U.s. Continental Engine Co. Sold To Chinese Interests.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From todays 'AvWeb' site....

" Teledyne Continental Motors has been sold to Technify Motors, a subsidiary of AVIC International, a Chinese government-owned holding company with diverse business interests in the aerospace sector. The sale price, according to AVIC and Teledyne Technologies, was $186 million and terms of the sale included a commitment to remain in Mobile, where Continental has been on the former Brookley Air Force base since the 1960s.

The sale will result in an infusion of new capital to rapidly develop the diesel technology Continental bought from SMA last spring, for both the Chinese and the international market, according to Teledyne's Jason VanWees, Teledyne Technologies' vice president for business development. He said that once the sale has cleared regulatory hurdles, it should become final by the end of the first quarter of 2011. Until then, Teledyne will continue to oversee TCM."


I wonder just how long it might be before these engines are being produced out of China..??

And, if so, will they be any cheaper to buy from AUS..??

Cheers:ok:

[Turban]

Is that really a good news?? :confused:

[onetrack]

Please, please tell me... the date on this media release is April 1st... :suspect:

This just goes to show the absolute, total sellout, of Corporate America, to China. They would sell their grandmother for the value of the gold in her back teeth. :{

According to Teledyne, the sale allows it to focus on its core businesses, while helping Continental Motors to enter the global market for the sale and service of aviation piston engines, especially in China.
Compared to 230,000 general aviation aircraft in the U.S, China has around 900 small aircraft operating in the country, the company said in a statement.

So... by the CEO's reasoning, this means that he expects every 10th Chinese person, will own a Continental piston-engined aircraft in the next 10 years.

Yep, I can really see that happening... in a country where they won't even give any Chinese national, full access to the Internet. :suspect:

I think this bloke must have seen the vid of the Chinese bloke that built his own chopper, from his own plans... and must have come to the conclusion that every 2nd Chinese person has an over-riding urge to fly... :rolleyes:

Perhaps his own 2IC produced a pie chart in a management meeting... showing that increased market penetration of the Chinese piston-engine aviation market, in the order of .02%, equals another 280,000 engines... and the figures absolutely dazzled him... :suspect:

[Jabawocky]

Glad I have a Lycosaurus :E

[Peter Fanelli]

So I guess we can expect engines made of lead soon.


while helping Continental Motors to enter the global market for the sale and service of aviation piston engines


So.....Continental hasn't been in the global market up until now?
How interesting.

[Arnold E]

Glad I have a Lycosaurus
Me too:ok:

[frigatebird]

A 180 with a SMA/Continental Diesel on amphibious floats..now that would be nice.. for lagoons and sheltered channels....Cessna are you listening? Open up the line again..

[Jack Ranga]

You want 5 year warranty? I give you 15, no worry mate :ok:

[Clearedtoreenter]

Is that really a good news??

Rerry good noose - all engines now call Great Wall run reen pick and . 50% leduced plice.

[onetrack]

Griffo, if it's anything like the Caterpillar/Perkins engine manufacturing fiasco in China, look out. :rolleyes:

In 1997, Caterpillar, as owner of Perkins Engines, saw great potential in manufacturing Perkins diesel engines in China. Perkins engines have previously been manufactured in 27 countries (including Australia) with no problems.

Some of those countries manufactured large amounts of the Perkins engine parts, and used some British Perkins engine factory parts.
Some countries only manufactured small amounts of the Perkins engine parts, and assembled engines with a majority of British Perkins factory parts.

When Caterpillar moved into Perkins Engine production in China, they went into Joint Venture (JV) with a Chinese company known as known as Tianjin Engine Works.
This JV produced Perkins 1000 series and Phaser 4 & 6 cylinder diesel engines, and was named Perkins Engines (Tianjin) Limited (PETL).

However, by 2001, problems were becoming apparent in the Chinese Perkins JV - both in the manufacturing side, and in the paperwork. An investigation by Caterpillar executives found some disturbing company irregularities.

The Chinese directors of the JV had transferred substantial amounts of shares in the JV to third parties, without the knowledge or authorisation, of all PETL executives (particularly Caterpillar/Perkins executives), as required.
Further investigation by Caterpillar/Perkins executives showed that this substantial shares transfer had been carried out by forging signatures. :eek:

In addition, it was found that Tianjin EW had been sourcing components from local suppliers that were not approved by Caterpillar/Perkins, and who had not met Caterpillar/Perkins QC standards.
In addition to sub-standard components from unauthorised suppliers, Tianjin EW had been re-rating engine outputs upwards without reference to Caterpillar/Perkins engineers.

Accordingly, in late 2002, after lengthy investigations, Caterpillar/Perkins cancelled their JV arrangement with Tianjin EW.

This did not prevent Tianjin from continuing to produce "Perkins" engines. They went on merrily selling their Tianjin EW Perkins, as genuine Perkins engines.

However, Caterpillar does not recognise any "Perkins" branded engine, produced from the Tianjin factory, post January 2003, as a genuine Perkins, and accordingly refuses to associate themselves with these engines produced after that date.

Sizeable numbers of "Perkins" branded engines and parts have been produced from that Tianjin factory, from January 2003.
These have been sold to unsuspecting buyers as genuine Perkins engines, but they are not.
Caterpillar have taken action to prevent the Perkins name being used in an unauthorised manner, but have had minimal success.

Accordingly, there are sizeable numbers of Tianjin Perkins engine owners out there, who think they have a genuine Perkins engine, but these engines have been produced without authorisation from Caterpillar/Perkins, using suppliers and subcontractors that are not approved by Caterpillar/Perkins.

Many of the components used in Tianjin EW Perkins engines, do not meet Caterpillar/Perkins required QC production standards, nor do the materials met the Caterpillar/Perkins specifications.
The Chinese suppliers of parts and components to Tianjin EW Perkins have been supplying substandard components, built to meet a price, not a specification.

Look forward to the same type of thing happening to Continental. The Chinese do not understand "standards"... they specialise in what is known around the traps, as "quality fade".

This is best explained by a Chinese manufacturer who supplies your company with a prototype of your requested item, that meets all specifications of material requirements, metal treatment, and other engineering requirements.

Immediately your companys order is placed with the Chinese company for the item, the Chinese manufacturer promptly commences to source cheaper materials, metal treatments, etc., that no longer meet the required specifications. :{

As a result, the item fails regularly under normal useage, and your company is left with angry end-users... and often a pile of unsaleable products, due to purchasers shying away, from what is now, a recognisedly inferior product.

The ramifications of Chinese "quality fade" in aircraft engine manufacturing, don't bear thinking about. The problems will commence the minute any component manufacturing is transferred to China.

Chinese Perkins problems... http://www.nzgenerator.com/admin/documentlibrary/PerkinsEnginesChina.pdf

[Super Cecil]

A 180 with a SMA/Continental Diesel on amphibious floats..now that would be nice.. for lagoons and sheltered channels....Cessna are you listening? Open up the line again..

Why not just buy a boat? Prolly have more chance of getting airbourne than what yoo describe :8

Diesels have been a big success in Aircraft so far, how many are flying here again?

[Sunfish]

Any aircraft fitted with a Continental manufactured engine is now automatically off my list. If i was the owner of a Cirrus, I'd be shaking my head.

I know all about "Quality Fade". Give it a year or Two when they start sourcing parts from China. Watch them immediately lose parts traceability, if they ever even implement it. Wait till they start forging the boxes and paperwork.

[frigatebird]

Why not just buy a boat? Prolly have more chance of getting airbourne than what yoo describe http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif




Devils Advocate.. Alternate Approach.. But :8 ..?

[Jabawocky]

onetrack and Sunfish.........POTY quality posts there....not because they are funny or anything other 100% accurate.

The minute anything more than finance of TCM is concerned there will be trouble for sure.

[Turban]

So my first thought was correct, this is no good news.

I'm so :mad: sick of those CEO guys and the decisions they make.

Just cut their :mad: head off :ugh:

When will it stop :mad: damn it?

[Andy_RR]

The USofA is broke. They are selling off the farm

If Australia was in a better position than the USofA we would be buying up these assets too, but we're not. We're selling our assets to China as well. What does that tell you...?

[Aerozepplin]

I'm not an economist, but to my eyes it looks like a dangerous cycle. Running your country on Chinese debt, then selling them the companies that produce the income that can service said debt. Surely there comes a point where the house of cards has to fall.

From an engine point of view I've read that TCM had ongoing valve problems 15 years or so ago that meant engines were requiring early top overhauls. I imagine it only takes a small reduction in manufacturing quality to create a huge reduction in reliability.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

YES 'Andy',

I thoroughly agree with you - hence my post in the first place.

In the generations to come, this 'short-sightedness' of having no apprentices in our maintenance industry, and certainly NIL manufacturing capability for our industry - as well as for all of the other industries - will leave us at the 'mercy' of.....

They are 'winning the war' by 'economic strangulation'.....and its global!
Dairy farms in Enzed as well....so nobody is immune.

Cheers:}

[onetrack]

What is unrecognised, or barely recognised, by virtually any Western Corporation executive, dealing with Chinese companies... is that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the ruling party in Govt... in this one-party country... is the holder of the majority of the shares, in every sizeable Chinese business.

This means that all these deals where Chinese companies are entering into Western Country JV's... purchasing sizeable %'s of Western Corporations... or investing in a dozen other ways, in Western Countrys technology, assets, manufacturing, mines, farms, etc., etc.,... the Chinese Communist Party is gaining some form of control, access to vital information, and in many cases, controlling access to raw materials.
The Chinese already effectively own every single zinc mine in the world, and they now effectively control the worlds zinc supply.

Who needs spies, when Western businesses and Western Corporate Executives open the doors to the safe willingly, and give the CCP the keys??

Remember, despite China's huge upsurge in world standing and production, this is still a country where the PLA are the ruling force, and democracy is a word used to describe foreign countries.

This is a nation where, in my short lifetime, I can remember a "Cultural Revolution", instigated by aforesaid Party, that took only 2 years to take the country back 5 centuries.
There is nothing to say the same wouldn't happen again in the blink of an eyelid... particularly when domineering power is entrenched in an ideology-run ruling entity.
We hand over control of our manufacturing, Western assets, and technology to China, at our long-term peril.

[PA39]

wwwwwwho flung dung?

[Joker 10]

There is an old tried vand true saying " price is what the market will bear" Continental has been trading on its name for a long time, horisontally opposed big boe engines are an anacrocism.

God knows the Diesel in my Mercedes develos more horsepower and Torque than a TSIO 520 and it is only 3.2 litres.

The real thing the Chinese were smart enough to buy is the Certification, well done

[Jack Ranga]

Yep, and the US will not have the technology or the infrastructure to manufacture a toothbrush soon.

Australia........don't become America :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

'J10' yr right there in what you say as these engines are dinosaurs. The technology is ancient!
520/540 cubes of pure basic reciprocating donks putting out 300+ gee gee's:-). They do have one thing in there fav though over the more sophisticated engines & that's simplicity,something that has worked for a looong time & quite well in aero engines whilst other industries using recip engines have accelerated ahead in highly advanced engineering mainly due to pollution laws & fuel economy, two things not overly considered in Lyc's & Conty's.
Will be interesting to see what if anything what the Chinese can do to make a purse out of a sows ear:-)

Wmk2

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Make them thingys fly 'sideways' Wal..??:}:}

[Chimbu chuckles]

God knows the Diesel in my Mercedes develos more horsepower and Torque than a TSIO 520 and it is only 3.2 litres.

So Joker 10 you're seriously trying to tell is that the 3.2 litre diesel in your car develops 195hp (65% power on an IO550) continuously?

And Wally you're really living up to your name.

Comparing a big bore lyc/conti to a car engine, ANY fcking car engine, is like comparing Joolia to Ell Macpherson. The have similar bits but thats it!

If you actually asked a car engine to develope the same PERCENTAGE HP as an IO550 will produce for a couple of 1000 hrs with no problems it would blow up in minutes.

Remind me again how many laps/races/part thereof an F1 V12 manages before blowing up? And its probably only developing 50% of its rated HP for most of a race...and that with every computer gadget the engineers can think up transmitting data back 100/second to a bank of highly paid and very skilled mechanics.

I am so bloody sick of pilots railing against aircraft engine technology and comparing to it car engines.

The Chinese will almost certainly finish TCM off in the light aircraft engine business.

in 5 years one of the boutique engine shops, maybe GAMI, will buy the certification for the IO550 back from the Chinese and start marketing a truly awesome version.

Turbo normalised, 350hp running on unleaded fuel.

Braly has a TNIO550 doing that in a Cirrus on his G100LL fuel RIGHT NOW.

[onetrack]

I'll agree that the technology in Lyc's and Conty's is basically obsolete. However, there are two factors at play here. One is a basic conservatism amongst manufacturers to change from tried and proven ideas.

This comes about because they have a huge investment in their current manufacturing setup, and any radical changes in design could mean a big outlay for them, installing a heap of new machines for manufacturing new design components.

The other point is that a change to new technology has to be proven first... then sold to buyers. Buyers are conservative, too.

If I produced a new IC aircraft engine tomorrow, with some way-out design features... would you be rushing in to buy it? I think not.
If I could promise you the ability to save 30% on fuel, and run on anything from liquid butter to Jet A1 to camels urine, I might have a few selling points.

However, the basic conservatism in most of us, particularly where expending our hard-earned doosh is concerned, means that most of us are more prepared to sit back and wait, and see how the reliabilty and performance pans out, on any radical new design... particularly when that new design is what's driving the fan up front, that's keeping us airborne... :suspect:

I do feel that the time is right for some radical departure from the horizontally-opposed 4 & 6's that have been the mainstay of light and medium piston-driven aircraft for a long time now.
My feeling is that people such as Revetec have an excellent design improvement in IC engines... but I'd also like to see poppet valves consigned to the dustbin of history, too.

Poppet valves are the weakest part of any IC engine, and performance falls off most rapidly in them, due entirely to valve seat sealing degrading rapidly, after relatively short periods of operation.
Sleeve valves are superb for sealing, but I have yet to see a 21st century redesign on sleeve valve operating mechanisms.
Possibly the major breakthrough is in the Coates Spherical Rotary valve mechanism, that looks pretty good in principle, and has been proven in trials.

Revetec engines... Revetec Development (http://www.revetec.com/development.htm)

Coates Spherical Rotary valve head... Welcome to Coates International Ltd. (http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv.html)

[skywagondriver]

If i was the owner of a Cirrus, I'd be shaking my head.



Cirrus will be the next to go to Chinese ownership...

[tail wheel]

It may be good news......

The sale price, according to AVIC and Teledyne Technologies, was $186 million.....

Considering Continental's market share, I suspect they were very undercapitalised with no financial capacity to expend funding on R&D into new technology engines. The Chinese have very deep pockets, which should concern Lycoming.

I recall the out cry many years ago when Pratt & Whitney manufactured turbine engine parts at Walter in the Czech Republic and other Eastern Bloc countries, however quality remained and parts prices contained. (Interestingly, Walter is now part of GE Aviation.)

The current Continental and Lycoming engines are obsolete 1940s technology. Perhaps we could be looking at better prices for Continental engines and significant technology improvements?

[Sunfish]

Chimbu and Tailwheel make good points.

As for Continentals "huge investment in manufacturing technology", that's BS. Their tooling would have been amortised years ago and the reason their engines have a reputation for unreliability is precisely because they have NOT invested in manufacturing technology or they would have cured their problems years ago. My guess is that successive managers raped the business and deferred investment in pursuit of profits until their was nothing but a shell left, hence the sale.

I am continually bombarded by helpful friends who go on about "1940's technology".

"Why not Overhead Cams?" They ask. To turn a prop at no more than about 2800rpm? Even with gears that's still maybe 5800 rpm in a Rotax, what's the point of overhead cams?

"Fuel injection! Engine management computers! CDI ignition! Variable valve timing!" They scream. What? For an engine that is going to spend its life between 2400 - 2800 rpm at 55% - 100% of its power? And the engine is now reliant on a constant source of Twelve volt electricity. Are we going for dual redundancy here? For what gain? Automotive engines work at a span of 10% to 70% of their available power most of the time. That is what makes these technologies worthwhile - the ability to control economy over a wider power spectrum.

The Lycosaurus is designed to get an FAR approved airframe off the ground and drag it through the air in an approved aviating manner, and to do it reliably with some form of performance. If we wish to change the airframe we probably could use an engine with all that wonderful technology.

..We would design, say, an engine that produced 1000HP on take off. It would then be happy sitting in the cruise at say 20% power - 200HP with perfect economy.

Now what sort of airframe would we put around that? Probably a tiny little wing to maximise speed. With 1000Hp on takeoff, we don't need much wing area do we? But we have to land it, so add double slotted flaps, leading edge slats and spoilers for controllability and a reasonable approach speed....

You see how the compromises work?

[Wally Mk2]

'chimba' if yr so sick of it then simply don't read it !:ugh:

The technology is there to make a better aero engine that's obvious the old clunkers do the task but are way behind in many ways.
We once had piston engines in ALL planes then someone invented a better 'mouse-trap'. Just because it's been so for so long doesn't mean we can't move ahead!
It's all about cost with these clunkers. The Lyc's & Conty's are basic & cheap to fix out there on site putting anything else in place would mean far more cost due complexity.

The Porsche engine was a good Eg of what could be done with a more sophisticated engine when put in to an A/C but it really didn't 'take-off' that well as far as I can see due a few reasons, one no doubt being most don't trust 'change' as well as spares wouldn't have been in the local milk bar like they are with the old clunkers:).

'griffo'..........it feels weird that's for sure but it's like a big model plane to fly anyway:-)

Wmk2

[frigatebird]

I just want a 200 h.p engine that will go all day, all year, all decade without spending much on it for maintenance, and runs on a sniff of some fuel that is available EVERYWHERE.... How hard is that?
Seems to me we were closer to those ideals 30 years ago.

[tail wheel]

As for Continentals "huge investment in manufacturing technology", that's BS. Their tooling would have been amortised years ago and the reason their engines have a reputation for unreliability is precisely because they have NOT invested in manufacturing technology or they would have cured their problems years ago. My guess is that successive managers raped the business and deferred investment in pursuit of profits until their was nothing but a shell left, hence the sale.

The sale price, according to AVIC and Teledyne Technologies, was $186 million...

If Continental had a market capitalisation of only $186 million, for whatever reason, I seriously doubt they have the financial resources to either modernise their existing tooling and technology, or develop more modern engine technology.

Continental began in 1905 and in their heyday were one of the world's largest automotive and aircraft piston engine manufacturers. All that is left today is only worth $185 million?

I suspect development of any new technology engine, including R&D, tooling, testing, certification, product liability and warranty could easily exceed their total Corporate value.

They were probably a corporation living on their past products with no where else to go.

[Andy_RR]

To all those who think that the Conti-Lycosaurus is "old-tech", please sit down and figure out how you can produce better fuel consumption at a higher installed power-weight ratio and a lower overall cost.

Any of you who've already tried to will know it's not an easy task at all!

[185skywagon]

The Porsche engine was a good Eg
Of what??:D:D:D:D:D:}

[The Green Goblin]

It's not a big market for aeroplane engines folks.

The costs to develop, vs the return, are not worth the investment. Coupled with the fact that right now, the engines produced can be installed on your 1940s Cessna to your brand new one, and you see why the engine manufacturers are resistant to change.

For what the engine is designed to do, it does it acceptably and reliably and therefore does not require more modern variants.

Wally how old is your beloved PT6? It does the job reliably, it could be made far more efficient (like a Garrett :ok:), but there are many installations on many different airframes doing the job well, therefore there is no reason to change the design!

If you start putting overhead cams with variable timing, ECUs, higher engine rotation, etc etc, you are just creating something that has more to go wrong!

Aeroplane engines need to be simple, reliable and as redundant as possible. Modern engines do not fulfill this criteria.

[Brian Abraham]

Continental has very little in the way of market share among the OEMs these days. Even Cessna has gone all Lycoming. Lycoming also has forged a good market niche in the home building scene, with the RVs in particular.

As said before, what we are interested in in an engine performance wise is fuel burn per horse power per hour. You're going to be hard pressed to do much better than your current Lyc/Cont, even with expensive do dad add ons and addition complications.

[The Green Goblin]

Thats because Cessna own Lycoming Brian. Wouldn't make much sense in using Continentals now would it!

(It's a shame cause we all love the 520/550)

I'd imagine we'll see Lycomings in Beech shortly too.

[Jabawocky]

Ok folks.....it's all about Talk....no TORQUE!

Props do not work well at 7500 RPM now do they? No. So we know that to get the best out of them 2300-2700 is the range, so an engine must deliver what we need at those speeds.

Lets compare a 300HP Lyc/TCM at 2700 RPM on take off, with a Ford/Holden Motorsports V8 supercar engine. One is 300HP the other is 600+ HP.

Torque which is all that matters here is 791.5Nm compared to only 570Nm.

So we need a slow rev/high torque engine and will have to have big bores to get it.

Sure at idle and taxi speeds they are grossly inefficient but that is not where they are designed to work. An engine punching out 195HP all day and not give you trouble is testimony of a good design.

As an example my IO540 achieves in nil wind around 13.6L/100km, not bad going huh.

TCM have built some EFI FADEC engines, I have seen the first one in Oz, its based at YCAB, and sure it runs well, but has had its moments. Does it out-perform my IO540.......NO.

The sooner we get the GAMI G100UL the better, that would do so much for engine reliability and cleanliness that spending money on any auto type improvements would be a waste of time.

[onetrack]

This is where the Revetec engine re-design comes in. By replacing the crankshaft with the trilobate rotors, the maximum torque comes in very low in the rev range, and high RPM's aren't needed.
The Revetec design lends itself beautifully to aircraft engines. Revetec have realised this, and I look forward to seeing their offering/s by way of an alternative aircraft engine.
What I would like to see is a diesel Revetec engine fitted with Coates Spherical Rotary valve heads.
Add a turbo, and I reckon you'd have just as simple and robust an engine as any Lyc or Conty, with vastly improved fuel and volumetric efficiency, and massive torque at low RPM. A win-win-win solution. :ok:

[BEACH KING]

Many have tried to offer, and design more efficient alternatives to traditional engines in the 180-300hp range, but have failed... by and large. (think Thielert).
Engine rpms above 3000, reduction gearboxes, and liquid cooling add unnecessary reliability, maintenance and weight problems in comparison to the traditional/dated technology.

Are the current Cont/Lycom engines THAT inefficient??


God knows the Diesel in my Mercedes develos more horsepower and Torque than a TSIO 520 and it is only 3.2 litres.

You reckon? The 2010 Mercedes model produces 231HP and 540nm of torque.
My IO520 gives me 285hp and 790nm. A closer comparison would be the worlds most powerful 6 cylinder production diesel engine made by BMW, the 3.0 sd twin turbo, that produces 289Hp and 565nm of torque. I have this fine engine in my X5.
Take ya Merc, or my X5, on the Nullabour and hold it flat out, so that it is using all of it's available power and torque and electronics and multiple valves and camshafts....and see
1. how much fuel it is using
2. How hot does it run
3. how long can it do it before it blows up.

Pretty sure you wil find that:
1. between 40-50 LPH
2. that hot that it will shut down
3. no where near 2000 hours

And your Merc engine weighs 49kg heavier than the IO520 without it's cooling system and fluid.

The concerns I have with regard to Chinese takeover of TCM relate to WHO oversees and has authority over quality control.

In a perfect world, the quality would be better, and the engines cheaper due to lower labour costs. It's a pity that we don't live in a perfect world.

[Sunfish]

I will be pleasantly surprised if the Revetec motor make it to endurance trials. I've watched one "revolutionary" motor fail for technical reasons.

The key is going to be vibration characteristics and the associated dynamic effects (torsional and linear) on all those shafts, gears, cams and bearings.

When the design fails it is usually put down to "abnormal wear", which means that the dynamics gang up on one component that cannot be kept intact for any length of time without over designing it.

Variable displacement "swash plate" petrol engines fail this way time after time because the loads on the plate main bearing are rather larger and more complex than designers expect.

After vibration comes noise an harshness. Everyone loves the sound of a V8 or big Six. Do you really want to use an engine that makes a noise like chalk being scratched on a blackboard? The general public won't.

[Jabawocky]

BEACH KING
Many have tried to offer, and design more efficient alternatives to traditional engines in the 180-300hp range, but have failed... by and large. (think Thielert).
Engine rpms above 3000, reduction gearboxes, and liquid cooling add unnecessary reliability, maintenance and weight problems in comparison to the traditional/dated technology.

Are the current Cont/Lycom engines THAT inefficient??

Quote:
Originally Posted by joker 10
God knows the Diesel in my Mercedes develos more horsepower and Torque than a TSIO 520 and it is only 3.2 litres.

You reckon? The 2010 Mercedes model produces 231HP and 540nm of torque.
My IO520 gives me 285hp and 790nm. A closer comparison would be the worlds most powerful 6 cylinder production diesel engine made by BMW, the 3.0 sd twin turbo, that produces 289Hp and 565nm of torque. I have this fine engine in my X5.
Take ya Merc, or my X5, on the Nullabour and hold it flat out, so that it is using all of it's available power and torque and electronics and multiple valves and camshafts....and see
1. how much fuel it is using
2. How hot does it run
3. how long can it do it before it blows up.

Pretty sure you wil find that:
1. between 40-50 LPH
2. that hot that it will shut down
3. no where near 2000 hours

And your Merc engine weighs 49kg heavier than the IO520 without it's cooling system and fluid.

The concerns I have with regard to Chinese takeover of TCM relate to WHO oversees and has authority over quality control.

In a perfect world, the quality would be better, and the engines cheaper due to lower labour costs. It's a pity that we don't live in a perfect world.

Post Of The Year material there mate! :D

If I were you, and I am sure your accountant will agree now would be a good time to order a brand new engine and pickle it for when you need one next! :ok:

[Brian Abraham]

Thats because Cessna own Lycoming
Thanks GG, forgot that.

An excellent BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) for a well-developed, 4-stroke naturally-aspirated, high-performance liquid-cooled engine at 100% power is in the neighborhood of 0.44 – 0.45. Claims of gasoline engine BSFC values less than 0.42 at max power tend to be suspect. At reduced power settings (in the region of 70% and below) BSFC values of 0.38 have been achieved.

The operator manual for a 300 HP Lycoming IO-540-K, L, or M series engine shows a full power fuel flow of 24 GPH which is a BSFC of 0.474 and a Thermal Efficiency of 28.3%. Those numbers aren't too bad for an air cooled engine which meets the FAR-required detonation margins. However, the turbocharged TIO-540-V2AD requires a MINIMUM of 39.2 GPH at 350 HP for a BSFC of 0.663 and a TE of 20.4%. Avoiding detonation at high power eats fuel, literally.

The most efficient piston engine is a marine diesel of 108,920 horse power with BSFC of .278 at max power, dropping to .26 at max economy, and a thermal efficiency of over 50%. It's advantages are one of low frictional losses (piston speed, windage, bearings) due to an operating speed of 102 RPM at max power, and a low of 7 RPM.

[Joker 10]

AH Radials,high horse power, great reliability, terrific noise.

[Peter Fanelli]

Thats because Cessna own Lycoming Brian. Wouldn't make much sense in using Continentals now would it!


Ummm, no. Cessna is owned by Textron as is Lycoming.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From the 'Wikipedia' site-

""Textron" (“Tex" for "textiles," and "tron" for "synthetics") became the official name"

Textron also owns Bell helicopters, Lycoming, Continental, Cessna,.....etc etc

Ya wanna do business with the 'opposition'....What opposition..??

Capitalism at work....:(

[Peter Fanelli]

Textron also owns Bell helicopters, Lycoming, Continental, Cessna,.....etc etc


Nope, Continental is, or was, owned by Teledyne not Textron.


Capitalism at work....


Better than the alternative.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thankyou Peter....oops My mistake!!

Cheers:ok:

'The Alternative'..??

Somehow, I got to actually LIKE competition......
Too much 'capitalism' ain't good as far as I can tell..??

We don't seem to have a lot of 'choice' these days - especially from some quarters..:eek:

[Andy_RR]

BTW, despite Textron being the parent company of both Cessna and Lycoming, Cessna chose the Continental O-200D for the Skysnatcher.

Perhaps Continental will shift O-200D production to China so Cessna can import the completed aircraft rather than just the airframe! :E

[Andy_RR]

The most efficient piston engine is a marine diesel of 108,920 horse power with BSFC of .278 at max power, dropping to .26 at max economy, and a thermal efficiency of over 50%. It's advantages are one of low frictional losses (piston speed, windage, bearings) due to an operating speed of 102 RPM at max power, and a low of 7 RPM.

Yes, but pigs will be airborne first...

[nomorecatering]

As I see it, it could go one of two ways. Complete disaster with Cintinental engines habding over the entire market to Lycomming, or Continental, under the control of the Chinese really picking its act up. It depends on which group of Chinese are pulling the levers.

The smart group of Chinese are not fools, they know a good market oportunity when they see it. Traditionaly, good from China have been cheap copies, with little inovation. The Hifi industry has seen this happen, but in the last 5 years, the amount of seriously good high end stuff comming out of China is staggering. They are seruous players in the hi hend market but were only recently dismissed by the traditional makers of high end stuff as little competition. How things have changed.

However, if I were one of the component makers, I would be worried. The Chinese will simply not tolerate sloppy production. Look at teh crankshaft saga of a few years ago, where thousands of crankshafts were pruduced that did not match the desighn specifications. Any engineer will tell you that the engines are not not well put together at the factory and the amount of variance beteween parts is staggering.

The fundamental desighn of the engines is sound and wel proven, Its just they cant make parts and engines that exactly match the drawings.

Id love to see what the latest direct fuel injection technology could do to aero engines efficiency. The latest Mercedes version actually looks at the combustion process as it happens (each power stroke) and can add up to 5 more fuel squirts to tweek it.

[Sunfish]

The trouble with the Chinese investment is going to be exactly the same problem that has given us the "counterfeit spare parts problem".

That is the overwhelming temptation when seeing an item , for example what appears to be a simple washer, shaft or pin, that has a list price of $350.00, to make a copy for $2.00 and sell it as the genuine article.

Without being racist, that temptation has overwhelmed many Europeans who ought to have known better, but that same temptation applied in China will be simply, completely, irresistible.

In China there is no concept of loyalty to anyone outside ones own family, let alone the concept of responsibility to an unknown foreign customer - hence the putting of melamine in baby formula.

Once the Continental parts inventory is "polluted" by Chinese manufactured items, forget the engine.

[Jabawocky]

Assuming manufacture moves that is!

Better buy a new one now and store it.

[Arnold E]

Assuming manufacture moves that is!

Better buy a new one now and store it.

Or buy a Lycosauraus.:ok:

[Brian Abraham]

The Porsche engine was a good Eg of what could be done with a more sophisticated engine when put in to an A/C but it really didn't 'take-off' that well as far as I can see due a few reasons, one no doubt being most don't trust 'change' as well as spares wouldn't have been in the local milk bar like they are with the old clunkersNot quite Wal. Mooney only sold 41 aircraft with the Porsche fitted. the owners that bought them from all accounts loved them, even though they were slower than the regular Mooney. The Porsche had all the do dads that everyone here is calling for in modernising their agricultural Cont/Lyc, automotive-style electronic ignition, fuel injection, autoleaning, automatic cooling control and a single power lever. The problem? Too few buyers willing to stump up the $60,000US price premium (1988 dollars) and money squabbles with Mooney, Porsche grew disenchanted and bailed out of the project. Porsche continue to support the engine.
Avweb article FADEC Fantasies (http://www.avweb.com/news/newacft/182749-1.html)
"If we have learned anything about the GA market," says Lycoming's head engineer, Rick Moffett, "it's that it's extremely price sensitive. People just aren't going to spend $20,000 for an engine control system." Anyone who doubts that merely needs to recall Mooney's PFM experience.

Second-and ignoring the retrofit market-these systems will capitalize on the flexibility and capability of state-of-the-art digital electronics to produce an integrated system that includes sexy cockpit displays and, no doubt, onboard diagnostics of some kind.

Even at that, Moffett says meeting the price point will be a tall order. Ridding a current engine of its conventional mags and harnesses, injector servo, flow dividers, waste gates plus such cockpit instrumentation as manifold pressure, tachs and engine gauges will have to save enough money to pay for -or at least almost pay for-the new electronics.

"If we hit it within five percent, we'll consider ourselves successful," says Moffett. Add up the cost of all that conventional hardware and you you'll arrive at some idea of what a retrofit FADEC for an older airplane would cost: Our guess is between $6000 and $10,000.