Run it! Wanted to hear it! Really wanted to see Lycomings smallest test cell. Would this be where your young test cell operater's begin their career? Cool stuff.
This "clown world" where the average TH-camr cant even comprehend business math, let alone start or run a business, even when given an entire human lifetime to do so, they still cant figure it out. Go rent a 15,000sqft industrial building at $2/ft ($30k/mo) on a 20-year contract. Hire two dozen employees. Some cost $75k and others cost $150k. The ones who do the design work, development, and set up or manage the assembly line, finances, and business total around $2M annually, just in their compensation packages alone. Not counting ANSYS and Solidworks at $50k annually, per seat. And each engineer needs a seat. Multiply that by 5 years to develop the engine itself. What does all this cost? $63.2M over 20 years. Not counting purchasing many millions of dollars in advanced CNC and casting machines. ($10m-50m more). Now how many engines are they going to sell? It would take 1,000 just to gross enough to cover building and salaries alone. But since each is assembled by parts that have costs associated, and machines that need purchased or rented, and repaired. And if your profit margin is maybe 10-20% you have to sell 3,000-6,000 at $60k each just to keep your head above water, and lenders at bay. You need to sell 10,000 to make a good profit. That is the catch. Can you sell 10,000? What if the customer decides they want a jet instead, cancel the project, and pick a different supplier? This is called RISK. Risk in signing that 10-20 year building or machine lease. Risk in borrowing $100,000,000 to make it all happen. This is reality for these sorts of technical niche products. This isn't mass-market ATVs made in china, sold in the millions annually. And it's not amazon. This is closer to F1 racing than it is to motocross. Or lawnmower racing. (Which youtube commenters are also incapable of winning in, interestingly enough). This engine has a very low BSFC in class, giving extremely good range potential. It has high altitude capability. It has high power density and is purpose built for an extremely demanding application in the worst environments on earth, operated and maintained by enlisted personal. It is priced appropriately.
I appreciate that Lycoming is made in America...which is no different than Continental, except that Lycoming is owned by non-Chinese interests. Therein lies the difference.
This’ll be good for a mini bike or go-kart. Just add a centrifugal clutch or CVT, a new expansion chamber, some nitrous oxide and you have a potentially fun machine.
hello Grammer Nazi. Let me know if you find the reason to wear hard hat ,safety glasses, name tags (can get some one hung by their neck) , to build engines LOL. thanks for posting
pavelavietor1 Maybe you can ask the guy, if you have the balls (which I doubt)...or play it safe and just assume, like you're doing now. Off to the kiddie table, plebe.
hello Gramer Nazi. I know I m fear full (no balls), but my grandfather a Nazi Castilian say to me , do not worry every one have the potential of been fear full and I only fear you and you brother. God speed
Power...how much power?...most military tech finds it's way into civil hands, eventually...surplus, or commercial...i hope they're not scrapping the ones they change out..(i'm sure there are already black market ashtrays)...one or a coupla these things could get me off the ground!!
this engine was developed in Australia by orbital engines. They should of gone to efi diesel instead of spark. more torque. less tech to stop detonation like the spark. or gone to miniature turbo prop like they use in radio controlled stuff.
I don't see gasoline technology lasting much longer in aviation. Diesels put out rated power at higher altitudes compared to gas engines, require no mix or FADEC, are less complex mechanically and will prove their greater worth over the long haul versus gasoline. Turboprops will continue to expand. Personally, I embrace it.
Diesels are way too heavy to be practical in aviation, they will have FADEC because they're being based on automotive engines, and they absolutely have to be turbocharged to produce any kind of decent power output.
Until a diesel can hold altitude with a failed turbo I will not endorse them. They are not less complex than a gasoline engine in that they require an injection pump that can fail and it is difficult to provide redundancy for this system. The turbocharger dependency thing is really putting too many eggs in one basket. A Cessna Turbo 210 can keep flying with a failed turbo. A turbo diesel will not hold altitude in the event of turbo failure.
Pete Kuhns Sure, all diesels have that, but he also explained that it is ignited with a spark, and you can see the spark plug on top of the cylinder. So it is not a diesel engine.
sorry, I had to bail on this guy with a 1957 Chevy windshield on his face. What's next? earplugs, steel toe shoes, back brace, high visibility vest simply to walk into a manufacturing plant? I'm sure OSHA and countless insurance companies want to minimize risk but this is ridiculous.
Run it! Wanted to hear it! Really wanted to see Lycomings smallest test cell. Would this be where your young test cell operater's begin their career? Cool stuff.
400hr TBO ! Somebody should've asked ECHO and Stil to offer competition. Lol
Great engine! Highly engineered! Shame not to hear the sound and see it turn !!
Cost per unit is in excess of $60,000 USD.
for a 400tbo engine ??
Another example of government contractors ripping off government. They should have gone to Briggs and Straton.
Truly a clown world we live in. I could make a better engine with items from my kitchen drawer, for 99% less price.
This "clown world" where the average TH-camr cant even comprehend business math, let alone start or run a business, even when given an entire human lifetime to do so, they still cant figure it out.
Go rent a 15,000sqft industrial building at $2/ft ($30k/mo) on a 20-year contract. Hire two dozen employees. Some cost $75k and others cost $150k. The ones who do the design work, development, and set up or manage the assembly line, finances, and business total around $2M annually, just in their compensation packages alone. Not counting ANSYS and Solidworks at $50k annually, per seat. And each engineer needs a seat. Multiply that by 5 years to develop the engine itself.
What does all this cost? $63.2M over 20 years. Not counting purchasing many millions of dollars in advanced CNC and casting machines. ($10m-50m more). Now how many engines are they going to sell? It would take 1,000 just to gross enough to cover building and salaries alone.
But since each is assembled by parts that have costs associated, and machines that need purchased or rented, and repaired. And if your profit margin is maybe 10-20% you have to sell 3,000-6,000 at $60k each just to keep your head above water, and lenders at bay. You need to sell 10,000 to make a good profit. That is the catch. Can you sell 10,000? What if the customer decides they want a jet instead, cancel the project, and pick a different supplier? This is called RISK. Risk in signing that 10-20 year building or machine lease. Risk in borrowing $100,000,000 to make it all happen.
This is reality for these sorts of technical niche products. This isn't mass-market ATVs made in china, sold in the millions annually. And it's not amazon.
This is closer to F1 racing than it is to motocross. Or lawnmower racing. (Which youtube commenters are also incapable of winning in, interestingly enough).
This engine has a very low BSFC in class, giving extremely good range potential. It has high altitude capability. It has high power density and is purpose built for an extremely demanding application in the worst environments on earth, operated and maintained by enlisted personal.
It is priced appropriately.
I appreciate that Lycoming is made in America...which is no different than Continental, except that Lycoming is owned by non-Chinese interests. Therein lies the difference.
Grammer Nazi: Who cares pleb?
This’ll be good for a mini bike or go-kart. Just add a centrifugal clutch or CVT, a new expansion chamber, some nitrous oxide and you have a potentially fun machine.
hello very difficult to watch the use of safety glasses when in no need for them
Sorta like wearing a toolbelt between jobs...
hello Grammer Nazi. Let me know if you find the reason to wear hard hat ,safety glasses, name tags (can get some one hung by their neck) , to build engines LOL. thanks for posting
pavelavietor1 Maybe you can ask the guy, if you have the balls (which I doubt)...or play it safe and just assume, like you're doing now. Off to the kiddie table, plebe.
hello Gramer Nazi. I know I m fear full (no balls), but my grandfather a Nazi Castilian say to me , do not worry every one have the potential of been fear full and I only fear you and you brother. God speed
Probably a company rule. Any time on shop floor safety glasses to be worn. Easier than finding another eye or job.
Can I which propeller use? pitch step length
Power...how much power?...most military tech finds it's way into civil hands, eventually...surplus, or commercial...i hope they're not scrapping the ones they change out..(i'm sure there are already black market ashtrays)...one or a coupla these things could get me off the ground!!
I was wondering the same, the military probably doesn't let them disclose the power rating
Max Continuous (100%) 4 hp (2.98 kW) @ 5,000 RPM
Performance Cruise (75%) 3 hp (2.24 kW) @ 5,000 RPM
Economy Cruise (45%) 1.8 hp (1.34 kW) @ 4,250 RPM
Fuel Consumption
1.7 lb/hr (0.78 kg/hr) @ 5,000 RPM; 1.1 lb/hr (0.48 kg/hr) @ 4,250 RPM
this engine was developed in Australia by orbital engines. They should of gone to efi diesel instead of spark. more torque. less tech to stop detonation like the spark. or gone to miniature turbo prop like they use in radio controlled stuff.
I don't see gasoline technology lasting much longer in aviation. Diesels put out rated power at higher altitudes compared to gas engines, require no mix or FADEC, are less complex mechanically and will prove their greater worth over the long haul versus gasoline. Turboprops will continue to expand. Personally, I embrace it.
Diesels are way too heavy to be practical in aviation, they will have FADEC because they're being based on automotive engines, and they absolutely have to be turbocharged to produce any kind of decent power output.
You know nothing about aviation based on that idiotic statement . . .
Until a diesel can hold altitude with a failed turbo I will not endorse them. They are not less complex than a gasoline engine in that they require an injection pump that can fail and it is difficult to provide redundancy for this system.
The turbocharger dependency thing is really putting too many eggs in one basket. A Cessna Turbo 210 can keep flying with a failed turbo. A turbo diesel will not hold altitude in the event of turbo failure.
@@PistonAvatarGuy still to heavy, I thought cessna has diesel powered 172 out there, was it a success?
Can't even use it for a lawn mower.
Cetane ranges below 30
I will stick with my stihl , cheeper
Very difficult to watch this and resist thinking "wow, modern engine technology from Lycoming..."
two stroke, jet A.. I bet they went to balsa reed valves and drawings from 1850.
:0)
*****
I just heard "direct injection" and was all gaga. But I guess all diesels have that...
Pete Kuhns
Sure, all diesels have that, but he also explained that it is ignited with a spark, and you can see the spark plug on top of the cylinder. So it is not a diesel engine.
Direct injection would suck. It's good to have the gas wash the intake valve. Especially for aircraft.
Johnny Tobifour Why?
sorry, I had to bail on this guy with a 1957 Chevy windshield on his face. What's next? earplugs, steel toe shoes, back brace, high visibility vest simply to walk into a manufacturing plant? I'm sure OSHA and countless insurance companies want to minimize risk but this is ridiculous.