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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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 )

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

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

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.

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..

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|"

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.

'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.

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.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

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.

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”

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.

Also, look into the forced induction system for the Grob Strato 2c.

Just another procedure or so.

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.

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? ukposts.info/have/v-deo/pmicdp-wbYicsKc.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.

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.

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

Warbirds sound miles better than many turboprops, but I don't know if they are louder

6 turning 4 burning

two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for.

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.

Dude, the whole world uses metric except a few countries, but I understand you

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, 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.

You probably know, but in case you missed it, he did, about one month after your comment.