First time I ear from it.
That is in essence an old Fiat automotive engine.
It’s targeting drones only and tries to take over the market of Thielert’s UAV business.
I get the shivers when I see that it is tooth belt driven. Terrible idea.
achimha wrote:
It’s targeting drones only
That’s certainly not what Lycoming say in the video. They are certifying this thing as they go, and the intention is to enter the certified aircraft market, in a pragmatic sort of way.
Talk is cheap and pragmatic means never 
Should they say “while TCM have two certified production diesel designs, we have nothing and given our limited technical skills and low budget, we probably will never have anything and hope to survive selling what we developed 50 years ago”? Would be true but not ideal PR…
It’s a matter of perspective. If that engine is good enough for the US Air Force, it’s certainly good enough for me. That engine could be sold any day to the experimental market (that probably won’t touch it anyway due to price/complexity, but that’s another matter ) Such an engine will only sell if a certified aircraft manufacturer creates a highly wanted aircraft around it. It has to be part of a package. What Lycoming is signaling is they have the engine, if someone has a suitable aircraft.
LeSving wrote:
If that engine is good enough for the US Air Force, it’s certainly good enough for me.
Apart from the fact that the USAF does not attach humans to the vehicles they put that engine in. But I’d say they have ample operating experience with it, so it is not at all a new design with teething trouble but would be comparatively proven.
The question is, will they manage to certify it and if so, will it be suitable for retrofitting. If so, they might have a huge sales potential, if not….
Somehow it looks pretty big, so I wonder under which cowling it can go….
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Apart from the fact that the USAF does not attach humans to the vehicles they put that engine in
I don’t really think that means anything in either direction. The Air Force has it’s standards, it doesn’t matter if it’s a drone or a F-35, or a missile. But then, it doesn’t matter if the TBO of that engine is 50 h in a military setting. P-51s were built to last 25 hours or something. They are still flying today. I know nothing about that engine though. Its the first time I have heard of it. Where exactly is it used?
It means a lot, because the AF does not have to certify anything to FAA standards. They can fly whatever they feel like.
achimha wrote:
It’s targeting drones only and tries to take over the market of Thielert’s UAV business.
The issue there is that Continental does not have rights to the Thielert UAV business, they bought only rights to the commercial business and are ineligible to sell to the UAV business as a result of Chinese ownership. The engines now being supplied for US military UAVs are built by others.
As described in the video, this prototype engine was inherited by Lycoming many years ago as a result of their (then) ownership. They never did anything with it until it looked like the UAV airframe manufacturer would lose engine supply for their plane, during the Thielert bankruptcy period. The airframe manufacturer then funded a demonstration of the Lycoming engine to the US Army (I’ve posted the press release link previously, USAF does not operate diesel UAVs), and gave them some money to play around with it a bit more. I’m not sure whether it has gone anywhere with US Army contracts, or not.
They can fly whatever they feel like.
That is a bit simplistic because if a drone engine fails, especially over enemy territory, it’s not the best outcome … also these drones are not the €1000 quadcopters that some people fly via the Gatwick ILS.
