Is that a V8 under your cowl? Or are you happy to see me?

[AggieMike88]

A modern computer controlled V8 in a Cessna 172.

https://corsairpower.com/

https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/

 

[fasteddie]

It's been written about on here before (and I believe the owner has posted here as well).

Sounds like the FAA is being......the FAA. Unfortunatly.

Throughout everything I've read, I don't understand why they haven't pursued putting their engine on a homebuilt (Vans, etc). Seems like their V8 could be a good alternative to some of the higher-performance engines used in the homebuilt/experimental world.

 

[SoonerAviator]

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...1&share_fid=2835&share_type=t&link_source=app

@AlphaPilotFlyer is the one you'd want to ping on this one

 

[kyleb]

It's been written about on here before (and I believe the owner has posted here as well).

Sounds like the FAA is being......the FAA. Unfortunatly.

Throughout everything I've read, I don't understand why they haven't pursued putting their engine on a homebuilt (Vans, etc). Seems like their V8 could be a good alternative to some of the higher-performance engines used in the homebuilt/experimental world.

If they are serious, they have to build more than one engine. Even in the EAB world, they are gonna have to design/produce/sell engine mounts and other FWF components. It costs money to get started down that road.

I'm not sure if they are really trying to make a go of it, or if they are mainly beeyotching about the man holding them down.

 

[SoonerAviator]

If they are serious, they have to build more than one engine. Even in the EAB world, they are gonna have to design/produce/sell engine mounts and other FWF components. It costs money to get started down that road.

I'm not sure if they are really trying to make a go of it, or if they are mainly beeyotching about the man holding them down.

In the thread they posted, they never really said they were trying to market the conversions. It was more of a proof of concept. They mentioned that the US environment was going to be prohibitively expensive to try and sell as a conversion kit due to legal liabilities and associated insurance costs.

 

[kyleb]

In the thread they posted, they never really said they were trying to market the conversions. It was more of a proof of concept. They mentioned that the US environment was going to be prohibitively expensive to try and sell as a conversion kit due to legal liabilities and associated insurance costs.

Sounds like excuses to me. They are sourcing most of the stuff, so their investment in tooling and manufacturing space is pretty small/low investment. So set up a corporation, have the corporation lease whatever assets it needs, and there's nothing to lose in a lawsuit. Offer the FWF packages to the EAB market and let the market decide if it is a viable concept. Then they can decide if they want to undertake the work to push into the certified world.

Bitching because the man's rules are holding down your new business venture is shouting at the rain. The rules were available for all to see decades ago.

 

[Salty]

From their faq page

 

[FrankBravo]

Sounds like excuses to me. They are sourcing most of the stuff, so their investment in tooling and manufacturing space is pretty small/low investment. So set up a corporation, have the corporation lease whatever assets it needs, and there's nothing to lose in a lawsuit. Offer the FWF packages to the EAB market and let the market decide if it is a viable concept. Then they can decide if they want to undertake the work to push into the certified world.

Bitching because the man's rules are holding down your new business venture is shouting at the rain. The rules were available for all to see decades ago.

How much have you dealt with the FAA?

Saying they are a major hurdle is a very fair grievance

I do think it’s a little disingenuous to say experimentals swapping LS engines are “junk yard” engines, but they dump a LS into a 172 and it’s somehow different, people have LS swapped about everything that has a engine at this point, planes to lawnmowers, I’m sure they have a few in-house tweaks, but at its core it’s still a aircraft LS conversion

 

[Initial Fix]

I’m all for innovation. But, It’s going to take more than a one off experimental engine flying to quote “rack up hours” to get it certified. And that’s just the engine before trying to get various stc’s for different platforms. Let’s not forget the support life cycle with parts, qualified shops and/or mechanics. There are serious $$$ needed ahead.

 

[Gary Ward]

They have been posting about this conversion for a couple years now on several websites.
Sorry that they have run into so much resistance from the FAA. Not surprising though.

 

[Tools]

Hmmmm…. Seems to me they’re doing exactly what they must. A little complaining might be warranted and necessary. They do seem to back up their claims. Seems pretty comprehensive.

Might be something there, I hope they keep on trying.

 

[Bell206]

The rules were available for all to see decades ago.

What’s interesting in the article are these two statements, “It got expensive hiring A&Ps for such oversight and delayed development and “[…] to buy our way through the process with lawyers, DERs, […]” I think its very telling to be this far into a project of this magnitude and not have at least one A&P and DER on staff. Perhaps if they did have them on staff they could have worked out the flight testing operating issues and helped with the policy vs regs comments on modifications and selling. Regardless it does not appear to be only an FAA problem.

As Paul Harvey would say, now “the rest of the story.”

What's always missing from these evil FAA vs certification discussions is people have forgotten or do not know about AGATE: Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments. Between GARA and AGATE it was the government/congress/industry hail-mary effort to revitalize private GA. I was directly involved in the ASTS and several smaller programs under AGATE. Millions of dollars were allocated which brought together all the major players under a common goal. It was quite a sight. However, the sad part was in the end, the same GA market AGATE was mostly developed for decided they, i.e., private aircraft owners and operators, didn’t want to buy into those innovations or new technologies. Elvis left the GA building.

In general, as direct result, OEMs dropped plans for new products, congress stopped funding large general aviation initiatives, and the FAA transformed into more an oversight agency on a reduced budget. The GA certification process took a backseat as there was no longer a demand, with those resources reallocated, and the Designee program was expanded to handle what demand there was. There have been some attempts since then with LSA, Safer Skies, and the Part 23 rewrite, but that same market has not shown any large scale interest in any of them.

And here we are 20+ years later with that same GA market flying the same now 60 year aircraft and complaining about the same issues yet its still somehow the FAAs fault. The funny thing is its only the private GA market that has never recovered. For example, the helicopter GA side has never reduced or stopped producing aircraft unlike the airplane side and has continually brought to market new models using the same evil FAA certification process. Same with certain other GA classified airplanes, STC upgrades, etc. continue to be certified on a regular basis. You have to ask why?

So if you look at the big picture, which includes the economic side and liability issues, it not just the certification process but the market it serves that defines the result.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

These guys need to learn that the only way to get the wheels turned off the main paperwork highway at FAA is to make a good friend or two in Congress. This is about money. If the FAA is asked to do anything out of the ordinary, Congress needs tack those instructions, along with a funding source, onto a piece of legislation.

The FAA hates this one simple trick.

 

[bnt83]

And here we are 20+ years later with that same GA market flying the same now 60 year aircraft and complaining about the same issues yet its still somehow the FAAs fault. The funny thing is its only the private GA market that has never recovered. For example, the helicopter GA side has never reduced or stopped producing aircraft unlike the airplane side and has continually brought to market new models using the same evil FAA certification process. Same with certain other GA classified airplanes, STC upgrades, etc. continue to be certified on a regular basis. You have to ask why?

So if you look at the big picture, which includes the economic side and liability issues, it not just the certification process but the market it serves that defines the result.

As long as parts are available at non-insane price, I'll keep flying these antient designs. After watching some diesel ag youtube repair, a 70 horse 4 banger Kubota tractor crankshaft is $6k.

I see far too much BS on automotive repair youtube channels to be ignorant to how bad new automotive designs are. Heck, even some of the approved and well advertised and promoted automotive to aerospace adaptations were just disasters.

 

[kyleb]

How much have you dealt with the FAA?

Saying they are a major hurdle is a very fair grievance

No doubt. But these guys claiming they have (or had) a plan (or better...an idea) to retrofit certified aircraft with uncertified engines and claim to be surprised that there's no path forward shows ignorance on their part. Necessary or not, every engine that goes in a 172 has a very long paper and certification trail in hopes that it will provide safer, more reliable, more repeatable results. Also to provide a way for the manufacturer to identify problems and reach out to owners if something is determined to have gone wrong in the manufacturing or design process.

Unless the guys pitching this engine are prepared to do all that work (and more), beginning with the certs on the materials and processes used to make their engines, it is a non-starter unless they are relying on the magic of someone changing the rules to facilitate their business plan.

That's a stupid plan.

They might as well jump off of a cliff and beeyotch on the way down about the unfairness of gravity.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Unless the guys pitching this engine are prepared to do all that work (and more), beginning with the certs on the materials and processes used to make their engines, it is a non-starter unless they are relying on the magic of someone changing the rules to facilitate their business plan.

Would it be an accurate paraphrase to say that it’s not the FAA’s responsibility to show compliance with certification requirements, but rather the company’s responsibility to show the FAA that their product is in compliance?

 

[kyleb]

Would it be an accurate paraphrase to say that it’s not the FAA’s responsibility to show compliance with certification requirements, but rather the company’s responsibility to show the FAA that their product is in compliance?

Maybe. But I think it is really a collaborative process that involves tons of work. You can't just show up with an engine and a pocket full of hope.

 

[Bell206]

but rather the company’s responsibility to show the FAA that their product is in compliance?

You can't just show up with an engine and a pocket full of hope

What I saw and heard from several points was they expected the ACO/MIDO to do the leg work. It hasnt worked that way in many years. The fact they complain in the article about the need to have A&Ps and DERs involved kind of verifies what I saw even before I was on PoA. Trying to modify a TC'd aircraft with a different engine is one thing, but to use a non- certified engine to boot is something else all togather. And being they're 4 years into this with a flying aircraft... well I'll just leave it at that. I cant wait to see what they have planned for the 414.

 

[FrankBravo]

No doubt. But these guys claiming they have (or had) a plan (or better...an idea) to retrofit certified aircraft with uncertified engines and claim to be surprised that there's no path forward shows ignorance on their part. Necessary or not, every engine that goes in a 172 has a very long paper and certification trail in hopes that it will provide safer, more reliable, more repeatable results. Also to provide a way for the manufacturer to identify problems and reach out to owners if something is determined to have gone wrong in the manufacturing or design process.

Unless the guys pitching this engine are prepared to do all that work (and more), beginning with the certs on the materials and processes used to make their engines, it is a non-starter unless they are relying on the magic of someone changing the rules to facilitate their business plan.

That's a stupid plan.

They might as well jump off of a cliff and beeyotch on the way down about the unfairness of gravity.

Knowing a few things about LS engines, and a few things about 300s and 320s, I like the LSs history over most of what is under the cowl of a 172

The LS is not a new engine and has a very good history even when run much harder than the aviation guys are running it

 

[kyleb]

Knowing a few things about LS engines, and a few things about 300s and 320s, I like the LSs history over most of what is under the cowl of a 172

The LS is not a new engine and has a very good history even when run much harder than the aviation guys are running it

All of which is fine. But the FAA has a certification process. You can bring the best engine ever to the aviation market, but unless you do your homework, that engine will never set foot in a certified airplane.

 

[FrankBravo]

All of which is fine. But the FAA has a certification process. You can bring the best engine ever to the aviation market, but unless you do your homework, that engine will never set foot in a certified airplane.

Correct and their heart may be in the right place, but there head is not, stomping innovation into the ground is not the answer, nor is a free for all, we need a happy middle ground but I don’t think the staffing and management of the FAA are a environment that will allow innovation or safety over mindless over regulation


Probably the inspiration for

 

[kyleb]

Correct and their heart may be in the right place, but there head is not, stomping innovation into the ground is not the answer, nor is a free for all, we need a happy middle ground but I don’t think the staffing and management of the FAA are a environment that will allow innovation or safety over mindless over regulation

Which is why I suggested early in the thread to offer the product in the experimental market, and if successful, consider going into the certified world. You don't need to jump through the certification process to validate that your product works or that there is a viable market for it. Once you prove that it does work and there is a market, you can move forward with the expensive certification process if you want. That is the middle ground.

 

[tsts4]

Knowing a few things about LS engines, and a few things about 300s and 320s, I like the LSs history over most of what is under the cowl of a 172

The LS is not a new engine and has a very good history even when run much harder than the aviation guys are running it

From what I've seen it's not the engine per se, but the entire FWF package (particularly the PSRU) that tends to be the bane of most auto conversion installations. In the RV world, the typical advice is unless you enjoy tinkering, go Lycoming. People keep looking for some less expensive, reliable alternatives to Lycomings, (and there have been some success stories), but in the 3 decades I've been in the E-AB community, no one has to brought to market anything that I'd replace my IO-540 with.

 

[Randomskylane]

Which is why I suggested early in the thread to offer the product in the experimental market, and if successful, consider going into the certified world. You don't need to jump through the certification process to validate that your product works or that there is a viable market for it. Once you prove that it does work and there is a market, you can move forward with the expensive certification process if you want. That is the middle ground.

Most experimental is below 200 hp? The LS can be dialed in to 250-500hp or whatever so that may be why they’ve stayed out of experimental. Why compete with Rotax?

On certified they theoretically have material technology and engineering advantages since LS is decades newer

OTOH if they have no money to get 3,000 hour tbo etc then why bother

 

[genna]

Which is why I suggested early in the thread to offer the product in the experimental market, and if successful, consider going into the certified world. You don't need to jump through the certification process to validate that your product works or that there is a viable market for it. Once you prove that it does work and there is a market, you can move forward with the expensive certification process if you want. That is the middle ground.

My view on this. I agree with you. Partner with Vans as an optional engine and see how it goes.

Having said that, I have a feeling that it won’t go anywhere. The prevailing GA pilot’s attitude (even in EAB): “I do not want to be a test monkey for a different engine”. There are many reasons for it. Some valid, some stupid. But there will simply not be enough people buying it

I suspect that they wanted to go certified route to negate some of that prevailing attitude and have larger pool of pilots/planes to be available for conversion. Including flight school market where running cost is far more important than say SR22 market

 

[bflynn]

Having said that, I have a feeling that it won’t go anywhere. The prevailing GA pilot’s attitude (even in EAB): “I do not want to be a test monkey for a different engine”. There are many reasons for it. Some valid, some stupid. But there will simply not be enough people buying it

You have to be ready to make it worth while. I'm not willing to be a test monkey for a new 50k engine, but if you were to work me a deal for 5-10k because it's being tested, I'm probably in. Part of business development is building your market and with a new product, getting in the hands of early adopters is the most critical part.

Best plan I see is to get a dozen or so serial builders to adopt the engine and agree to bring their planes to airshows and talk up the engine. But they won't just do it.

 

[WDD]

I think this sums things up very well on new GA aircraft engines.

 

[genna]

You have to be ready to make it worth while. I'm not willing to be a test monkey for a new 50k engine, but if you were to work me a deal for 5-10k because it's being tested, I'm probably in. Part of business development is building your market and with a new product, getting in the hands of early adopters is the most critical part.

Best plan I see is to get a dozen or so serial builders to adopt the engine and agree to bring their planes to airshows and talk up the engine. But they won't just do it.

Theoretically, I completely agree with you. Practically, market is too small. There are simply not enough willing people to do any of it in any reasonable time frame. So it is a catch 22. Prohibitively expensive to develop because not enough people are willing to pay to develop or test or use.

This is why the flight school market would be way better than private anything. 1. Engines get used up quickly, 2. Running costs matter for schools a lot more than engine cost. 3. Cost is a huge factor for students. 4. Students do not have the mindset of Lyco/Conti or nothing because they do not know or care(see #3).

For an avarage private GA pilot the running cost is not as big of a factor. They are not running that engine enough to have it as priority. Fuel availability, known engine supplier(and characteristics and reliability - aka the devil you know), ease and cost of installation are far more important

Edit: The ironic thing here is that if this could be done(safely) for flight school planes(whether converting 172s or allowing experimentals to be rented in some form) it would quite literally solve most of the things that plague GA.
1. Training would become significantly cheaper, creating a bunch of new pilots that will not have a allegiance to Lyconti.
2. More planes will be needed to accommodate these pilots
3. Market will work better at scale

 

[genna]

Personally, if I were building an EAB and this option was available to me with solid support and long term run data, i'd be all over it. But I know I'm a minority and I'm also not building anything

 

[SoonerAviator]

The other part of the problem is that we're dealing with an overhaul that occurs once every 20 years or more with most people's average annual flying time. It's hard to justify switching over to an LS-engine from a certified option even if it's $10K cheaper. Over the course of 20+ years, the $10K is spread out to $500/yr in savings (not including TVM or lower fuel cost). A 400HP LS6 all-aluminum long block weighs about 350lbs, so roughly about what an IO-360 weighs. They have about the same amount of cubic inch displacement, but you're still going to have to add another 50-100lbs worth at a minimum of gearbox and cooling gear to get the LS-engine going. Tough to sell, even with almost double the horsepower available (although I don't think an LS-engine is going to last long turning 5,000 rpm to drive the gearbox/prop at 400HP levels).

 

[Daleandee]

From what I've seen it's not the engine per se, but the entire FWF package (particularly the PSRU) that tends to be the bane of most auto conversion installations.

That PSRU thing is what gets a lot of attention ... and it should. On higher HP engines it's a tough hill to climb.

I fly a fairly low powered (120 hp) direct drive experimental engine (Corvair). But a lot of research and development was done over many years to make this particular conversion the reliable choice it is today. It is one that I believed I could trust & so far, so good.

There are various conversions of this same engine and not all of them are close to equal. There are a few, of what some would call, minor details, that make a huge difference in the final product. As they say, "the devil is in the details ..."

 

[genna]

That PSRU thing is what gets a lot of attention ... and it should. On higher HP engines it's a tough hill to climb.

I fly a fairly low powered (120 hp) direct drive experimental engine (Corvair). But a lot of research and development was done over many years to make this particular conversion the reliable choice it is today. It is one that I believed I could trust & so far, so good.

There are various conversions of this same engine and not all of them are close to equal. There are a few, of what some would call, minor details, that make a huge difference in the final product. As they say, "the devil is in the details ..."

Absolutely. The thing is, lots of this is relatively old technology or design. Even in auto world. Stuff from 15 years ago is ancient. In the early 90s you had to go to horribly unreliable supercars to get even near 300hp. Today that's a Camry power. Those same(brands) supercars produce north of 700hp more reliably than 90s Chevys. This includes transmissions.

The PSRU problems are not technological, they are purely supply/demand. No demand: no development, no supply

 

[genna]

I realize that this is not a piston engine, so delivery of power is very different, but Teslas have been using single speed transmission reduction(kind of like PSRU) for its cars with ridiculous amount of torque for many years. And many hard launches. I have not heard of a lot of issues.

 

[kyleb]

Personally, if I were building an EAB and this option was available to me with solid support and long term run data, i'd be all over it. But I know I'm a minority and I'm also not building anything

Agreed. The challenge is if you’re one of the first 50 adopters, you’re making a $50k bet that you’re getting a better value than the tried and true $68k bet (the price of a new -540 from Vans). Your risk is $50k against a $18k upside. And that doesn’t factor in the hassle factor inherent in straying from the tried and true. Think about what the first insurance underwriter is gonna say when someone goes to insure the V-8 RV-10.

 

[genna]

Agreed. The challenge is if you’re one of the first 50 adopters, you’re making a $50k bet that you’re getting a better value than the tried and true $68k bet (the price of a new -540 from Vans). Your risk is $50k against a $18k upside. And that doesn’t factor in the hassle factor inherent in straying from the tried and true. Think about what the first insurance underwriter is gonna say when someone goes to insure the V-8 RV-10.

Exactly the problem. This is why private market piston planes is a waste of time, money, and effort in the current environment. But Flight Schools could make a huge difference.

 

[genna]

Agreed. The challenge is if you’re one of the first 50 adopters, you’re making a $50k bet that you’re getting a better value than the tried and true $68k bet (the price of a new -540 from Vans). Your risk is $50k against a $18k upside. And that doesn’t factor in the hassle factor inherent in straying from the tried and true. Think about what the first insurance underwriter is gonna say when someone goes to insure the V-8 RV-10.

For a private pilot the cost proposition does not make sense. Spread over some 20 years it is peanuts compared to the cost of the plane. You'd have to sell it on tech proposition(full FADEC, engine monitoring and control, stuff like that). For that you need specific types of people. The early adopter tech types. People that bought 120K Teslas in 2013. That is not what our pilot population looks like by-and-large . Adding insurance, resell issues, support issues, and an all important "will I put my kids in this thing and will my wife allow it" to that... and there is no demand.

 

[bnt83]

For a private pilot the cost proposition does not make sense. Spread over some 20 years it is peanuts compared to the cost of the plane. You'd have to sell it on tech proposition(full FADEC, engine monitoring and control, stuff like that). For that you need specific types of people. The early adopter tech types. People that bought 120K Teslas in 2013. That is not what our pilot population looks like by-and-large . Adding insurance, resell issues, support issues, and an all important "will I put my kids in this thing and will my wife allow it" to that... and there is no demand.

Sticking with the O-320 VS Auto Conversion - No bullcrap warranty issues, bullcrap bugs or unknown issues to fix in the future, no ballcrap down time (take time to swap engines, paying for hangar, insurance, subscriptions while not flying), no unanswered phone calls tech support, no dealing with unsupported engines when the company goes bankrupt. No training mechanics to maintain your now oddball converted airplane.

Performance = Paying a ton of money up front partially sold on some savings and/or safety that may never exist. Ultimately may even take the thing out of service and convert BACK or just scrap the airplane altogether.

If its a certified auto conversion, there is a real chance the FAA could AD them out of service, probably after some accident a law firm cashes in on and post company bankruptcy.

 

[WDD]

Need a person with an iron will and lots of money he/she could loose. A passion for business and some unseen angle to make money.

You need a Musk clone.

 

[GaryM]

You need a Musk clone.

While I'm happy the world has one Musk, I don't know how I'd feel about having another one. I guess I'd be OK with it if the clone bought Facebook.

But it's not up to me...he probably already has a clone in development.

 

[genna]

Sticking with the O-320 VS Auto Conversion - No bullcrap warranty issues, bullcrap bugs or unknown issues to fix in the future, no ballcrap down time (take time to swap engines, paying for hangar, insurance, subscriptions while not flying), no unanswered phone calls tech support, no dealing with unsupported engines when the company goes bankrupt. No training mechanics to maintain your now oddball converted airplane.

Performance = Paying a ton of money up front partially sold on some savings and/or safety that may never exist. Ultimately may even take the thing out of service and convert BACK or just scrap the airplane altogether.

If its a certified auto conversion, there is a real chance the FAA could AD them out of service, probably after some accident a law firm cashes in on and post company bankruptcy.

It's not that I think that you are wrong. I think that what you say makes perfect sense and I listed basically the same reasons why there is no demand for this in a private use piston GA. But this is the attitude that left GA engine tech so far behind. Or would have no aviation at all. The progress is not done by people that make sense, but by people who believe in the better future. We don't seem to have enough of those in private piston GA pilot community. And when we get them, they quickly realize just how daunting that road for the "better future" is and go away. Or don't and end up bankrupt.