U.s. Continental Engine Co. Sold To Chinese Interests.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
'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
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
Grandpa Aerotart
God knows the Diesel in my Mercedes develos more horsepower and Torque than a TSIO 520 and it is only 3.2 litres.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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
Coates Spherical Rotary valve head... Welcome to Coates International Ltd.
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...
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
Coates Spherical Rotary valve head... Welcome to Coates International Ltd.
Moderator
It may be good news......
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?
The sale price, according to AVIC and Teledyne Technologies, was $186 million.....
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?
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?
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?
'chimba' if yr so sick of it then simply don't read it !
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Seems to me we were closer to those ideals 30 years ago.
Moderator
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...
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.
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!
Any of you who've already tried to will know it's not an easy task at all!
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
), 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.
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
), 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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
(It's a shame cause we all love the 520/550)
I'd imagine we'll see Lycomings in Beech shortly too.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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??
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.
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??
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.
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.
Last edited by BEACH KING; 17th Dec 2010 at 03:32.