Lycoming Clone

Production car engines in volume cost less than 5 grand to make, so yes there is a fair bit of leeway. Billet parts aren't necessarily the way to go, sand cast patterns are cheap and sufficient.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

It's not the manufacturing cost. It's the insurance cost and the monopoly cost.

... and very low production volume by automotive standards.

Now you get to see why big corporations lobby for regulations. The certification costs make it impossible for smaller operations to exist and be competitive.

What would it take to pull together the elements of an engine program with the sole purpose of essentially cloning one of these engines?

My assumption would be to start in the computer where all of the geometry, parts and tolerances are initially established. I know nothing about the process. Assuming we're starting with a known commodity, how long would it take to reverse engineer a Lycoming to the point of being able to start cutting parts, assembling and testing?

Some simple examples of the absurdity of aircraft engine parts. Crankshaft $7,500-20,000 depending on new vs refurbished. Refurbished crankcase $7,500 minimum. Runout engine cores are going for $15,000 to $20,000. It sure seems like there is plenty of money to be made for a talented group of people to solve this and create some competition.

There are a lot of frustrated pilots out there who I believe would be willing to invest in the effort. There are 3 engines that are ubiquitous in experimental aviation. IO-360, IO-390 and the IO-540. How does one go about shaking up an industry?

Everwild said:

How does one go about shaking up an industry?

Click to expand...

One way is like Elon Musk with Tesla: throw a lot of money at it and secure a DOE backed loan for additional capital. Get market momentum and go quickly to an IPO for additional capital. 1. Hope you can keep everything together until your first products roll off the assembly line. 2. Hope you get market acceptance. 3. Hope your angel investors give you some breathing room. 4. Throw more capital in the fire. 5. Hope the market embraces your innovation/product to allow you to achieve reasonable margins.

I wonder how much involvement Tesla has in these electric vehicle mandates states like California are blindly entering? That will certainly secure a lot of funding for them.

Anyways, instead of attempting to steal IP, the other option is to do something a little different. Delta Hawk is an example, they're reviving the diesel engine in 2-stroke flavor.


This is an intriguing approach. The 2-stroke engines isn't inherently dirty. There used to be a company that sold overhaul kits for 71 series Detroit Diesel engines that were certified to meet Tier 2 emissions standards without electronic controls. I built and ran two of those engines for a total of 50,000 hours. Great system.

I haven't found a video of the plane flying from the outside. They have posted a video from the inside and it sounds a lot like the old 71 series Detroit Diesel. I imagine the sound level is quite loud which is why DH is so tight on their videos of this already certified engine. Get as many pre-orders as possible and then disappoint into bankruptcy.

I know one CEO fell into this trap.
He rented a building, purchased machines
And hired bodies. To machine parts.
Half way thru production parts became scrap. He lost millions.

The reason was because of skill level required for complex aero space complexity. The knowledge required for processing parts , with complex heat treat, material's, and the precision required to hold tolerances.
It takes years of experience.

I'd doubt the FAA would accept your "clone" without repeating all of the engine certification testing, including the full range of flight conditions of temperature, altitude, fuel and oil grade variations, etc. etc. I.e. it's not enough to just duplicate the form, you need to demonstrate the function - performance, durability and safety to flight operation. It's not clear from there, if type certification of the engine in one airframe allows use in others without additional testing. Not a lawyer, not involved in flight cert's. I did talk to a neighbor company who were involved in avionics, and so knew a thing or two about FAA certification processes. They were also trying to build a high performance automobile-derivative engine and get it certified for experimental use, and were figuring on multiple millions to get it there. Not sure if they were successful, it's been a few years.

To mitigate my previous post. It will behoove to run a very small lots to tool proof the entire process.
Take one parts at a time and tool proof it.
Far as the FAA contact government
Quality engineer to verify the FAA qualification process.

There is an after market business that has to have the close to exact processes as possible. That meets or exceeds. And the the same material and heat treat if it requires it. And more forgetting some of ut. ISO approved suppliers,

There isn't a single part in an aircraft engine that I would consider complicated to produce. One key is that with decades of experience a manufacturer will have developed a portfolio or suppliers that can provide them with parts without requiring extensive specification.

When aircraft engines fail people die, that is why every po art has to be documented with a stack of c po paper work documenting every manufacturing and every process. By a QA representative. Every part gets a stringent inspection procedures
And all suppliers and the manufacture has to have NADCAP approved credentials.
With quality systems in place.
While you could machine some of c the parts in a garage. You would not be approve or allowed to sell your products.

I believe in the experimental category, an engine doesn't need to be certified by the FAA. In fact when you put a certified engine in an experimental aircraft, it gets stripped of it's certificates and becomes an "experiemental" engine. If I wanted to put a Chevy LS in my aircraft, I could. That's the beauty of the experimental/homebuilt category. The only real hurdle is proving reliability and value to the buyer market. If at a later date the engine is a success, then FAA certifications and testing standards could be pursued. For example Garmin proves new hardware and software in the experimental market in many cases before pushing it up to the certified market. It's a proving grounds for stuff to be eventually certified to some extent. The plane I'm building will cost roughly $300k once complete and have the same capability as a $800k-1.1m certified airplane with the major differences being the paperwork. Right now my only real option is a certified engine and propeller combination which will be roughly 1/3 of the total build price. It would seem that same engine and propeller combination should be about 1/3 to 1/2 of the certified engine price but it's not until someone invests in creating it.

There are automotive shops taking engines, beefing up components and getting 5-10x the power they were originally rated for. I'm talking about taking modern production techniques to clone and or improve a platform to produce the same if not a slightly more powerful variant.

Good luck with that. Stateside our industries are mostly self-certifying. Before selling an engine, manufacturers must test to show that it meets all emissions, safety, durability, and other requirements for the intended application. Certification testing alone (never mind development) costs millions of dollars, which is why the overwhelming majority of startup engine manufacturers fail quickly and even large, well-established bodybuilders (buses, military vehicles, etc) haven't developed their own engines.

Even though it's an ancient platform, Lycoming is a proven and reliable engine. But current day pricing is totally ridiculous considering the tech. You just can't help but feel gouged and look for another option.

Op
Yes that is an option for an experimental aircraft and that is your choice
I know
Have processes and manufactured engine components by FAA approved after market companies. Even with modern equipment every part was a challenge. And some of the old processes were obsolete.
The tolerances were extremely close and precise. How this guys use to manufacture these parts back in 50 and 60 with no CNC was totally amazing. A testimony to their skills and craftsmanship.

I have no doubt it's expensive which the main reason why Lycoming has a monopoly, not because they have a superior product. The fuel costs alone to test an IO-540 for 2,000 hours at 80% of rated power would be roughly $180k.

Op
Contact the FAA for details