '30s-'40s, even when burning unleaded fuel, this would significantly increase fuel efficiency. With a 98 octane fuel (Swift UL94), a 12:1 compression ratio would likely be achievable. With modern knock sensor technology and precise control of the ignition timing and fuel mixture by an EFI system, there'd be little need to create a safety buffer against knock by keeping the compression ratio low. Closed loop operation (using O2 sensors in the exhaust) would allow for highly precise control of the fuel mixture. FADEC would allow for the engine to be controlled with a single power lever, greatly reducing pilot workload. LOP operation would be automatic and there'd likely never be a need to run the engine ROP, except to mitigate knock in an unusual operating condition. FADEC would also eliminate human errors in operation, significantly improving safety and reliability. Modern turbochargers would be used in place of a supercharger, adding to increased efficiency. The modern understanding of engine geometry (bore to stroke ratio, ports, combustion chambers, cams, etc), along with modern friction reducing technologies would also add significantly to improved fuel efficiency by reducing pumping and friction losses. - Still, though, turbines are so light and reliable that no one would consider building an engine like this. All of these advancements could be applied to engines making less than 400 hp, though, as turbines of less than 400 hp absolutely guzzle fuel and are insanely expensive.
Made a bunch of edits to my previous comment.
11:00 For 6 years I lived in the town where that piston engine sits outside everyday. I've never seen it turn on before, so that's really cool to see!
Man, this was a great video. I learned a lot
Piston engines have powered the DC-3 for 85 years and will continue powering it for another 85
DC-3's with turboprop (BT-67) : *am i a joke to you*
Ouch!
BT-67 : "Don't remind me with my past!'
only because DC-3 doesnt have limited air frame hours... but many of DC-3 are getting converted to turbo props
@@jebise1126 Simply because they don't have pressurized fuselage like all the jet plane do. So there's barely any stress on main frame other than landing
Sounds like I'm watching a Russian version of the video with 2x speed.
Great information and comparisons.
Excellent comparison
1:21 That's a B-36 Peacemaker. And it actually has 6 piston engines, and 4 jet engines lol
6 turning 4 burning
two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for.
Sky: Nobody is going to put a $500,000 engine in a $500,000 plane. Reality: Some guy puts a $500,000 in a $100,000 Lancair kit plane. 🤷🏾♂️
Yeah :D Mike Patey with his Draco Wilga
Really? 🤣
Check out the AG planes!
Your right normally they put 2 in. King airs still being used are being upgraded to higher power engines normally at 2nd or 3rd overhaul . Sir another 500k overhaul, or 1M for new engines that make us 30 nm/he faster?
He said "nobody" but he meant no sane person.
Why do I feel like I just got a lecture from StrongBad!? Lol.. good stuff.
Pretty freaking cool. Fantastic.
12:35 high probability I've flown in this plane. Does local flights from Nairobi, Kenya.
Really confused why you decided to use kilometers when talking about altitude when the entire world uses feet as a standard.
metres*
@@freevbucks8019 : I live in a metric country. . . But for aviation, we use feet.
I know, right? Maybe he doesn't fly?
@@dewiz9596 aren't we talking airplanes here?
Well, perfect movie. Excellent narration. Thank you for your effort :)
excellent videos!
Excelent vids, I enjoy them very much I am a professional pilot in north america. It would be great if its posible to give altitudes in feet along with kilometers. That would make a lot more sense to your north american audience. Keep up the great work.
Dude, the whole world uses metric except a few countries, but I understand you
Skyships I'm limited in my ability to throw stones as I don't produce content, so I could never say I could do better, but this is the first of your films I'm almost disappointed at. You are trying to differentiate between piston and turboprop aircraft. Basic technology explanation isn't generally what you have done but OK this is a departure. I feel because this isn't what you normally do this video isn't as clear as normal. Piston Vs Turboshaft an OK idea but you then venture onto jets. Yet the jets you venture onto are a mixture of pure turbojets and as in the modern passenger jets high bypass turbofans which are somewhat closer to turboprops. Even I'm not going to go into the experimental unducted fans. Yet all are a sliding scale on each other. The predominance of cheap flight envelope extending turbochargers in the economy end, such as in gyrocopters that generally don't need them. (Yes they do but I think you can see what I mean) Why are we using such old engine designs in general aviation? If any company couldn't design a smaller more efficient engine to displace the Continental they deserve to go out of business. Which brings up the extraordinary costs of general aviation in the West. Let us ensure everything is safe, so we increase the entry costs to exclude all but the few and continue with inferior engines. Finally, the only new general aviation piston engines I tend to see progress on, the kerosene burning new piston Diesels. I do love your videos Skyships. The follow up to this might be complex but unlike the MSM I think you believe your viewers could understand it.
Well, i like the things you say. Let’s see how far are the diesels gonna make it with Diamond Aircraft in the lead. Me personally, I don’t like them, even though they are efficient and probably more reliable. Maybe because I’m used to old tech. Who knows.
@@Gemini1721999 I have no idea. I don't know enough. The background economics constantly change also. President Trump has chosen to frack, now that won't make oil as cheap as water but it is like a dissociation constant in weak acid chemistry. It provides a buffer and oil prices won't rise above a given point or massive extraction resources kick in. Beyond the scope of this it gives America energy freedom. Now we are going through one crisis at the moment but generally carriers have bought newer planes to help offset the price increases in fuel. What if fuel prices flatlined. This is not as relevant to small Diesel aircraft as fuel availability, but who knows?
@@COIcultist Yeah, let’s just hope the prices of oil won’t go down, rather oppositely, will go up. I’m no Greta, but what would the decrease of oil prices have done to the environment? Especially now, when we need the pressure on the world economies, to shift to renewable energy sources. Otherwise our children can live in a very different world than we live in now. If you are interested in this topic, try to look at the video “Curious Droid - Is hydrogen the future of flight?”. In my opinion, diesel, petrol, or rather every engine using fossil fuel, will become obsolete one day. Some of them already are.
@@Gemini1721999 I would like a world of clean air and clean water but I don't give a toss for the CO2 non science. Renewable energy. In most of the Northern Hemisphere population centres it doesn't work we don't have the energy density to generate sufficient energy from solar and wind farms. Let alone sufficient reliable energy from them. Wind doesn't blow at times and when it's cold at night there is no solar power. How are the brown out in California and Australia working out? I have a friend who helps design hydrogen generators for fuel cell fuel. The most efficient form of hydrogen generation is through chemical action. However, the hydrogen produced is not clean enough for fuel cells. That needs hydrogen produced by electrolysis. This is desperately inefficient, it is breaking chemical bonds with raw electrical energy. Electrical energy. I always thought about 50% of the consumed fuels energy arrived at my house as electricity. It doesn't, alas figures aren't great they appear to vary between low 30s% and high 30s%. So if we said 35% then after the house domestic voltage transformer to charging voltage loss, the battery charge to battery recovered energy loss and the motor loss make battery electric vehicles far less efficient than a petrol engine let alone Diesel engine. Remember our hydrogen fuel cell? Well 1/3rd of the product by molarity and 16/18ths of the product by mass is very clean oxygen. What do they do with that expensive product? Don't be stupid they are not paid grant money for that so it is just vented to atmosphere. Wonderfully efficient! If you believe in the man made global warming scam. Sorry I do apologise as there is no warming it is now called man made climate change, then why are you viewing an aviation channel? No foreign holidays for you. Very limited vehicle travel. Vegetarian diet, though how they fertilise that without animals without the use of agrichemical nitrates I don't know. On second thoughts no chemical nitrates as we have closed down the oil business. Why not buy yourself a hair shirt while you are at it and flagellate yourself daily whilst praying to the Blessed Greta?
@@COIcultist That's quite the load of nonsense you spewed out there. How many large powerplants are located in city centers? Have you ever noticed those big steel towers that hum? They carry power from places where it is generated to where it is used. Brown outs are pretty rare, but there are power shutdowns when strong winds blow to avoid having downed powerline destroy whole towns as happened with Paradise. That has nothing to do with renewable energy and everything to do with the utility paying shareholders before maintenance crews.
The right way of doing a comparison 🔥.
Excellent description.
Very informative. Thanks for sharing.
Super nice video! Thank you sir.
wow, great information, thanks
Great video. learned a lot.
Great video, like pretty much all of yours I have seen. Just one tiny detail that caught my ear... I'd much rather hear the term turbofan than jet engine connected to modern airliners. Especially in a video going deep into differences of different engine types.
11.50 THAT caught me off guard about seeing the "HOUSE"!🤣LMAOOL Man this guy cracks me UP, while giving great facts and figures! This is my favorite aviation site on KZhead, most revelantly since, "then" in reference to him saying,"now." You the MAN, SKYY, YOU ARE THE BOSS!!! LOVE YOUR VIDS!👍🏿✌🏿
Great video !!!!
Sky, thank you for this excellent video I learnt much... can you do a video on the Otto Celera 500L? With consumption closer to an SUV?
You probably know, but in case you missed it, he did, about one month after your comment.
Quality video. Thank you.
Great explainations!
Very well explained to my level of understanding
Wow! Thankyou brother, for this information.
awesome review