Building an engine takes 1 man only about 1-2 days.
That should probably be: Final assembly of an engine takes 1 man only about 1-2 days.
I can well imagine that Lycoming has a fairly large stock of engine components. Cases, crankshafts, camshafts and everything. When an engine order comes in, they pick the right parts from storage and assemble the engine. (And then create or order new parts to replenish the warehouse.)
This is a much more economical use of capital. After all, on their engines loads of parts are used in multiple engines, particularly if you consider all the different variants of engines that they produce. You don’t want to have a stock of each and every individual engine variant, just in case somebody calls up and wants it.
It would make sense to have a relatively small stock of completed engines, but only for the most common types/variants. The ones that go into PA28s, C172s, DR400s and Cirruses probably. The rest would be built to order.
Yeah and lets not forget that unused parts/engines rust and corrode. Its just the nature of aviation. Disuse=corrosion. So you cant have 100 engines just sitting around corroding. Unless you can send them to a flight school to be stored. Is there a tongue in cheek smiley face?
AIUI, Lyco offer (or used to) more than one preservation option. The standard one was 1 year storage on the pallet, after which you have two options
Now…. it doesn’t take a PhD to work out that
)Of course I am completely unaware of any aircraft manufacturer which might have considered any of the above, nor have I ever owned an aircraft whose original engine logbook contained dates which were just exactly under 1 year after Lyco’s shipment date (obtainable by telephoning them).
One can preserve an engine indefinitely, by filling it right up with oil, but AFAIK Lyco don’t offer that option. And then the seals will still perish… I have heard rumours that there are unused Merlin (Spitfire) engines still in crates, stored like that, in India… It will still need an overhaul but at least the internal metal parts will be OK.
The USA will never accept diesels just like they never accepted high gas mileage cars, yet for some reason Ford and GM building the same type outdated product that “everyone” bought went bankrupt.
There is no comparison.
GM and Ford are multinational US owned companies that are currently the second (GM) and fifth (Ford) largest volume car producers (Toyota is first in volume). What that has to do with GA on this planet is not clear to me
I think if you really wanted to make a more intelligent anti-Lycoming automotive comparison you could point to Harley Davidson under AMF ownership circa 1980, and how volume could be increased if aggressive engineering development occurred alongside skilled marketing of a product that nobody actually needs, and which makes no sense to the uninvolved. Who would have thought HD could sell hundreds of thousands of units per year in 1980? That comparison wouldn’t make a lot of sense to me either because there probably isn’t a similar potential untapped market, and Lycoming’s product is not actually a major engineering problem. As others have posted earlier in the thread, a little development would be good but its not going to unveil much untapped volume. Europe and China are both problematic beyond the avgas distribution issue.
Volume will come when the product is in line with the market expectations. Has anyone stepped into a Porsche Panamera lately? It’s a third of the price of the Cirrus. Alternatively the Cirrus is a third the price of a PC12 but a 10th of the capabilities.
As to intelligent comparisons, Ford and GM currently sell anything because the government (or the US taxpayer more accurately – http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm) rescued them out couple years back (probably too embarrassing to remember). It’s ok, Silvaire’s co-taxpayers were only 9.2 billion out of pocket. Obviously they were selling huge volumes of a very profitable line of products!
As to what they sell… – even Ford realised (albeit too late) that whatever tech they had was outdated and started buying European manufacturers (Volvo, Aston) to get access to the engine and platform R&D they lacked.
So yeah… i really guess there is NO comparison ^^ … denial is not a river in Egypt.
The problem at present its no one has really addressed the flight training market.
Old metal with dinosaur engines are still more cost effective to run than any of the new stuff.
If and when this occurs then the shift will come.
At present the tbr and gearbox replacement on the centuirion are not high enough.
And the 912 TBO is 2000 hours based on engine running time with no extensions allowed. Plus it never been mated to an suitable air frame eg C150
The Rotax 912 has been fitted to the Cessna 150, by a French company under an STC. The problem technically in that application is that the smaller displacement engine needs a variable pitch propeller to do the same job as an O-200. Just like a smaller displacement car with the same rated power, when climbing a hill you need to use the gearbox (i.e. propeller) more. That creates maintenance and cost issues, just as with the diesels.
I think a new training market engine (and airframe) would be a fine thing. I suspect the best overall design would have a similar displacement and rpm to the O-200, but be improved in detail design..
Shorrick, everybody in the known world understands the GM and Chrysler bailout. Also that Ford didn’t actually take any Federal money. I like Fords better for that reason among others. It’s totally irrelevant to the thread.
