Call to Us +86-18665828107
21 Dec 2025

Comparative Analysis of Prices: Flyben vs. Lycoming Four-Cylinder Aviation Engines

This comparison objectively contrasts Lycoming’s four‑cylinder aviation engines (an industry leader with full FAA certification, decades of reliability, and global support) with Flyben’s four‑cylinder engines (a cost‑effective option for experimental use, pending FAA certification). All prices are for new engines (2025/12 USD, authorized distributors; excludes installation, shipping, taxes, and accessories)

.

Lycoming vs. Flyben Four‑Cylinder Engines: Price & Key Metrics

CategoryLycoming Four‑Cylinder SeriesFlyben Four‑Cylinder EnginesPrice Gap & Notes
Core Models235, 320, 360, 390 SeriesFixed‑wing: NA/Turbo; Helicopter: NA/TurboLycoming offers multiple certified variants; Flyben focuses on simplified NA/turbo options
Power Range115–210 HPFixed‑wing: NA (unspecified), Turbo (unspecified); Helicopter: NA (unspecified), Turbo (unspecified)Lycoming covers broader power bands with certified ratings
CertificationFAA‑certified (full commercial/regulated use)Pending FAA certification (experimental/test only)Lycoming: legal for all general aviation operations; Flyben: restricted to R&D/experimental
Fixed‑Wing NA235 Series: 64,000–75,000
320 Series: 75,000–90,000
360 Series: 63,000–98,000
390 Series: 95,000–105,000		24,000Flyben: ~26–38% of Lycoming’s 235/320/360; ~23% of 390
Fixed‑Wing Turbo320 (HIO‑320): ~90,000–95,000
360 Turbo: ~90,000–100,000		32,000Flyben: ~34–36% of Lycoming’s turbo models
Helicopter NA320 (HIO‑320): ~75,000–90,000
390 (IO‑390‑A): 95,000–105,000		26,000Flyben: ~25–35% of Lycoming’s helicopter‑rated 320/390
Helicopter Turbo320 Turbo: ~90,000–95,000
360 Turbo: ~90,000–100,000		33,000Flyben: ~33–37% of Lycoming’s helicopter turbo models
Key Strengths100‑year legacy, FAA‑certified, 2,000–2,400 hr TBO, global support, OEM integration (Cessna, Piper, Robinson)Air‑cooled, dual ignition/ECU, turbo option, ultra‑low costLycoming: reliability/certification; Flyben: cost‑effectiveness for experimental use
LimitationsHigher upfront cost; longer lead timesNo FAA certification; limited commercial use; unproven long‑term TBOLycoming: premium for compliance; Flyben: niche for non‑commercial R&D

Price & Value Context (Objective Observations)

  1. Lycoming’s Premium Rationale: As an industry leader, Lycoming’s pricing reflects decades of FAA‑certified engineering, strict quality control, 2,000+ hr TBO, and a global service network—critical for commercial operators, flight schools, and OEMs requiring regulatory compliance and long‑term reliability.

  2. Flyben’s Cost Advantage: Flyben’s ~1/3 pricing aligns with its experimental‑only positioning; it targets budget‑focused prototype/flight test programs where certification is not yet required, delivering core air‑cooled/dual‑system reliability at a fraction of the cost

  1. .

  2. Use Case Alignment:

    • Lycoming: Best for certified fixed‑wing/helicopter operations (training, air taxi, commercial commuter) where safety, compliance, and resale value are non‑negotiable.

    • Flyben: Ideal for experimental aircraft, R&D prototypes, and flight testing—low cost enables faster iteration without compromising basic reliability features.

Practical Takeaways

  • Commercial/Regulated Operations: Lycoming remains the default choice for FAA‑mandated use, with pricing justified by certification, TBO, and support.

  • Experimental/Test Programs: Flyben offers unmatched cost‑effectiveness for non‑commercial projects, with a clear trade‑off in certification status.

  • Total Cost of Ownership: Lycoming’s higher upfront cost is offset by longer TBO, lower downtime, and stronger resale value; Flyben’s low purchase price may carry higher risks if certification delays or long‑term reliability is unproven.


Changzhou Zhonglian Aviation Technology Co., Ltd

Quick Inquiry