how reliable are Lycoming motors?

EdFred said:
Not to mention the lack of oxygen at FL300 and above make for running an O360, well, near impossible.
Click to expand...
Yup. But the piston-engined WW2 bombers flew that high sometimes, with superchargers. The B-17G had a service ceiling of 35,600 feet.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Electronics are dependent on electrical supply. If that fails, the electronics fail. And in small aircraft, alternators and charging systems are the most troublesome systems in the whole airplane. If we had EI and EFI in our airplanes, we'd need two alternators and two batteries, two totally independent systems feeding the engine electronics via diodes. You'd never get certification without it. I was told, in Power Mechanics class in high school some 53 years ago, that electrical problems were 90% of engine problems. I have found that to be true ever since.

Which is why we still have magnetos on our engines even though cars abandoned them maybe 90 years ago. They are self-contained and will continue to fire even if the airplane's electrics fail. But they are also prone to failure if they're not maintained, which is why we have two of them. We have only one carburetor because it has little tendency to fail unless we try to feed it water, or if we are ignorant about carb ice and its management.

Lycoming has the iE2 engine. Been available for years already. Electronic ignition, electronic fuel injection. But it's not cheap, and aircraft owners being cheap, they don't sell many. A European airframe manufacturer is using them.

View attachment 109092

I see two alternators on that engine.

https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2

From its TCDS:

View attachment 109093
Click to expand...

53 years ago.
 
Carl Hammie said:
Thank you everyone, my buddie offered a ride in his airplane but I was unsure about accepting. makes me feel better reading some of your knowledge. let me ask one other question as I’m quite ignorant to this all. If these engines are so reliable as some speak of, why are they not used in passenger jets? my impression is that commercial jets use jet engines for their reliability, so why are the Lycoming not used? I presume they also don’t provide enough lift to power a jet?
Click to expand...
Since you're not a person who has been looking into flying before, I suspect there's some fundamentals you may not be familiar with. I'll try to run through them here...my apologies if this is too basic. I have a bad tendency to "Ronsplain".... :)

First off, "Lycoming" isn't a particular type of engine, it's a BRAND. It's what is called a reciprocating engine; it has cylinders with pistons that go up and down and produce rotary motion to turn a propeller via a crankshaft. Reciprocating engines are used in almost all cars, the exception being, of course, electric cars. So "Lycoming" is like saying "Ford," or "Chevy", when it comes down to engine types. Lycoming is a major brand for reciprocating aircraft engines, with competition from Continental (aka Teledyne Continental) and a few other makes that aren't in business anymore.

The reciprocating engine is what made airplanes...and mass-produced cars... possible. They produce a lot of power for a reasonably light weight. Back in the late 1800s, people were experimenting with electric and steam cars, but the reciprocating engine came out on top.

As the 20th century wore on, there was more and more demand for power from these reciprocating engine. Ford's Model T had 22 horsepower, the Model A essentially doubled that. You saw an "arms race" for powerful car engines, with four-cylinder engines overcome by straight sixes, then V-6s, straight eights, V-8s, even some V-12s.

Same thing happened for airplanes. The Wrights flew in 1903 with a scratch-built four cylinder that produced 16 horsepower cold, but 12 horsepower when it warmed up. Ten years later, the early Clerget engines produced 60 HP, and with the advent of World War 1, engine development just exploded. By 1918, Fokker D-7s were flying with 200 HP Mercedes and BMW engines. The US developed the Liberty engine, a V-12 producing 400 horsepower.

The between-wars period saw an explosion in aircraft engine design. By the beginning of WWII, 1000-horsepower engines were common, and by the end of the war, some experimental engines were producing nearly 5,000 horsepower.

There was a downside to this, though. Remember, we're talking a "reciprocating" engine here... pistons are banging back and forth, thousands of small explosions per minute were necessary in the cylinders of these engines. Reliability came to be an issue. There were several cases in the 50's and 60's where airliners developed problems with one engine and actually had to ditch into the sea.

But as WWII was approaching, experimenters around the world were looking at a new kind of engine. Rather than banging pistons back and forth, the engines merely....spun. Fan blades in front sucked in air, injectors added fuel, cleverly shaped interiors compressed the fuel-laden air, and in a separate section, the fuel-air mixture was ignited in a continuous sequence. The results, the rapidly expanding combustion products, were fired out the back end of the engine is a continuous...ummm, "jet."

It took a while to develop them to what we have today, But they were FAR more capable, and FAR more reliable, than the big radials that had come about in the 30s and 40s. As I mentioned, experimental reciprocating engines toward the end of WWII were producing about 5,000 horsepower. The two engines on a Boeing 777 produce 50,000 HP *each*. Safely, reliably, day after day.

So that's why airliners don't have Lycoming engines. Now, you're probably wondering...why doesn't your friend's airplane have a JET engine?????

Jet engines work good when you need a lot of power, but they don't scale down very well. Your friend's airplane has a ~200 HP engine.

Certainly it's possible to produce small jets...but jets are pretty finicky. Reciprocating engines turn at 2000-3000 RPM, but jets turn around TEN TIMES as fast. This means the production quality has to be VERY good. Pistons in a reciprocating engine can have slight weight differences without affecting things too bad, but if a turbine turning at 20,000 RPM is a bit out of balance, it's going to get serious, fast.

It's possible to build jet engines in the same power ranges at Lycomings...but not as cheaply. So most small, light aircraft have reciprocating engines like Lycomings instead of jets.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Warmi said:
53 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yup. And as an aircraft mechanic, I spent more time troubleshooting and fixing electrical issues than on anything else. Same with my car and pickup, both ECU vehicles.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I wasn't aware that Lycoming made motors.

Sorry pet peeve. ;) Carry on.
Click to expand...

I guess you subscribe to the motors are electric camp.

That is why they are called enginecycles and engineboats.

Look up the definitions.

Motor - a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for another device with moving parts.

And the Brits call their automobiles enginecars.
 
Pinecone said:
I guess you subscribe to the motors are electric camp.

That is why they are called enginecycles and engineboats.

Look up the definitions.

Motor - a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for another device with moving parts.

And the Brits call their automobiles enginecars.
Click to expand...


I thought engines were those big things at the front of a train.
 
mo·tor
/ˈmōdər/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Mechanics
Biology
Motoring

noun
  1. a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.
 
I'm pretty sure that air-powered ratchets and impact wrenches have air motors inside them. We need to address that problem before someone tries to use one to power an aircraft with disastrous consequences.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yup. But the piston-engined WW2 bombers flew that high sometimes, with superchargers. The B-17G had a service ceiling of 35,600 feet.
Click to expand...

He did say O-360, which it carbureted and normally aspirated.

My Mooney 252, with a 220 hp TSIO-360 has a service ceiling of 28,000.
 
Pinecone said:
He did say O-360, which it carbureted and normally aspirated.

My Mooney 252, with a 220 hp TSIO-360 has a service ceiling of 28,000.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know he said that. The point was that piston engines have flown high, not just turbines.
 
If they were reliable, Lycoming would let their own employees fly behind them. They won't because they admit they are dangerous.
 
flyingron said:
If they were reliable, Lycoming would let their own employees fly behind them. They won't because they admit they are dangerous.
Click to expand...
Huh? That can’t be true.
 
Carl Hammie said:
Thank you everyone, my buddie offered a ride in his airplane but I was unsure about accepting. makes me feel better reading some of your knowledge. let me ask one other question as I’m quite ignorant to this all. If these engines are so reliable as some speak of, why are they not used in passenger jets? my impression is that commercial jets use jet engines for their reliability, so why are the Lycoming not used? I presume they also don’t provide enough lift to power a jet?

Carl
Click to expand...

Lycoming does make a turbofan engine, so I guess you can have a Lycoming in your passenger jet if you want.
 
RyanB said:
Huh? That can’t be true.
Click to expand...

Lawyers and perceived liability. You'd be hard pressed to find a publicly traded company that allows business air travel on private aircraft. Corporate plane and corporate pilots only. And the only passengers allowed are the oligarchy.
 
RyanB said:
Huh? That can’t be true.
Click to expand...
It is a firing expense for any Textron employee to fly in any private aircraft. Dangerous you know, we build 'em: Cessna, Bell, Pipistrel, Beech, Lycoming, Macaulay.
 
EdFred said:
Lawyers and perceived liability. You'd be hard pressed to find a publicly traded company that allows business air travel on private aircraft. Corporate plane and corporate pilots only. And the only passengers allowed are the oligarchy.
Click to expand...
And not even that. Because the light is better there, rather than spacing the corporate fleet around the country where they might be used but rather keep all seven or whatever in New England. It's only the case when you have to bring a half dozen bigwigs from the Boston-area offices somewhere else. For a company trying to sell corporate/private aircraft, you'd think they'd exert more effort to solve these issues.
 
I don't respond to threads like this in general, so I'll add a few comments and then get back to eating my popcorn from my rocking chair and shaking my head.

I spent roughly 2,000 hours flying Lycomings, most of those in twins. So figure about 3,500 Lycoming engine hours. Add in another something like 3-5k hours running engines on the test stand. Plenty of people who've got more hours running them, but I've run a few.

Zero engine failures in that time frame unless you purposely run them like an idiot (and even then, usually no failures) or run out of fuel (really that falls into that first category of running them like an idiot). Even running them like an idiot and causing damage, they usually still ran and would've gotten you home. I'd call them pretty reliable given that, and the fact that my job was usually not to be nice to them when I was running them on the stands.

Now, I've also had what I will consider zero Continental engine failures. I had to do a precautionary shutdown on an O-470 in a first year 310 when it got low oil pressure because it ran out of oil due to a leak. Not the engine's fault, a seal had been installed backwards.

My take? They're good engines. Of course there are failures. Big jets in airliners have failures, too. Car engines have failures. Nothing is perfect. But they're good. Chances of failure are low provided you don't run them out of fuel and actually maintain the thing.

Sac Arrow said:
Lycoming does make a turbofan engine, so I guess you can have a Lycoming in your passenger jet if you want.
Click to expand...

Did. The ALF engine series, along with the various turboprop/turboshaft are now Honeywell. And even when they were branded Lycoming, they didn't see Williamsport very much, they were mostly in Connecticut but a few did come to Williamsport for testing on stands. The Avco facility that worked on them may have been connected in name and business relationship, but calling it the same company is a bit of a stretch. I seem to recall that was something like Avco -> Allied Signal -> Honeywell for the progression.

EdFred said:
Lawyers and perceived liability. You'd be hard pressed to find a publicly traded company that allows business air travel on private aircraft. Corporate plane and corporate pilots only. And the only passengers allowed are the oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Correct. Remember, Lycoming is owned by Textron and is subject to their whims. Most large companies have policies like this for lower liability insurance purposes. They could spend more, but don't want to - that whole shareholder thing and making sure the profits look good. This is especially how Textron operates. I questioned Donnelly on this to his face years ago, and he basically ignored the question, blamed insurance companies, and moved on.

It's worth noting that those restrictions are related to travel FOR COMPANY BUSINESS. What you do in your own time is separate.

Some large companies will allow small GA, usually still with restrictions, but that's a choice they make. Even my college had (and I assume still has, granted decades later), this policy. I remember a couple of professors who were private pilots complaining about making 2-3 hour drives in what was a 30 minute flight. It was not a large school.
 
flyingron said:
It is a firing expense for any Textron employee to fly in any private aircraft. Dangerous you know, we build 'em: Cessna, Bell, Pipistrel, Beech, Lycoming, Macaulay.
Click to expand...
That would be employee business travel, right? Not applicable to an employee's personal hobby flying?
 
Dan Thomas said:
That would be employee business travel, right? Not applicable to an employee's personal hobby flying?
Click to expand...
Yes, no flying on corporate business. You're free to kill yourself on your own time. Up until our acquisition, there was no restriction.
 
Motor or engine? Detroit wouldn’t sound right as the engine city, nor “the sounds of EnTown”
 
And what would the guy with the flashing blues be called? An Encop? Enginecop? Engine officer?
 
EdFred said:
Lawyers and perceived liability. You'd be hard pressed to find a publicly traded company that allows business air travel on private aircraft. Corporate plane and corporate pilots only. And the only passengers allowed are the oligarchy.
Click to expand...

flyingron said:
It is a firing expense for any Textron employee to fly in any private aircraft. Dangerous you know, we build 'em: Cessna, Bell, Pipistrel, Beech, Lycoming, Macaulay.
Click to expand...
That’s a bit different than the manufacturer admitting their products are dangerous.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yup. And as an aircraft mechanic, I spent more time troubleshooting and fixing electrical issues than on anything else. Same with my car and pickup, both ECU vehicles.
Click to expand...

in the days when all cars had carbs there was an old adage, “most carb problems are electrical.” Even simple electrical systems in the day were more unreliable than carbs causing problems.
 
WDD said:
Kind of like prohibiting McDonalds employees from ever eating fries and a Big Mac
Click to expand...
But only when they're at work. Don't want cardiac events on the job...
 
RonP said:
in the days when all cars had carbs there was an old adage, “most carb problems are electrical.” Even simple electrical systems in the day were more unreliable than carbs causing problems.
Click to expand...
That there applies to almost every light airplane. The engine hesitates or stutters or does some other alarming stuff in flight, so the pilot asks POA what the problem might be. 95% of the diagnoses are "water in the fuel" or "dirt in the fuel" or "old fuel" or "fuel unporting in the tank" or "a defective carb (or fuel injector servo)" or "clogged injector" or "induction leak." Or something else to do with fuel. Always the fuel stuff.

And after every effort and dollar possible has been expended on the "fuel" problem, a last-ditch mag overhaul and/or some new, decent sparkplugs finally fixes it.
 
The OP probably cares about risk probability, which, for in-flight engine failures is on the order of something like 1 per 100,000 hours. And that's averaged over aircraft of all different, including poor, maintenance conditions. So for a well-maintained aircraft, it may be lower than that. You can compare that 1 in 100,000 chance to rthe probavility of your favorite strange, unlikely, and gruesome event and then rest easy once you realize how unlikely it is.
 
chemgeek said:
The OP probably cares about risk probability, which, for in-flight engine failures is on the order of something like 1 per 100,000 hours. And that's averaged over aircraft of all different, including poor, maintenance conditions. So for a well-maintained aircraft, it may be lower than that. You can compare that 1 in 100,000 chance to rthe probavility of your favorite strange, unlikely, and gruesome event and then rest easy once you realize how unlikely it is.
Click to expand...
I've had two engine failures. I must have 200,000 hours of flight time:)

Both were due to really poor maintenance, and both were in very old engines. Neither was a Lycoming. The average Lycoming is a very long way from that. It's amazing how bad they can get and still run. That's no excuse for bad maintenance, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top