Choice in Aircraft Engines

Tantalum

Tantalum

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
9,244
Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Why is that in the Cessna / Piper / Cirrus etc., world buyers don't get a choice in power plant. With Conti / Lyco having similar product line up, and some people who clearly have a preference for one or the other, why can't someone buying a new Bonanza, Stationaire, SR22, etc., have a choice between Lyco or Conti?

Would the certification be cost prohibitive? There are certainly people out there who won't buy "X" because it is powered by "Y"

You have choices in the big commercial jet world, you can buy a 777 with 3 different engines choices (PW, RR, GE).. I know volume is different, but is there any other reason?
 
Sort of the same reason you can't buy a Chev with a Ford engine? ;)
 
Last edited:
There's not enough volume or the price per unit is too low. Do you have a choice of engine when you buy a business jet?
 
I'm sure cost vs potential demand would be the most likely reason. Each engine and airframe combo would have to be certified and there would have to be separate firewall forward packages built and possibly even different forward fuselages depending on how each engine mount mounted to the firewall. In the end the juice probably didn't merit the squeeze.

One data point. When Van's started the development of the RV-10 back in 2003, they planned to offer 2 factory supported engine choices - the Lycoming IO-540 and the Conti IO-360. The 2nd RV-10 prototype was built and flew with the 360. Nobody wanted it so Van's dropped it as an option.
 
The engines are interchangeable with airframe modification. An example would be a C182 which had a Continental engine early in production and a Lycoming late in production after Textron bought Lycoming.

Most of the time the manufactures have selected the engine they believe is best for the application. An example is the Mooney 201 and 252.

Airplane production is already expensive due to the low volume of parts needed. Adding a choice of engines would increase the cost of a particular model.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Well, Ford and Chevy don't generally use 3rd party engine suppliers, so that's a pretty big "sort of".
Click to expand...

American motors did and several of the current manufactures share the same chassis for their cars, ie. the Chrysler 300 and the Mercedes E Class.
 
GRG55 said:
Sort of the same reason you can't buy a Chev with a Ford engine?
Click to expand...
..sort of... but Ford and Chevy build their own engines, so it would be odd if you could buy a Toyota but request a Chevy engine in it

FormerHangie said:
Do you have a choice of engine when you buy a business jet?
Click to expand...
No idea.. I don't think so?

FormerHangie said:
There's not enough volume or the price per unit is too low.
Click to expand...
That's what I assumed, but I feel like so many talk trash about Conti so I wonder if you could buy a Mooney / Piper / Cirrus etc., with a 300 hp Lyco instead of the Conti offering they'd sell enough extra units to make it worth it

Clip4 said:
Airplane production is already expensive due to the low volume of parts needed. Adding a choice of engines would increase the cost of a particular model.
Click to expand...
What I figured, but wondered if there was something else I wasn't thinking of
 
I think the main reason Pipers were made with Lycomings is because Williamsport was proximate to the original Lock Haven factory. Piper used Continentals for models where a suitable Lycoming wasn't available (e.g. Turbo Arrows, Seneca II+).

But Textron now owns Lycoming, and voila, none of their piston airplanes now use Continental motors. The Chinese parent company of Cirrus also owns Continental. As long as there is a suitable Continental motor for the product that's probably what Cirrus will use. The SR-20 switch to Lycoming decision is a good example of a gap in the Continental line up.


SoonerAviator said:
Well, Ford and Chevy don't generally use 3rd party engine suppliers, so that's a pretty big "sort of".
Click to expand...
 
Bellanca actually did this with the Super Viking. Could get it with a IO520 or an IO540.
 
Tantalum said:
Why is that in the Cessna / Piper / Cirrus etc., world buyers don't get a choice in power plant. With Conti / Lyco having similar product line up, and some people who clearly have a preference for one or the other, why can't someone buying a new Bonanza, Stationaire, SR22, etc., have a choice between Lyco or Conti?
Click to expand...
DA40 you can choose between a Lycoming IO360 or Austro AE300. SR20/22 you can choose between Lycoming and Continental.
 
asicer said:
SR20/22 you can choose between Lycoming and Continental
Click to expand...
Didn't know the Diamond gave you a choice. On the Cirrus, I thought it was just the SR20 switched to Lyco... are you certain they give you a choice? I could be wrong but on their site one's always been advertised as Continental and the other as Lycoming. https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr22t/
 
Tantalum said:
..sort of... but Ford and Chevy build their own engines, so it would be odd if you could buy a Toyota but request a Chevy engine in it


No idea.. I don't think so?


That's what I assumed, but I feel like so many talk trash about Conti so I wonder if you could buy a Mooney / Piper / Cirrus etc., with a 300 hp Lyco instead of the Conti offering they'd sell enough extra units to make it worth it


What I figured, but wondered if there was something else I wasn't thinking of
Click to expand...

Some diesels are/were the exception-

Ford Powerstroke (at least one version)-Navistar
Chevy-International
Dodge-Cummins
 
Tantalum said:
Didn't know the Diamond gave you a choice. On the Cirrus, I thought it was just the SR20 switched to Lyco... are you certain they give you a choice? I could be wrong but on their site one's always been advertised as Continental and the other as Lycoming. https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr22t/
Click to expand...
Well, I meant that the Cirrus gives you a choice between Lycoming and Continental but at slightly different HP outputs. :)

The SR20 and 22 is mostly the same otherwise, no?
 
asicer said:
The SR20 and 22 is mostly the same otherwise, no?
Click to expand...
For the most part, you get some differences but I imagine the majority of tooling to be the same. Which has also made me wonder why the huge price differences. Is the SR20 a money loser, or is the SR22 a money maker, or both a little bit of each? Who knows
 
Clip4 said:
American motors did and several of the current manufactures share the same chassis for their cars, ie. the Chrysler 300 and the Mercedes E Class.
Click to expand...

The shared chassis/engines across brands is typically a result of a joint-venture, not an exercise in providing additional customer options. Example: Ford/GM share their new 10-spd transmission that was developed jointly, that doesn't mean that they are trying to give people the option of which transmission brand they wanted. @Omalley1537 provided one of the exceptions (light duty diesel trucks) which, again, wasn't done to increase consumer engine brand options, it was done as a joint-venture agreement so that Ford/GM/Dodge didn't have to absorb all of the design/mfg/supply costs of a diesel engine. Ford learned their lesson with Navistar after the 6.0L, too.

With piston aircraft engines, I think offering the choices would be a bit more simple. If the mfr (Cessna/Piper/Cirrus/etc.) wanted to design some cowlings/exhausts/etc. to accommodate 2-3 engine options, they could. It just means additional certification work and increased inventory/production costs to stock panels for a Lyco/Conti/Rotax. the bigger driver, as has been mentioned, is that much of the engine supplier market is being driven by whichever parent company owns the aircraft manufacturer. Even if Cessna wanted to use Rotax/Conti, it wouldn't likely do it because they are arm-in-arm with Lycoming.

In the marine world, you can generally choose from Volvo or Mercruiser powerplants interchangeably with the boat manufacturer with inboard/outboards. Outboard boat manufacturers generally give you 2-3 engine choices (Honda/Mercury/JohnnyRude). Inboards are generally Mercruiser until the boat is large enough to consider diesel options.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, Piper now allows you to choose between a PA28 powered by a Lycoming IO360 or a Continental IO370. Only catch is that you need to be a flight school to buy the Piper Pilot 100/100i.
 
asicer said:
Oh yeah, Piper now allows you to choose between a PA28 powered by a Lycoming IO360 or a Continental IO370. Only catch is that you need to be a flight school to buy the Piper Pilot 100/100i.
Click to expand...

One of those is a Lycoming. Isn't the other a clone of a Lycoming?
 
bradg33 said:
Bellanca actually did this with the Super Viking. Could get it with a IO520 or an IO540.
Click to expand...
True story

GRG55 said:
But Textron now owns Lycoming, and voila, none of their piston airplanes now use Continental motors.
Click to expand...
Happened decades ago and answers the OP's original question.
Cessna and Lycoming under one umbrella is how the C172 went from Conti O-300 to Lycoming O-320 and why the C-150 became the C-152.

Probably seemed real dumb to the bean counters why they would buy Continentals when they owned an engine company.
 
aftCG said:
they owned an engine company
Click to expand...
Any insight on what the strategic or financial purpose of that purchase was? I imagine buying another thin margin business, when you are already a thing margin business, must have had its merits
 
Tantalum said:
Any insight on what the strategic or financial purpose of that purchase was? I imagine buying another thin margin business, when you are already a thing margin business, must have had its merits
Click to expand...

Vertical integration? Not uncommon to purchase a vendor you’ve been using to get increased margins as well as control of your supply line. Also can help with aligning any airframe R&D with the powerplant needs. Why design around an existing engine if you own the engine manufacturer and can design the engine to your parameters?
 
Tantalum said:
Any insight on what the strategic or financial purpose of that purchase was? I imagine buying another thin margin business, when you are already a thing margin business, must have had its merits
Click to expand...

Textron bought Lycoming in the mid-80's. Piston GA still had a pulse and the turbine market was going strong.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The shared chassis/engines across brands is typically a result of a joint-venture, not an exercise in providing additional customer options. Example: Ford/GM share their new 10-spd transmission that was developed jointly, that doesn't mean that they are trying to give people the option of which transmission brand they wanted. @Omalley1537 provided one of the exceptions (light duty diesel trucks) which, again, wasn't done to increase consumer engine brand options, it was done as a joint-venture agreement so that Ford/GM/Dodge didn't have to absorb all of the design/mfg/supply costs of a diesel engine. Ford learned their lesson with Navistar after the 6.0L, too.

With piston aircraft engines, I think offering the choices would be a bit more simple. If the mfr (Cessna/Piper/Cirrus/etc.) wanted to design some cowlings/exhausts/etc. to accommodate 2-3 engine options, they could. It just means additional certification work and increased inventory/production costs to stock panels for a Lyco/Conti/Rotax. the bigger driver, as has been mentioned, is that much of the engine supplier market is being driven by whichever parent company owns the aircraft manufacturer. Even if Cessna wanted to use Rotax/Conti, it wouldn't likely do it because they are arm-in-arm with Lycoming.

In the marine world, you can generally choose from Volvo or Mercruiser powerplants interchangeably with the boat manufacturer with inboard/outboards. Outboard boat manufacturers generally give you 2-3 engine choices (Honda/Mercury/JohnnyRude). Inboards are generally Mercruiser until the boat is large enough to consider diesel options.
Click to expand...

Who owns Cummins for Ram trucks?
 
SoonerAviator said:
Vertical integration? Not uncommon to purchase a vendor you’ve been using to get increased margins as well as control of your supply line.
Click to expand...
True.. but if GA was still strong in the 80s I wonder what Lycoming gets out of it.. they're effectively giving up whatever sales they would have gotten from Piper and Beechcraft at the time, among others. Does that explain why so many of the "other" manufacturers ended up with Continentals?

kyleb said:
Piston GA still had a pulse and the turbine market was going strong.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what Lyco got out of it though?

Does that mean then that Textron is technically supplying a competitor, Cirrus, in their SR20 now?

Anyway, cool.. always learn something on these forums
 
Tantalum said:
True.. but if GA was still strong in the 80s I wonder what Lycoming gets out of it.. they're effectively giving up whatever sales they would have gotten from Piper and Beechcraft at the time, among others. Does that explain why so many of the "other" manufacturers ended up with Continentals?


I'm curious what Lyco got out of it though?

Does that mean then that Textron is technically supplying a competitor, Cirrus, in their SR20 now?

Anyway, cool.. always learn something on these forums
Click to expand...

Piston GA may have had a pulse in the 1980s, but it was anything but strong. The double recession in the early '80s drove interest rates into the stratosphere, and kicked the legs out from under GA. And what was left got hammered by rapidly rising product liability insurance premiums. Production of piston engine light aircraft collapsed and will never recover to anywhere near the levels we saw in the late 1970s. And the early to mid-1980s saw the permanent removal from production of a number of GA piston aircraft models and makes. Bellanca essentially disappeared. Piper went bankrupt. Mooney became a permanently declining shadow of its former self.

Textron bought AVCO, which owns Lycoming, in 1985. What AVCO Lycoming got out of it was a parent company with strong enough financials to keep it out of bankruptcy. Textron didn't acquire Cessna until 7 years later.

In the meantime, General Dynamics, which owned Cessna at the time, halted all piston engine GA production of Cessna aircraft in 1986. Cessna didn't restart piston production until a decade later, under Textron in 1996.

And I don't think Textron, or Cessna, see Cirrus as much of a competitive threat now Cessna has shelved the TTx. They aren't really trying to market to the same cohort.

aftCG said:
Happened decades ago and answers the OP's original question.
Cessna and Lycoming under one umbrella is how the C172 went from Conti O-300 to Lycoming O-320 and why the C-150 became the C-152.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Cessna started building Lycoming powered 172s in 1968. The 152 came out in 1977, and production ended permanently when Cessna halted production in 1986. Lycoming and Cessna did not end up "under one umbrella" until Textron bought Cessna in 1992.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
..sort of... but Ford and Chevy build their own engines, so it would be odd if you could buy a Toyota but request a Chevy engine in it


No idea.. I don't think so?


That's what I assumed, but I feel like so many talk trash about Conti so I wonder if you could buy a Mooney / Piper / Cirrus etc., with a 300 hp Lyco instead of the Conti offering they'd sell enough extra units to make it worth it


What I figured, but wondered if there was something else I wasn't thinking of
Click to expand...

I checked Cessna, Learjet, and Gulfstream, no choice of engines on any of their bizjets.
 
aftCG said:
True story


Happened decades ago and answers the OP's original question.
Cessna and Lycoming under one umbrella is how the C172 went from Conti O-300 to Lycoming O-320 and why the C-150 became the C-152.

Probably seemed real dumb to the bean counters why they would buy Continentals when they owned an engine company.
Click to expand...

Cessna switched the 172 from Continental to Lycoming power in 1968, long before Textron had them under joint ownership.
 
Clip4 said:
Who owns Cummins for Ram trucks?
Click to expand...

Cummins is a publicly traded company on their own. Not sure what you mean? Dodge/Ram never made their own diesel, so pairing with Cummins (or a company like them) was the only way to offer a diesel engine for their 2500/3500 truck lines at the time. They didn't want to invest in R&D for building their own diesel engine.
 
Airframes are certified, engines are certified, and each airframe/engine combo is certified. So the real answer is money. It's always money.
 
GRG55 said:
But Textron now owns Lycoming, and voila, none of their piston airplanes now use Continental motors.
Click to expand...

True, today. But up until last year when they stopped producing them, the Cessna 400/Corvalis/ttX had Continentals.
 
Dan Thomas said:
True, today. But up until last year when they stopped producing them, the Cessna 400/Corvalis/ttX had Continentals.
Click to expand...

Which was another reason Textron had no love for that product line.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Cummins is a publicly traded company on their own. Not sure what you mean? Dodge/Ram never made their own diesel, so pairing with Cummins (or a company like them) was the only way to offer a diesel engine for their 2500/3500 truck lines at the time. They didn't want to invest in R&D for building their own diesel engine.
Click to expand...

And dodge screwed it up on the common rails...Bosch (maker of the diesel injection system) spec’d 2 micron filtration and dodge equipped them with 7-10...leading to a ton of injector failures. I’d go on, but my blood pressure would reach dangerous levels recounting my “fun” warranty experience on an 06 Mega Cab...
 
Omalley1537 said:
And dodge screwed it up on the common rails...Bosch (maker of the diesel injection system) spec’d 2 micron filtration and dodge equipped them with 7-10...leading to a ton of injector failures. I’d go on, but my blood pressure would reach dangerous levels recounting my “fun” warranty experience on an 06 Mega Cab...
Click to expand...

My BIL has a 2018 Dodge 2500 w/Cummins. Sharp looking truck with some off-road accessories added on. He's only had it for 2 years and it's been at the dealer multiple times for failures related to the emissions system (DEF and exhaust filter) and fuel system. I'm sure the fuel system issues are unrelated to the Bosch filtration requirements, but problems remain nonetheless. I believe the BIL intends to sell off the truck in the next 6 months because of the headaches it's been causing him. I will say, that he has no real need for the diesel truck as he probably hasn't towed with it more than a half-dozen times, and never at a weight which needs a 3/4 ton truck. He also only drives about 5 miles to the family business each morning, so it's no surprise that the modern emissions equipment doesn't have enough time to burn off what it needs to.
 
Dan Thomas said:
True, today. But up until last year when they stopped producing them, the Cessna 400/Corvalis/ttX had Continentals.
Click to expand...

Point taken. But I never regarded the 400/TTx as a true Cessna. And apparently neither did Cessna. :rolleyes:

kyleb said:
Which was another reason Textron had no love for that product line.
Click to expand...

My Aztec is in the shop getting some baffle work done. I dropped by earlier today to check on progress and they had an early Cessna 400 in for some engine work (some sort of spring on the starter mechanism on the Conti 550 that is apparently a known problem). Comment from my mechanic was "When you work on one of these, especially the early ones, it's not hard to tell it has kitplane origins." He did say that Cessna fixed some of the quirks in later models.
 
GRG55 said:
Sort of the same reason you can't buy a Chev with a Ford engine? ;)
Click to expand...

I might surprise you with what all has happened in automotive history, some fords had a Dodge engine from factory early model T, but in more recent times, Jeep in the 1980's had a V6, that was a GM engine, but it was known to have issues to blow intake seals, well GM refused to warranty the issue, so Chrysler designed a fix, & patented it so GM couldn't retrofit it to their own problem cars. but go buy a Honda Passport? or is it an Isuzu? lol, go buy a Saab 9-7X, oopps, wait that's a Chevrolet Trailblazer, how about a Mercury Villager? ooops, no its a Nissan Quest, trust me there are dozens more.

now when you go buy a commercial heavy duty truck, many you can choose what engine, and transmission, gear ratio. even in regular vehicles, sometimes a person has more than 4-5 choices of engines if ordering a vehicle new. there is no reason why it couldn't be done here
 
I would wager a guess that 99% of the people who can afford a new airplane don't care what engine is in it. I'm certainly not convinced that there is any real difference between the two. Each company has it's sweet spot. Conti does big bore 6's really well and Lyco does 4 bangers pretty well.
 
Grum.Man said:
I would wager a guess that 99% of the people who can afford a new airplane don't care what engine is in it. I'm certainly not convinced that there is any real difference between the two. Each company has it's sweet spot. Conti does big bore 6's really well and Lyco does 4 bangers pretty well.
Click to expand...

Easy to say when there’s no way to prove otherwise without the ability to test the hypothesis in the marketplace. I guarantee that if I had a choice in engine manufacturer with one airframe vs a no choice with a competitor, it would weigh heavily on my decision of which airframe to purchase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top