The most dangerous period for an engine is at the end of its life but also at the START of its life. They do suffer from infant mortality issues due to assembly flaws or undetected defects, and the 1st 100 hrs is riskier than subsequent hours. A Lycoming is at its safest between 200 and 2000 hours. Even there, an engine like an O-360 will readily go 3-4000 hours with perfectly good safety if maintained and operated carefully. The most important single item is proper inspection of the exhaust valve of each cylinder with a borescope to detect leakage, and detection of stem/guide binding and reaming if necessary. Next is monitoring the camshaft, a weakness with Lycomings, although the degradation is gradual. Take care of the exhaust valves and change the oil regularly and keep and eye on the cam and lifters, and they'll run just about forever.
@@user-3tf67bk46u But the Lyc IO-540 in the R44 has separate left/right mags (vs the dual mag you see on some Lycs) so any kind of ignition failure that caused rough running should have been addressed by shutting off the mag. A single mag failure or timing problem should not bring down a machine if the pilot is on the ball.
90% of the piston engine problems can be solved if the manufacturers start producing aviation piston engines with technology similar to atleast automotive engines from 90s
@@yerrakrishna1699 Turbine burns jet A which is cheaper than avgas and it is widely available around the world unlike avgas but that is where diesel engine comes in. it is even more efficient than normal avgas piston engine and it burns jet A, so it is a win win...
Being an A& P mechanic I really haven't seen a stuck valve in the Lycoming but a cracked jug. The cylinder where the manufacturer screws the cylinder together is generally where the crack occurs. I have the Allison C250 in my GLASAIR III and I absolutely love it. Flying cross country from Illinois to Arkansas I always file IFR at 17000 FT and it take 2 hours 20 minutes to go a little over 600 miles
Liked your video. The compressor, at the front of the Allison engine, compresses the air for combustion. Fuel added in the combustion chamber ignites to drive two sets of turbine wheels. The first set is driving the compressor, the second is connected to the gear case where rpm is decreased to output shaft speed. My father suffered a catastrophic engine failure in 1986 when the first set of wheels sheared off the shaft due to a flaw in the wheel casting. This is very rare.
Allison engines are the best. Rolls Royce might have bought them out though. I believe Allison was in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Not sure but I think so.
Please note that it is the pistons that move up and down not the cylinders and in the jet engine that the air flow is introduced before fuel is added or you will get a melt down or a HOT START ergo ultimate engine destruction. Otherwise a really good description by you on all your technical videos. Cheers😀Henry.
The helicopter{ turboshaft } or turbine engine was invented by Turbomeca a french company. Now Safran Turbomeca helicopter.in 1948. In 1955, Turbomeca's Artouste II turboshaft engine was adopted for the new Sud Aviation Alouette II helicopter, which became the world's first production turbine-powered helicopter one year later...Starting in 1957, the firm started the manufacture of the Bastan turboprop for the Aérospatiale N 262 airliner.
Thanks for this briljant explanation. Although not working in avation, I have been reading about helicopters for about thirty years now and your film at last made some of the technical stuff more clear. And doing that by just talking and using your hands: magnificent job sir!!!
I don’t know about Aircraft piston engines, but besides stuck valves bent pushrods and broken springs can cause top end failures. Another problem is multi groove valve keepers. Don’t ever use them in a car that see any spirited driving and I would go out of my way to avoid them in an aircraft engine. Another really common failure point on Chevy Angie said is when some guys rebuild or re-ring their engines they don’t replace the oil pump pickup tubes. Then they seal,the oil pan with silicone. If they use too much the excess Silicone gets pinched off and breaks loose to float around in the oil pan, where the oil pump pickup sucks into the odor pump which then seizes, destroying the engine. Always replace the oil pump pickup tubes and follow manufacturer specs when using any kind of gasket sealer!
I've spent most of my time in turbine helicopters. On a whim, I went over to a flight school and jumped in an R22. After that experience, I'll never get in another piston helicopter again. I'll be waiting for the Hill HX-50 :)
Great explanation ... Misha, please feel free to continue with your feelings on different aspects of the helicopter. I enjoy hearing your views... maybe talk about the different avionics packages available in a helicopter and why different people choose them over other packages. Still hoping for news or teasers on 4 seater Capri... All in all great video .. cheers Andy
Thank you very much for taking the extra time to explain the difference between the two, i was shocked to learn the differences in replacement costs, almost a deal breaker some might say. Really enjoyed the way you explained how the fuel costs pan out similar overall. Perhaps you can also include running costs per hour as well?
As for a Hot start of the turbine we must crank before to cool down to the accepted temperature. Ex EC120B needs to be less than 150degrees to restart.
There are a nuber more things on turbines that were not included here and for this group are just as well because the subject is reliability vs a recip engine. But you are correct in heat is the killer of jet engines. Heat and fod. You covered both to a degree. As a A&P, IA for 40+ years, Trained by the Navy on jets I would say you have a better than average grasp of the subject. As with most things the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper. Have a great day and be safe.
Based on current fuel prices in the UK, (£1.50ex.VAT for 100LL and £0.50ex.VAT for JetA1 per litre) the RR600 will burn about £80,000 of fuel over the 2000TBO but the IO-540 will burn £180,000 in the same time, or £198,000 in its time TBO. There’s a massive saving to offset the costs.
Thats very sincere analysis of Piston and Tubrbine engine . you are so dedicated and sone very nice work . I enjoyed from starting to end of this vedio . great work . I really appreicate ...
Hi, I had been Flying the R44, for 20 Years for the tuna fishing industries. That is more than 13k hours. Let me tell you: NO ENGINE FAILURE AT ALL...YET.
Power to weight ratio in a turbine is hard to beat! Another one for me would be noise, those Lycoming can get loud! but are very reliable when properly maintained. If price was no option turbine is the way to go. If it were my first chopper and I wanted to see if it's something I would really enjoy and fly a lot then I would start with a piston move up into a Turbine. hopefully in the future battery technology will give us enough energy to power the main rotor and would make helicopters more affordable!
Technically a gas turbine is a internal combustion engine since combustion is inside the engine compared to a external combustion engine as in powerstations
Just a wording suggestion. Nothing should ever explode in either type of engine. The Fuel/Air mixture Combusts or Burns. The same as a firearm with gunpowder. The powder burns and doesn’t explode. Occasionally a firearm will explode but that is due to an ammunition problem, a blocked barrel, etc. “Knocking” in piston engine is called detonation and is sort of like a mini explosion in the cylinders. If allowed to persist it will ruin the engine fairly quickly. Not a common problem in properly maintained aviation engines. Before modern FADEC systems the fuel was turned on by the operator once the engine had reached the proper RPM. Occasionally, the operator would fail to turn the igniters on before the fuel was injected into the combustion chamber. If you then switched the igniters on there could be an explosion and/or fire usually causing significant engine damage. No pilot ever wants anything exploding in piston or turbine engines. Check out the AgentJayZ channel. You will learn everything you ever wanted to know about gas turbine engines.
Thank you so much for explaining the distinctions between the two aviation engine technologies. Back in the 80s the explanation was too simplistic but I did understand the basic dynamics of their operations. I was not surprised that the first generation Jet engines burnt out quite quickly because the one or two stage compressors and single stage turbines worked too hard. The introduction of more stages allowed the sharing of the burden of combustion in all stages by the second generation jet engines and thus started the new evolution of new jet engines that has spanned the 60s and 70s to the present day. I noticed that the American jet engines underwent regular TBO settings because of great overuse in both the war and civil applications. I think the same applies to both Russian and Chinese jet engines currently. So far since the middle 90s jet engine types have stabilized and maintained great technical endurance and reliability due to the introduction of much better high tensile components. I presume that jet engines of the mid 40s could climb faster and maintain rate of climb even with powerful armament and offensive payloads and even when firing their cannon on the climb the performance of the aircraft is not compromised. Note the difference with the high performance radial pistons and some good quality inline aero engines. The former could generate a lot of potential energy thanks to the repetitive and copious generation of energy..one exhaust stub could accummulate all the different outlets of the mini exhausts for the generation of thrust. the wide air intake obviated the need for a radiator. the cool air allowed the intake of a generous amount of air which were impelled and heated up by the multiple spark plugs forming a roundrel around the nose of the open blunt nose of the engine nacelle. At least it was stable and more reliable than the rotary engines of the first world war. I think the radial piston engine was an evolution of the rotary engine with air cooling replacing the castor oil of the first world war. Please do not be offended but I do have a number of questions that I want to put to you. 1. Would it make a lot of a difference if the second world war pistons were constructed of carbon resistant materials today? 2. If the aero pistons were powered by autogas would it affected the power integrity of the high throttle settings used for take off? 3. With reference to the first question as an add-on, would the use of carbon resistant materials not allow for the greater dimensions of the aero engine thus permitting greater generation of horse power to equal if not surpass that produced by the turbo props? 4. Can you give me the names of any company that will be happy to look at my designs and ideas for a new set of engines as I do have an inventive mind? Thank you so much for even making time to read my piece. Lenin Chigbundu/ conbin@live.co.uk
Im not an A&P but I think Allison engines are now made by Rolls Royce after buying out GM. Im amazed that our C-20B has about the same fuel burn as the RR! Another fine concise video brother. Fly safe! 206 Capt.
Paul G. - Yep cracking the throttle to modulate a start in a 206 makes you work for it. For what it’s worth, newer technology engines are much much easier to start as they are self-modulating (as long as everything goes to plan) via FADEC and similar competitor systems.
Congratulations on a brilliant discussion of a very complex subject. You did a very good job of making everything understandable. I would offer one small point for clarification: In your description of the turbine engine operations you stated that it was a “direct drive system.” Actually, in the free-turbine engine example used it is not a direct drive. The gas producer (N1) and power turbine (N2) in a free-turbine engine are pneumatically connected, not a direct drive system. In a fixed-turbine engine (such as the Turomeca used in the Alouette) the N1 and N2 are mechanically connected and require a clutch system similar to that of the piston engine helicopter. Thus, the difference between a free and fixed-turbine engine.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with you about cost. I always wondered why larger car engines cost so much more. Basically, the exact same engine with slightly large bore and larger pistons. The manufacturing could not be that much more. I guess the answer is, just because they can get more for it. More demand. One day the Chinese will copy the turbine engine and sell it at Harbor Freight. Then you can use a 20 percent off coupon and buy is for the same price as a lawn mower. Will not need spare parts, just throw another one in when it goes.
Hey Misha, a little input on why powerplants are not developed anymore. For a simple reason: costs. It costs tens of millions to get 0,5-2% more efficiency on engines compare to what we already have. So even car makers are not even trying anymore (it's much more interesting financially speaking to update injections systems/electronic parts/etc to gain some efficiency than to work directly on a new engine). It's a bit different with turbines as there is still a bit of a bitter range of efficiency upgrade to hope for, but not really by that much. Without a breakthrough and/or newer revolutionary materials, nothing will really move in the matter.
because all that is there to gain some efficiency...moving parts are at the peak 96-98%eff. tha last thing where can be done some good are the combustion (thats has like 40% ish eff) and the unused heat going out of the exhaust( thats horrible even on turbocharged engines) . there is no more room..or use more exotic materials that can handle much higher temperatures so the indicated work of 4 stroke engine cycle would be larger.
A question and then some pedantry: from my reading from "how to fly helicopters" books there's a minimum power airspeed, about 40kts where the helicopter is at maximum endurance, minimum power/fuel flow. With a heavier load, this speed increases, right? So my question is then, if you have an R66 and an R44 with the same loads which one has the lower maximum endurance speed? I assume that with range variation (needing more fuel in the R66 to get somewhere) eventually one of these two will be more efficient for the job than the other - for short ranges the R66 would be really light and burn much less fuel. Now the pedantry. The air goes through the compressor first, not a turbine. Your R66 will have 1 centrifugal compressor (surprised it doesn't have an axial one), a 2 stage turbine after the combustors to drive the compressor, and then a 2 stage power turbine to drive the rotor system. The compressor is not a turbine, it doesn't absorb power from a fluid and convert it into shaft power, it does it the other way around. Check out AgentJayZ's youtube channel for a really thorough run through of everything jet engine and gas generator. He even does helicopter engines, but they seem to usually go into boats. Canadian guy, too.
Pretty good explanation of things ... and both systems if procedures are followed should be 100 % reliable ... There is one remarkable divergence though .. A turboshaft engine is generally 5 times as expensive as the equivalent piston engine though as you pointed out once they get past 400 HP there are no equivalent piston engines ... They simply do not make any .... Now a piston engine usually wins hands down in thermodynamic efficiency ( less fuel for equivalent power ). But as you mentioned as well the turbine is half the weight ... In a two to four seat heli the piston engine wins by a landslide on procurement and operational cost ...Cheaper to buy and run
Nice video breaking it all down. I got my PPL(H) back in 1987 at age 17... getting sentimental about GA again and thinking I should get current and fly again. Not so keen on the Robinsons thought I have to admit.. but they seem to be cheap to own and fly and very popular now. Just wish they would put in a real cyclic :)
I have to admit, I was a little surprised at how close the power figures were between the two, at least with respects to the Robinson models you were comparing. I was also surprised at how close the TBO numbers were. From what I've read, I would have thought the turbine would have had a noticeably high TBO number. On the power derating thing, you talked about how that was good for engine longevity and that makes a lot of sense. However, with respects to helicopters, I've wondered how much the power ratings for the helicopters main drive systems (main drive belts, transmission and tail drive sections) might be involved in derating the engines installed? Can you comment on that? Thanks!
Given the same transmission a piston engine will usually be rated lower than a turbine for the same transmission. This is due to a piston engine having torque pulses and gears don't like surges in torque. A turbine has a smooth constant flow of power. With these old engines they are also air-cooled and suffer from poor cooling so they require de-rating. Part of their Shaft power is also consumed by the cooling fan, so the net power available to the transmission is lower again. It is common for Robinsons to require a rebuild after as little as 100 hours due to overheating of the cylinder heads. Bottom line is, the engines used were not designed for helicopters, they were just available. Belt failures and over heating are the most common issues for Robinson forced landing here in Australia.
Power Turbine, or Turboshaft is a better description than gas turbine. The latter is for jet propelled aircraft. Each engine brings its own technological issues for sure. If you need big power, the Turboshaft is the only go-to.
What was the biggest internal combustion engine used in a heli? Maybe the P&W 600hp Radial used in the Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw, first flight 1949, 1728 of the type built. Later powered by a 700hp Wright R-1300-3 Radial
@@jamesshepard1606 Sure, what is appropriate for the need, the same as light fixed wings, most are internal combustion, lot of automotive units are even being used now - turbines are for the extremely well heeled.
@@Wolfhound_81 Yes it seems so: Wiki tells me the Mojave had two R-2800 engines: twin-row, 18-cylinder 46l, 2,400 hp (1,800 kW), 1940 vintage, also powered the likes of the Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Marauder and Invader. And the first constellations!
I love the sound of a turbine engine spooling up, I love both types of engine but my favourite has to be the good old piston engine preferably with carburettor, I find piston engines a lot easier to work on/fix etc and I love the sound they make
Nowadays a 1000cc inline 4Cyl Engine produce more than 200 Horsepower(mainly litre class motorcycle engines) so slam a supercharger or a turbocharger on it and it will easily produce anywhere between 300 to 400 Horsepower and will be really efficient and very reliable which they've already proved...!
“Stuck valve” will be caused by a dropped valve seat, or a valve stem seal that came out, leaving the valve in the open position and in most cases striking the piston. It can be caused by low quality fuel, carbon buildup, detonation, wrong timing, to lean of a mixture, etc.
A valve stem seal that "comes out" would simply cause that cylinder to use oil, it won't immediately stick the valve. A loose seat could hold a valve open, but that's not the common issue that is described here. The issue described here would be carbon build-up on the valve stem that prevents the valve from fully returning to the seat, OR a tight valve guide that pinches on the valve stem. Air cooled engine head temperatures vary much more than a liquid cooled engine, and valve train issues can show up more because of it.
I've noticed that a R44 has better tail rotor authority then a R66 or even a Bell 407 and I think that's because the governor in the derated piston engine can power up faster then a turbine can spool up when it quickly needs a little extra power.
It's not just the metallurgy but that is a big part of it. Another is the artistry needed in construction of the engine. The combustion process in a piston engine is periodic while in a turbine combustion is continuous. Also a piston engine is a reciprocating engine. Big heavy parts reversing direction. A turbine is just rotating. So lower inertia loads.
@@EricFB The price reflects everything to do with the engine than just RR. The exotic materials involved, the machining processes, the precision balancing required because of the high G loads on the parts, the verification processes of the final parts, the assembly procedures, and so on.
loading - unloading - loading - unloading on a long line cargo MD600 flying up and down the mountains puts much more stress on the turbine than flying a Sikorsky S-92 to the oil platform and back.
ill reply fred,notar is chanelled turbine exhaust gas,enclosed is still as other shaft driven systems and open is just not enclosed.performance,they are all "tuned"to perform"anti torque"the most safety difference is...if you get very close to a notar system,its a bad hair day with a bronze tan,if you bump into an enclosed system,with your hands in your pocket,just abump on the head,if you walk into an open powered up tail rotor you will become salami,whilst,at the same time,whilst the tail rotor is shredding you,the tail boom will collapse,because of the torque contradiction.i hope this helps.
Your description of turbines could use a little bit of improvement in your use of terminology. There isn’t a turbine at the front of the engine. There is a compressor at the front that is driven be a turbine at the back. This is your free turbine which will turn at various speeds based on your power requirements. Downstream of the turbine driving your compressor is your power turbine which is governed to maintain a constant speed.
Love it that there is no stupid background music, just the good information :)
Nothing like the sound of a turbine spooling up! I watch videos just to hear that!
That whine is the sound of your wallet draining. Nothing beats it
bah. pistons sound awesome
Turbines: better starting. Ls swapped 172: better when flying
Am new to have interest in rotor aviation, n this video has given me ample info. Thank u bro
The most dangerous period for an engine is at the end of its life but also at the START of its life. They do suffer from infant mortality issues due to assembly flaws or undetected defects, and the 1st 100 hrs is riskier than subsequent hours. A Lycoming is at its safest between 200 and 2000 hours. Even there, an engine like an O-360 will readily go 3-4000 hours with perfectly good safety if maintained and operated carefully. The most important single item is proper inspection of the exhaust valve of each cylinder with a borescope to detect leakage, and detection of stem/guide binding and reaming if necessary. Next is monitoring the camshaft, a weakness with Lycomings, although the degradation is gradual. Take care of the exhaust valves and change the oil regularly and keep and eye on the cam and lifters, and they'll run just about forever.
cant go 4000 hours. fed gov law says it must be rebuilt at 2000 hours
@@dknowles60 Not true, part 91 you can go on condition.
@@andrewagner2035 wrong again . Fed Gov Law say it all
@@user-3tf67bk46u But the Lyc IO-540 in the R44 has separate left/right mags (vs the dual mag you see on some Lycs) so any kind of ignition failure that caused rough running should have been addressed by shutting off the mag. A single mag failure or timing problem should not bring down a machine if the pilot is on the ball.
90% of the piston engine problems can be solved if the manufacturers start producing aviation piston engines with technology similar to atleast automotive engines from 90s
Like Rotax you mean? They just need to produce a big enough engine to power a helicopter, their biggest the 915is is only 141hp
Turbine fuel is cheaper than ic engine, so this guy is promoting turbine engine. I might be wrong but that's fact I observed
@@Jonay1990 yeah like a rotax at the least.
@@yerrakrishna1699 Turbine burns jet A which is cheaper than avgas and it is widely available around the world unlike avgas but that is where diesel engine comes in. it is even more efficient than normal avgas piston engine and it burns jet A, so it is a win win...
@@superchargedpetrolhead bless you child
Being an A& P mechanic I really haven't seen a stuck valve in the Lycoming but a cracked jug. The cylinder where the manufacturer screws the cylinder together is generally where the crack occurs.
I have the Allison C250 in my GLASAIR III and I absolutely love it. Flying cross country from Illinois to Arkansas I always file IFR at 17000 FT and it take 2 hours 20 minutes to go a little over 600 miles
For those subscribers that are not familiar with the basics of these engine types your explanations are very well put. Thanks.
I enjoy these R44 and R66 comparisons as they are the most popular and sold craft period. Please keep these videos coming!
A stuck valve disables one cylinder in a flathead (side valve) engine, while the other 5 still keep working. D-Motor.
Liked your video. The compressor, at the front of the Allison engine, compresses the air for combustion. Fuel added in the combustion chamber ignites to drive two sets of turbine wheels. The first set is driving the compressor, the second is connected to the gear case where rpm is decreased to output shaft speed. My father suffered a catastrophic engine failure in 1986 when the first set of wheels sheared off the shaft due to a flaw in the wheel casting. This is very rare.
Allison engines are the best. Rolls Royce might have bought them out though. I believe Allison was in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Not sure but I think so.
Please note that it is the pistons that move up and down not the cylinders and in the jet engine that the air flow is introduced before fuel is added or you will get a melt down or a HOT START ergo ultimate engine destruction. Otherwise a really good description by you on all your technical videos. Cheers😀Henry.
Why do people thumb down these videos. This guy is great! Love watching your videos
Thanks for being so thorough in your explanation
The helicopter{ turboshaft } or turbine engine was invented by Turbomeca a french company. Now Safran Turbomeca helicopter.in 1948. In 1955, Turbomeca's Artouste II turboshaft engine was adopted for the new Sud Aviation Alouette II helicopter, which became the world's first production turbine-powered helicopter one year later...Starting in 1957, the firm started the manufacture of the Bastan turboprop for the Aérospatiale N 262 airliner.
Good info.
Thanks... Very informative and interesting... Still a turbine fan!!!!!
That was a great explanation. Was curious about how turbines worked.
Yes. That was the best part of the video for me
Thanks for this briljant explanation. Although not working in avation, I have been reading about helicopters for about thirty years now and your film at last made some of the technical stuff more clear. And doing that by just talking and using your hands: magnificent job sir!!!
I don’t know about Aircraft piston engines, but besides stuck valves bent pushrods and broken springs can cause top end failures. Another problem is multi groove valve keepers. Don’t ever use them in a car that see any spirited driving and I would go out of my way to avoid them in an aircraft engine. Another really common failure point on Chevy Angie said is when some guys rebuild or re-ring their engines they don’t replace the oil pump pickup tubes. Then they seal,the oil pan with silicone. If they use too much the excess Silicone gets pinched off and breaks loose to float around in the oil pan, where the oil pump pickup sucks into the odor pump which then seizes, destroying the engine. Always replace the oil pump pickup tubes and follow manufacturer specs when using any kind of gasket sealer!
I've spent most of my time in turbine helicopters. On a whim, I went over to a flight school and jumped in an R22. After that experience, I'll never get in another piston helicopter again. I'll be waiting for the Hill HX-50 :)
I personally like the Military explanation.
Turbine, we win battles and get stuff where it needs to go.
Piston, we are just goofing off. lol
Professor Misha. I love this new curriculum. Keep it up.
Thanqu sir good explain for tarbain and piston engine s love from india
Super presentation. I liked that an average person could understand it who has no mechanical base into this field etc.
Dang that's some detailed comparison. Very different from the usual comparison u get from youtubers based on personal taste lol .. + respect
Great explanation ... Misha, please feel free to continue with your feelings on different aspects of the helicopter. I enjoy hearing your views... maybe talk about the different avionics packages available in a helicopter and why different people choose them over other packages. Still hoping for news or teasers on 4 seater Capri... All in all great video .. cheers Andy
Excellent! I agree. Would like to know more about the possible 4 seater and various avionics pkgs too.
Good job on explaining the engines. I learned a lot!!
Hope you guys are safe, well & keeping sane? Great video, please keep them coming! Can you see Guimbal offering a turbine option on the G2?
Gosh, no. But a Rotax 916 upgrade would be nice instead of this '50s carb crap.
Thank you very much for taking the extra time to explain the difference between the two, i was shocked to learn the differences in replacement costs, almost a deal breaker some might say. Really enjoyed the way you explained how the fuel costs pan out similar overall. Perhaps you can also include running costs per hour as well?
As for a Hot start of the turbine we must crank before to cool down to the accepted temperature. Ex EC120B needs to be less than 150degrees to restart.
Excellent description of both perks and flaws, and specially I enjoy the start sequence explanation.
Thank you for your explanation of the two types of aircraft power systems great job for teaching a new excite
There are a nuber more things on turbines that were not included here and for this group are just as well because the subject is reliability vs a recip engine. But you are correct in heat is the killer of jet engines. Heat and fod. You covered both to a degree. As a A&P, IA for 40+ years, Trained by the Navy on jets I would say you have a better than average grasp of the subject. As with most things the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper. Have a great day and be safe.
Well done a must watch for every student.
Based on current fuel prices in the UK, (£1.50ex.VAT for 100LL and £0.50ex.VAT for JetA1 per litre) the RR600 will burn about £80,000 of fuel over the 2000TBO but the IO-540 will burn £180,000 in the same time, or £198,000 in its time TBO. There’s a massive saving to offset the costs.
Thats very sincere analysis of Piston and Tubrbine engine . you are so dedicated and sone very nice work . I enjoyed from starting to end of this vedio . great work . I really appreicate ...
Metal parts reversing direction thousands of times per minute vs all parts moving in the same direction. The biggest factor; Cost.
Power density too. Big power in a small package with the Turboshaft.
Hi, I had been Flying the R44, for 20 Years for the tuna fishing industries. That is more than 13k hours. Let me tell you: NO ENGINE FAILURE AT ALL...YET.
you can always auto-rotate to a safe landing
Finally the video where I get to know the starting and working of a turbine engine....💯💯💯💯💯
Explanation is great...🔥🔥
Hi. You need to start watching Agent Jay Z on utube.
Power to weight ratio in a turbine is hard to beat! Another one for me would be noise, those Lycoming can get loud! but are very reliable when properly maintained. If price was no option turbine is the way to go. If it were my first chopper and I wanted to see if it's something I would really enjoy and fly a lot then I would start with a piston move up into a Turbine. hopefully in the future battery technology will give us enough energy to power the main rotor and would make helicopters more affordable!
What about the extra fuel that is needed? Does fuel not weigh anything?
You deserve more subs! Always enjoyed your videos!
Technically a gas turbine is a internal combustion engine since combustion is inside the engine compared to a external combustion engine as in powerstations
Just a wording suggestion. Nothing should ever explode in either type of engine. The Fuel/Air mixture Combusts or Burns. The same as a firearm with gunpowder. The powder burns and doesn’t explode. Occasionally a firearm will explode but that is due to an ammunition problem, a blocked barrel, etc.
“Knocking” in piston engine is called detonation and is sort of like a mini explosion in the cylinders. If allowed to persist it will ruin the engine fairly quickly. Not a common problem in properly maintained aviation engines. Before modern FADEC systems the fuel was turned on by the operator once the engine had reached the proper RPM. Occasionally, the operator would fail to turn the igniters on before the fuel was injected into the combustion chamber. If you then switched the igniters on there could be an explosion and/or fire usually causing significant engine damage. No pilot ever wants anything exploding in piston or turbine engines. Check out the AgentJayZ channel. You will learn everything you ever wanted to know about gas turbine engines.
Very informative.
Now I know the differences between the two types of engines and their particular values.
Thank you so much for explaining the distinctions between the two aviation engine technologies. Back in the 80s the explanation was too simplistic but I did understand the basic dynamics of their operations. I was not surprised that the first generation Jet engines burnt out quite quickly because the one or two stage compressors and single stage turbines worked too hard. The introduction of more stages allowed the sharing of the burden of combustion in all stages by the second generation jet engines and thus started the new evolution of new jet engines that has spanned the 60s and 70s to the present day. I noticed that the American jet engines underwent regular TBO settings because of great overuse in both the war and civil applications. I think the same applies to both Russian and Chinese jet engines currently. So far since the middle 90s jet engine types have stabilized and maintained great technical endurance and reliability due to the introduction of much better high tensile components. I presume that jet engines of the mid 40s could climb faster and maintain rate of climb even with powerful armament and offensive payloads and even when firing their cannon on the climb the performance of the aircraft is not compromised. Note the difference with the high performance radial pistons and some good quality inline aero engines. The former could generate a lot of potential energy thanks to the repetitive and copious generation of energy..one exhaust stub could accummulate all the different outlets of the mini exhausts for the generation of thrust. the wide air intake obviated the need for a radiator. the cool air allowed the intake of a generous amount of air which were impelled and heated up by the multiple spark plugs forming a roundrel around the nose of the open blunt nose of the engine nacelle. At least it was stable and more reliable than the rotary engines of the first world war. I think the radial piston engine was an evolution of the rotary engine with air cooling replacing the castor oil of the first world war.
Please do not be offended but I do have a number of questions that I want to put to you.
1. Would it make a lot of a difference if the second world war pistons were constructed of carbon resistant materials today?
2. If the aero pistons were powered by autogas would it affected the power integrity of the high throttle settings used for take off?
3. With reference to the first question as an add-on, would the use of carbon resistant materials not allow for the greater dimensions of the aero engine thus permitting greater generation of horse power to equal if not surpass that produced by the turbo props?
4. Can you give me the names of any company that will be happy to look at my designs and ideas for a new set of engines as I do have an inventive mind?
Thank you so much for even making time to read my piece.
Lenin Chigbundu/ conbin@live.co.uk
I Think you covered it well
Im not an A&P but I think Allison engines are now made by Rolls Royce after buying out GM. Im amazed that our C-20B has about the same fuel burn as the RR! Another fine concise video brother. Fly safe! 206 Capt.
What's crazy is the oil leakage/burning limitation is 25qts every 50 hours with the r22 o-360-j2a
Very good explanation you are a natural.
Love the explanations. I mostly fly the Bell 206 Jetranger and the R 44. I will say,it takes a brave man to start a turbine engine!
Paul G. - Yep cracking the throttle to modulate a start in a 206 makes you work for it. For what it’s worth, newer technology engines are much much easier to start as they are self-modulating (as long as everything goes to plan) via FADEC and similar competitor systems.
Congratulations on a brilliant discussion of a very complex subject. You did a very good job of making everything understandable. I would offer one small point for clarification: In your description of the turbine engine operations you stated that it was a “direct drive system.” Actually, in the free-turbine engine example used it is not a direct drive. The gas producer (N1) and power turbine (N2) in a free-turbine engine are pneumatically connected, not a direct drive system. In a fixed-turbine engine (such as the Turomeca used in the Alouette) the N1 and N2 are mechanically connected and require a clutch system similar to that of the piston engine helicopter. Thus, the difference between a free and fixed-turbine engine.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with you about cost. I always wondered why larger car engines cost so much more. Basically, the exact same engine with slightly large bore and larger pistons. The manufacturing could not be that much more. I guess the answer is, just because they can get more for it. More demand. One day the Chinese will copy the turbine engine and sell it at Harbor Freight. Then you can use a 20 percent off coupon and buy is for the same price as a lawn mower. Will not need spare parts, just throw another one in when it goes.
Hey Misha, a little input on why powerplants are not developed anymore.
For a simple reason: costs.
It costs tens of millions to get 0,5-2% more efficiency on engines compare to what we already have. So even car makers are not even trying anymore (it's much more interesting financially speaking to update injections systems/electronic parts/etc to gain some efficiency than to work directly on a new engine).
It's a bit different with turbines as there is still a bit of a bitter range of efficiency upgrade to hope for, but not really by that much.
Without a breakthrough and/or newer revolutionary materials, nothing will really move in the matter.
Interesting. I think a big part of the cost is attorneys who drive up the cost of insurance.
because all that is there to gain some efficiency...moving parts are at the peak 96-98%eff. tha last thing where can be done some good are the combustion (thats has like 40% ish eff) and the unused heat going out of the exhaust( thats horrible even on turbocharged engines) . there is no more room..or use more exotic materials that can handle much higher temperatures so the indicated work of 4 stroke engine cycle would be larger.
A question and then some pedantry: from my reading from "how to fly helicopters" books there's a minimum power airspeed, about 40kts where the helicopter is at maximum endurance, minimum power/fuel flow. With a heavier load, this speed increases, right? So my question is then, if you have an R66 and an R44 with the same loads which one has the lower maximum endurance speed? I assume that with range variation (needing more fuel in the R66 to get somewhere) eventually one of these two will be more efficient for the job than the other - for short ranges the R66 would be really light and burn much less fuel.
Now the pedantry. The air goes through the compressor first, not a turbine. Your R66 will have 1 centrifugal compressor (surprised it doesn't have an axial one), a 2 stage turbine after the combustors to drive the compressor, and then a 2 stage power turbine to drive the rotor system. The compressor is not a turbine, it doesn't absorb power from a fluid and convert it into shaft power, it does it the other way around. Check out AgentJayZ's youtube channel for a really thorough run through of everything jet engine and gas generator. He even does helicopter engines, but they seem to usually go into boats. Canadian guy, too.
Pretty good explanation of things ... and both systems if procedures are followed should be 100 % reliable ... There is one remarkable divergence though .. A turboshaft engine is generally 5 times as expensive as the equivalent piston engine though as you pointed out once they get past 400 HP there are no equivalent piston engines ... They simply do not make any .... Now a piston engine usually wins hands down in thermodynamic efficiency ( less fuel for equivalent power ). But as you mentioned as well the turbine is half the weight ... In a two to four seat heli the piston engine wins by a landslide on procurement and operational cost ...Cheaper to buy and run
Nice video breaking it all down. I got my PPL(H) back in 1987 at age 17... getting sentimental about GA again and thinking I should get current and fly again. Not so keen on the Robinsons thought I have to admit.. but they seem to be cheap to own and fly and very popular now. Just wish they would put in a real cyclic :)
thought the front section of the gas turbine was called a compressor
Awesome!! Clarified a lot of my doubts! Thanks a lot
love from India bro. keep it up
hope soon u will be my GURU........
I have to admit, I was a little surprised at how close the power figures were between the two, at least with respects to the Robinson models you were comparing. I was also surprised at how close the TBO numbers were. From what I've read, I would have thought the turbine would have had a noticeably high TBO number. On the power derating thing, you talked about how that was good for engine longevity and that makes a lot of sense. However, with respects to helicopters, I've wondered how much the power ratings for the helicopters main drive systems (main drive belts, transmission and tail drive sections) might be involved in derating the engines installed? Can you comment on that? Thanks!
Given the same transmission a piston engine will usually be rated lower than a turbine for the same transmission. This is due to a piston engine having torque pulses and gears don't like surges in torque. A turbine has a smooth constant flow of power. With these old engines they are also air-cooled and suffer from poor cooling so they require de-rating. Part of their Shaft power is also consumed by the cooling fan, so the net power available to the transmission is lower again. It is common for Robinsons to require a rebuild after as little as 100 hours due to overheating of the cylinder heads. Bottom line is, the engines used were not designed for helicopters, they were just available. Belt failures and over heating are the most common issues for Robinson forced landing here in Australia.
Awesome another video. Good morning Micha. Have a great day and thanks again for your content. Love it
Thank you for explaining it Sir
Electronic ignition with variable timing would a great start for piston engine reliability.
Dude your awesome man. I love you videos. You have so much informative intel. Just found you stuff today and I've subscribed.
Power Turbine, or Turboshaft is a better description than gas turbine. The latter is for jet propelled aircraft.
Each engine brings its own technological issues for sure. If you need big power, the Turboshaft is the only go-to.
Great video!
Thanks, well explained.
I saw a bent pushrod from a stuck valve once out of an R22. They were just hovering when it happened. Had to do an auto.
I've seen the same thing at LGB back in the 90s.
I'd like to see a comparison between the Bell 505 and the EC 120.
Now thats......SWEET N SIMPLE 👍
What was the biggest internal combustion engine used in a heli? Maybe the P&W 600hp Radial used in the Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw, first flight 1949, 1728 of the type built. Later powered by a 700hp Wright R-1300-3 Radial
Kosmonooit I think it is SAFE to say...In the Helicopter World both are needed...
@@jamesshepard1606 Sure, what is appropriate for the need, the same as light fixed wings, most are internal combustion, lot of automotive units are even being used now - turbines are for the extremely well heeled.
I would guess R-2800 Double Wasp in the CH-37.
@@Wolfhound_81 Yes it seems so: Wiki tells me the Mojave had two R-2800 engines: twin-row, 18-cylinder 46l, 2,400 hp (1,800 kW), 1940 vintage, also powered the likes of the Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Marauder and Invader. And the first constellations!
I love the sound of a turbine engine spooling up, I love both types of engine but my favourite has to be the good old piston engine preferably with carburettor, I find piston engines a lot easier to work on/fix etc and I love the sound they make
Nowadays a 1000cc inline 4Cyl Engine produce more than 200 Horsepower(mainly litre class motorcycle engines) so slam a supercharger or a turbocharger on it and it will easily produce anywhere between 300 to 400 Horsepower and will be really efficient and very reliable which they've already proved...!
Great video Micha. I miss you guys and I hope to see you this year! I have plans to come in July if the pandemic is over 🤞
Am not a expert in aviation, but with good servicing, I prefer gas turbine engine to piston one.
There is no such thing as true twin engine safety, until you have a turbine. (Fixed wing of course).
Too much information but perfectly explained. Thanks a lot for your time an effort. We apreciate it. 👍
Great information, it comes down to what ever your pocket book can handle. 👍🇺🇸
Not trying to make this weird but your voice is better than MR Rogers
Another informative video. Thanks!
“Stuck valve” will be caused by a dropped valve seat, or a valve stem seal that came out, leaving the valve in the open position and in most cases striking the piston. It can be caused by low quality fuel, carbon buildup, detonation, wrong timing, to lean of a mixture, etc.
A valve stem seal that "comes out" would simply cause that cylinder to use oil, it won't immediately stick the valve. A loose seat could hold a valve open, but that's not the common issue that is described here. The issue described here would be carbon build-up on the valve stem that prevents the valve from fully returning to the seat, OR a tight valve guide that pinches on the valve stem. Air cooled engine head temperatures vary much more than a liquid cooled engine, and valve train issues can show up more because of it.
I've noticed that a R44 has better tail rotor authority then a R66 or even a Bell 407 and I think that's because the governor in the derated piston engine can power up faster then a turbine can spool up when it quickly needs a little extra power.
The cost of the turbine engine is probably due to the metallurgy involved with the blades.
Probably more to do with RR wanting to pad their back pocket. No need for that thing to cost more than half of what they're asking.
It's not just the metallurgy but that is a big part of it.
Another is the artistry needed in construction of the engine.
The combustion process in a piston engine is periodic while in a turbine combustion is continuous.
Also a piston engine is a reciprocating engine. Big heavy parts reversing direction. A turbine is just rotating. So lower inertia loads.
@@EricFB The price reflects everything to do with the engine than just RR. The exotic materials involved, the machining processes, the precision balancing required because of the high G loads on the parts, the verification processes of the final parts, the assembly procedures, and so on.
Good job
loading - unloading - loading - unloading on a long line cargo MD600 flying up and down the mountains puts much more stress on the turbine than flying a Sikorsky S-92 to the oil platform and back.
Cool.
This is the video i was looking for,,, then today you made it, wow
Would be interested to hear a discussion on the use of diesel engines in helicopters.
Thanks so much for the info!
Very informative, great
Could you do a video on tail rotors please? Notar v exposed v enclosed . How do they compare, what’s the safest, how is the performance etc
ill reply fred,notar is chanelled turbine exhaust gas,enclosed is still as other shaft driven systems and open is just not enclosed.performance,they are all "tuned"to perform"anti torque"the most safety difference is...if you get very close to a notar system,its a bad hair day with a bronze tan,if you bump into an enclosed system,with your hands in your pocket,just abump on the head,if you walk into an open powered up tail rotor you will become salami,whilst,at the same time,whilst the tail rotor is shredding you,the tail boom will collapse,because of the torque contradiction.i hope this helps.
How about you SHOW us those reliability statisics for the piston.
Your description of turbines could use a little bit of improvement in your use of terminology. There isn’t a turbine at the front of the engine. There is a compressor at the front that is driven be a turbine at the back. This is your free turbine which will turn at various speeds based on your power requirements. Downstream of the turbine driving your compressor is your power turbine which is governed to maintain a constant speed.
Grant, you’ve got it backwards, my friend.
Good info. Thanks Bro!
Wonder how much power is delived from asymmetrical rotors compared to symmetrical ones??
Awesome explanation
Does this guy know how to party or what?!??! 🤘
Fuel that explodes is call detonation
Carbon buildup on the valve stem
Yup i picked that mistake up to mate
Thank you, very nice video. It would be really helpful too if you can add some animations/ pictures while you are talking.
Thank you ☺️
I wonder what the torque output difference is between motors