Worst engine in aviation

[BoostedNihilist]

Being that an engine is only as strong as it's weakest link, which is usually the engineer (who designed it, not the engineer who maintains it), what are the worst engines in aviation today? Which engine would you avoid like the plague at all cost? Please include your logic.

[qa guy]

H series pistons were junk! We use to replace camshafts after 300-500 hrs. on the seminoles before lycoming came out with a mod

[Strega]

One of the worst engines I have ever encountered was the GO-300 Continental found on the C-175, Its basicly a C-85 that has had another two cylinders attached, and then a gear reduction installed. Im not sure what the designers where thinking,, but Im someone got in to some doo-doo!!.

Not to bash,, but an AME is not an "Engineer". More correctly they should be called an Airframe and powerplant technichian (this is what they are titled south of the border-- quick fact, there are more pilots, A&Ps, and aircraft in California alone, than in all of Canada).

The "AME" title is a silly TCCA thing that needs to be updated.

If you disagree with me, Ask yourself, when was the last time an "AME" did any work related to engineering?

It would be the same as calling a pilot an "Aircraft operating Engineer"
See how silly that sounds?

Cheers!

[ad81]

Do we have to get into this again? Aircraft Maintenace Engineer is a term borrowed from English aviation nomenclature and is used in many commonwealth countries. Anyways I think the bloke that started this thread was interested in engines.

[BoostedNihilist]

lol love it

[quote]The "AME" title is a silly TCCA thing that needs to be updated. [/quote]

Come on, if TCCA changed the term what would we argue over

To be truthful, I could care less what they call a wrenchmonkey, I am a wrenchmonkey of a different type so yeah, I was just arguing for the sake of arguing

This thread is about the worst engine in aviation history

We need a 'be it resolved' thread complete with a panel and judges.

BTW: kinda surprised noone said rotax yet

[still_bluenoser]

Wow, I didnt realize that the "engineer thing was such a sensetive subject for some! Agreed, the title may not be all that acurate, but here we are in Canada, and according to TC we are Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. No we cannot sign passports, but that is what we are in Canada.
Personaly I am in the Avionics side of things, and all of our installs require electrical engineering, which just happens to be performed by an AME. E.

Personally, I perfer the name bus driver for the pilots.

Rotax for sure.

[gianthammer]

I can Sign a passport now; as I am a holder of a canadian passport, rules have changed. Their is no way in hell i will ever refer to myself a "a&p tech" that is a gay term used by our moron american idot brothers. Im a Canadian and Im an AME!!

To answer the original question The R-2000

[roscoe]

Wright 3350 with power recovery turbines, as installed on DC7C's.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

There is no real way to make comparisons between pilots and AME's.

You can teach a monkey to fly an airplane but it's very unlikely a monkey could repair one.

[ad81]

Let's use the new thread created to discuss the engineer debate, and no pilots shouldn't be called bus drivers. Bus drivers have a more difficult job.

[MCRS]

Any Garrett Engine!

[brownbear]

One of the worst engines I have ever encountered was the GO-300 Continental found on the C-175, Its basicly a C-85 that has had another two cylinders attached, and then a gear reduction installed. Im not sure what the designers where thinking,, but Im someone got in to some doo-doo!!.

Not to bash,, but an AME is not an "Engineer". More correctly they should be called an Airframe and powerplant technichian (this is what they are titled south of the border-- quick fact, there are more pilots, A&Ps, and aircraft in California alone, than in all of Canada).

The "AME" title is a silly TCCA thing that needs to be updated.

If you disagree with me, Ask yourself, when was the last time an "AME" did any work related to engineering?

It would be the same as calling a pilot an "Aircraft operating Engineer"
See how silly that sounds?

Cheers!

Your opinion is wrong. We are engineers.

Here's why; have you not designed and approved a repair? Fitted and rigged using blueprints, calculated electrical loads, W&B... and many more.

Sure many don't work in that direction, but the AME licence does allow quite a bit in terms re-designing, and approving repairs.

But I guess your a parts changer...

[ozone]

[quote][/quote]engineer

• noun 1 a person qualified in engineering. 2 a person who maintains or controls an engine or machine. 3 a person who skilfully originates something.

• verb 1 design and build. 2 contrive to bring about.


The definition out of the oxford dictionary. Just to clear things up a little, AME's are Engineers.

[DHC3Rwannafly]

...and I thought the pilot side of the forums had a bunch of senseless arguments, Engineer, Mechanic, Mr. Fix It...WHO CARES!!! Why can't anyone ever just answer the guys original question without babbling on about nonsense.
And to the question, I'd have to nominate the aging R1340.
DH3

[MCRS]

There is a thread on here that is dedicated to the question Engineer or Mechanic question post those comments there.
I still stand behind my Garrett engine being the worst. With that idiotic rigging behind the Starter. If the thing is out of rig you have to pull the starter Adjust it, reinstall the starter run it, if it's not fixed you do it all over again. What a royal pain in the ~

[bronco78]

**

[gup_69]

Franklin...gotta be the Franklin!

[twotter]

The Garrett is no harder to rig than the old -20's on the Twin Otter. If you have any sense of how they work it is not difficult. Plus, just because you can't rig them doesn't make them a bad engine. Once they are rigged properly they run fine for a long time. If you want a rigging nightmare and an engine that won't last too long look at the -50 on the -7. Still far better than an R-2000!!

[lazyboy]

My vote goes to the hercules engine in the old bristlol frieghter

[bronco78]

**

[MCRS]

I to never said I couldn't Rig the Garrett properly, just stated the Thing was the most Moronic design ever.
Some Aeronautical Engineer must of stayed up late making that pain in the but!
With Piston pounders can't say I meet a really bad one. Just bad set up to Engine, Ie the Paretenavia.
Another Areonautical Engineers Brain Fart! Put a 1/4" deep half circle Dimple in the Firewall just behind the filter.
They found out the way it was with a flat firewall you'd never remove the oil filter! Even with the Dimple there, you have pretty much zero extra room for the wrench. You can break the torque to make it loose but after that it's all hand, and swearing to get it out, and back in for that matter.

So I still say Garrett piece of Shhhhhh..........
I also love the sound as the bolt falls down the fuel nozzle hole at the top of the Engine. That's the sound of AWWWW
FFFFFuuuuuuddddge!

[twotter]

The Garrett is no harder to rig than the old -20's on the Twin Otter. If you have any sense of how they work it is not difficult. Plus, just because you can't rig them doesn't make them a bad engine. Once they are rigged properly they run fine for a long time. If you want a rigging nightmare and an engine that won't last too long look at the -50 on the -7. Still far better than an R-2000!!

I didn't say I couldn't rig a garret you pompous ass. I said it was difficult. It is certainly harder to rig than a -20 (in my opinion anyway...just guess I'm not super engineer like some) ,besides that, this thread was to express our OPINIONS based on OUR OWN experience as to the worst engine, not to slag others on that opinion. I also had other reasons for electing the garret not just the rigging.
So to you I say stuff it in your @$#% it is just my thoughts on the subject.

Bronco,

Whoa big fella.. At no time did I say that you or anyone else was less capable than me. I was merely stating that a 331 is not rocket science and that in my personal opinion its easier to rig than an old twin otter with 20s.. I've got lots of experience on both and thats just my opinion. No need to go postal on me.. I don't think I ever slagged you in any way, maybe you can show me and I'll learn from it.. Anyhow, please PM me and lets sort this out without everyone else seeing it..

Cheers

[Strega]

The Garrett is no harder to rig than the old -20's on the Twin Otter. If you have any sense of how they work it is not difficult. Plus, just because you can't rig them doesn't make them a bad engine. Once they are rigged properly they run fine for a long time. If you want a rigging nightmare and an engine that won't last too long look at the -50 on the -7. Still far better than an R-2000!!

I didn't say I couldn't rig a garret you pompous ass. I said it was difficult. It is certainly harder to rig than a -20 (in my opinion anyway...just guess I'm not super engineer like some) ,besides that, this thread was to express our OPINIONS based on OUR OWN experience as to the worst engine, not to slag others on that opinion. I also had other reasons for electing the garret not just the rigging.
So to you I say stuff it in your @$#% it is just my thoughts on the subject.

Bronco,

Whoa big fella.. At no time did I say that you or anyone else was less capable than me. I was merely stating that a 331 is not rocket science and that in my personal opinion its easier to rig than an old twin otter with 20s.. I've got lots of experience on both and thats just my opinion. No need to go postal on me.. I don't think I ever slagged you in any way, maybe you can show me and I'll learn from it.. Anyhow, please PM me and lets sort this out without everyone else seeing it..

Cheers

They are both simple to rig, if you understand whats going on, and follow correct procedures.

[CID]

Anyhow, please PM me and lets sort this out without everyone else seeing it..

Funny. When I suggest this twotter you just insult me. And might I suggest bronco78, watch what you send to twotter in a PM. He won't hesitate to make it public. I've been burned before. The guy has no scruples.

[Hedley]

The guy has no scruples

Maybe he should apply to Transport?