Pilot Earns commercial pilot certificate in experimental Cessna 172

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Hola fellow PoA'ers..... I just wanted to send out congrats to a new forum member that will soon be joining PoA. He was building time and training for his commercial certificate, and as most of us, finding it difficult to afford at $145/hr rental rates for a C172. I loaned him our experimental C172 and he finished in 20 hours and just passed his FAA check ride in it. I think he’s likely the first ever to do this in an EXP C172, which is maybe something to brag about and impress the ladies? Anyway, here’s a photo getting the temporary certificate from FAA examiner. I also added a press release we may put on our website with some more info on how it worked out. He’s still working on a cool PoA handle and avatar, but will make sure he intros himself in new members section. Congrats, Carsten!

I hope to post photo of my teenage daughter getting her private pilots temporary cert soon as well.



Congratulations to Carsten B., likely the first person to complete commercial training and FAA check ride in an experimental category Cessna 172. The C172 is owned by Corsair Engine Technologies based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Corsair is developing the alternative engine and working towards a supplemental type certificate (STC) for several legacy piston aircraft types.

The Corsair Alpha engine reduces aircraft operating cost by more than 50% compared to the original Lycoming engine. At current car gas prices, hourly operating cost (fuel, oil, engine reserves) went from over $60/hour to less than $24/hour compared to original C172 engine. “With the cost savings, Carsten’s 20 hours of training aircraft operating cost was less than his check ride examiner’s fee”, according to Carsten’s friend and Corsair co-founder, Rich MacMullan. “This is really our mission, to make flying affordable again while reducing GA’s environmental foot print”. “Carsten’s flying club’s rental rate for a C172 was $145…. the rental cost alone would have been over $3,000” for the same 20 hours! We believe converting existing piston aircraft would allow rental wet rates to fall between $55-$75 per hour for the C172 aircraft, all while increasing the performance and reducing emissions”.

Corsair completed its rigorous flight-testing program and the 1969 C172 now flies mostly to build time in different environments and conditions, and visit fly-ins. The aircraft is equipped with engine data logging software that tracks over 75 engine parameters that is used to determine wear and engine condition, as well as fine tune performance data. Knowing that most C172’s are used for training, Corsair offered the plane to Carsten to use for his actual commercial training for just the cost of fuel (about $16-$18/hour using car gas). “Although we performed all of the normal maneuvering required in private, instrument and commercial training programs during the test program, we wanted to put the plane through an actual training program, with an actual student, from start to finish”, Rich explained. “Carsten is probably the only person in the world to do this in an experimental C172, which is kind of cool”.

Corsair is also using the aircraft to train a 17-year-old student for her private pilot’s certificate, further proving the engine conversion may be a real game changer in making GA affordable again. “We expect the cost of 60 hours of direct operating cost for private training will be less than $1,400, compared to over $8,000 if renting at the average C172 rental rate….. this savings makes aircraft ownership actually make sense as well as lease backs to schools and clubs. This will get more aircraft back into the rental fleets and at far lower rates”, Rich added, “Owning can now make real sense for pilots needing to build time, as well as starting flying clubs”.

Rich explained that training is tough on aircraft. “We spent hours doing consecutive touch and goes, go-arounds, slow flight, all types of stalls, and dozens of induced inflight failures from every power setting and possible cause, CG location, weight, and burning different fuel types during the test flight program with different pilots”, he explained. “We use oil analysis and advance engine logging software to track engine condition and wear, but seeing the data throughout an actual training program from start to finish gave us real examples, and helped out a friend”.

The Alpha engine is rated to over 500 HP but is flat rated to between 180HP-220HP by software per the C172 airframe certified limits. It can maintain its set max power to over 5,000 feet altitude without turbo-charging and has no time limit at max thrust limit. Because the engine was often set to limits over 200 HP during his training, Carsten first needed to complete training for his high-performance aircraft endorsement, which allowed him to log PIC time during the commercial training. “It was actually quite cool”, Carsten explained. “For my first couple of flights, the engine was limited to 180 horse power, then 200, then 210, then 220 horse power, and I could really feel the difference…. It was a great transition and learning experience”. “But I think the feature I like most is not having to perform an engine run-up before takeoff, which really increased my actual flying time every flight as I went direct to the runway”. “Getting rid of the carb heat and mixture really simplifies things as well, and it will be tough going back to a regular Cessna”, he added.

The C172 is powered by Corsair’s V8 aluminum block engine, controlled by redundant electronic fuel injection (REFI) and software that eliminates carburetor heat and fuel mixture controls. The engine is flex-fuel rated and can consume different fuel types, including cheaper and more environmentally friendly automobile gas, as well as AVGAS. Corsair’s mission is to re-ignite GA by lowering cost and its environmental foot print. The conversion kit is designed to be a direct bolt-on replacement for popular legacy piston aircraft. Check out www.corsairV8.com for more information.

 

[AKBill]

Nice. The web link did not work for me but I found it from a separate search. Wondering what the conversion cost is.

 

[kgruber]

Looks like the engine rotation is opposite to the typical Lyc.

 

[david.h]

More left rudder.

 

[murphey]

Nice. The web link did not work for me but I found it from a separate search. Wondering what the conversion cost is.

typo in the link. try this one


https://corsairpower.com/

 

[Dan Thomas]

More left rudder.

Yup. Lots of left rudder on takeoff. I flew an Auster, towing gliders, for a couple of summers. Left-turning Gipsy Major engine. Struggled for a couple of hours getting used to that. Making it worse was the 82" prop.

That 172 has a big prop, too. I wonder how much rudder travel is left over during takeoff? The 172 was never known for having a powerful rudder.

I hope it succeeds.

 

[Randomskylane]

Hola fellow PoA'ers..... I just wanted to send out congrats to a new forum member that will soon be joining PoA. He was building time and training for his commercial certificate, and as most of us, finding it difficult to afford at $145/hr rental rates for a C172. I loaned him our experimental C172 and he finished in 20 hours and just passed his FAA check ride in it. I think he’s likely the first ever to do this in an EXP C172, which is maybe something to brag about and impress the ladies? Anyway, here’s a photo getting the temporary certificate from FAA examiner. I also added a press release we may put on our website with some more info on how it worked out. He’s still working on a cool PoA handle and avatar, but will make sure he intros himself in new members section. Congrats, Carsten!

I hope to post photo of my teenage daughter getting her private pilots temporary cert soon as well.

View attachment 101601

Congratulations to Carsten Baumann, likely the first person to complete commercial training and FAA check ride in an experimental category Cessna 172. The C172 is owned by Corsair Engine Technologies based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Corsair is developing the alternative engine and working towards a supplemental type certificate (STC) for several legacy piston aircraft types.

The Corsair Alpha engine reduces aircraft operating cost by more than 50% compared to the original Lycoming engine. At current car gas prices, hourly operating cost (fuel, oil, engine reserves) went from over $60/hour to less than $24/hour compared to original C172 engine. “With the cost savings, Carsten’s 20 hours of training aircraft operating cost was less than his check ride examiner’s fee”, according to Carsten’s friend and Corsair co-founder, Rich MacMullan. “This is really our mission, to make flying affordable again while reducing GA’s environmental foot print”. “Carsten’s flying club’s rental rate for a C172 was $145…. the rental cost alone would have been over $7,000” for the same 20 hours! We believe converting existing piston aircraft would allow rental wet rates to fall between $55-$75 per hour for the C172 aircraft, all while increasing the performance and reducing emissions”.

Corsair completed its rigorous flight-testing program and the 1969 C172 now flies mostly to build time in different environments and conditions, and visit fly-ins. The aircraft is equipped with engine data logging software that tracks over 75 engine parameters that is used to determine wear and engine condition, as well as fine tune performance data. Knowing that most C172’s are used for training, Corsair offered the plane to Carsten to use for his actual commercial training for just the cost of fuel (about $16-$18/hour using car gas). “Although we performed all of the normal maneuvering required in private, instrument and commercial training programs during the test program, we wanted to put the plane through an actual training program, with an actual student, from start to finish”, Rich explained. “Carsten is probably the only person in the world to do this in an experimental C172, which is kind of cool”.

Corsair is also using the aircraft to train a 17-year-old student for her private pilot’s certificate, further proving the engine conversion may be a real game changer in making GA affordable again. “We expect the cost of 60 hours of direct operating cost for private training will be less than $1,400, compared to over $8,000 if renting at the average C172 rental rate….. this savings makes aircraft ownership actually make sense as well as lease backs to schools and clubs. This will get more aircraft back into the rental fleets and at far lower rates”, Rich added, “Owning can now make real sense for pilots needing to build time, as well as starting flying clubs”.

Rich explained that training is tough on aircraft. “We spent hours doing consecutive touch and goes, go-arounds, slow flight, all types of stalls, and dozens of induced inflight failures from every power setting and possible cause, CG location, weight, and burning different fuel types during the test flight program with different pilots”, he explained. “We use oil analysis and advance engine logging software to track engine condition and wear, but seeing the data throughout an actual training program from start to finish gave us real examples, and helped out a friend”.

The Alpha engine is rated to over 500 HP but is flat rated to between 180HP-220HP by software per the C172 airframe certified limits. It can maintain its set max power to over 5,000 feet altitude without turbo-charging and has no time limit at max thrust limit. Because the engine was often set to limits over 200 HP during his training, Carsten first needed to complete training for his high-performance aircraft endorsement, which allowed him to log PIC time during the commercial training. “It was actually quite cool”, Carsten explained. “For my first couple of flights, the engine was limited to 180 horse power, then 200, then 210, then 220 horse power, and I could really feel the difference…. It was a great transition and learning experience”. “But I think the feature I like most is not having to perform an engine run-up before takeoff, which really increased my actual flying time every flight as I went direct to the runway”. “Getting rid of the carb heat and mixture really simplifies things as well, and it will be tough going back to a regular Cessna”, he added.

The C172 is powered by Corsair’s V8 aluminum block engine, controlled by redundant electronic fuel injection (REFI) and software that eliminates carburetor heat and fuel mixture controls. The engine is flex-fuel rated and can consume different fuel types, including cheaper and more environmentally friendly automobile gas, as well as AVGAS. Corsair’s mission is to re-ignite GA by lowering cost and its environmental foot print. The conversion kit is designed to be a direct bolt-on replacement for popular legacy piston aircraft. Check out www.corsairV8.com for more information.

So is it possible to dial in 300hp? Or 230 since that’s the factory original number and something higher later? STC? I know it says experimental above but I’m assuming that changes.

waitlist? Backlog? Turbo or super charged for mountain flying?

 

[Randomskylane]

Nice. The web link did not work for me but I found it from a separate search. Wondering what the conversion cost is.

From website: “Our target price point is the same as reman cost of original engine with original engine trade-in/core value.”

 

[Bell206]

From website: “Our target price point is the same as reman cost of original engine with original engine trade-in/core value.”

FYI: plus the cost of converting your standard AWC to Restricted or ExE. From the same website:

 

[Randomskylane]

FYI: plus the cost of converting your standard AWC to Restricted or ExE. From the same website:

View attachment 101627

So what’s the deduction in value for being an experimental 172/182? Is that countered by increased value for the 3,000 tbo/21st century ignition and, presumably, crank/piston materials?

 

[Racerx]

So what’s the deduction in value for being an experimental 172/182? Is that countered by increased value for the 3,000 tbo/21st century ignition and, presumably, crank/piston materials?

Depends how far you'd like to legally fly from your home base. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Bell206]

o what’s the deduction in value for being an experimental 172/182? Is that countered by increased value for the 3,000 tbo/21st century ignition and, presumably, crank/piston materials?

Not really. Experimental Exhibition is not the same as E/AB. Once converted you need to submit a yearly Program Letter for approval which will list where you will fly each year. There can also be a minimum hourly usage requirement as well. And your attached Ops Limits letter will further define how you fly to those approved locations. So its a bit hard to put a value on that. One possible savings is you only need a condition inspection every year vs an annual. I had a few old customers that operated ExExh and it was no problem for them. Another cost issue could be insurance as you will have that prominent "EXPERIMENTAL" decal across the sides.

 

[Bell206]

Depends how far you'd like to legally fly from your home base. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Depends on your Program Letter and how your Ops limits are written but I believe the radius from home base was changed on the Program Letters. However, I believe if you stray into another FSDO's jurisdiction you will need to notify them prior to flying.

 

[pfarber]

There already is an STC for a LS/LT in a C172. So this is not new.

https://quietaviation.com/ The Chevy V-8 has been put into a ton of AC, so this is, at best, a press release for a thing you cannot buy.

Gotta wonder how they took a special airworthiness cert and got 'pilot training' as a legit use (as opposed to amateur built)?

 

[Bell206]

There already is an STC for a LS/LT in a C172.

Do you have the STC number? Quiet only received an Issue Letter and not an STC as stated on their website. I also believe they sold out when they received that letter. Maybe to Corsair? Regardless the Quiet version was limited to Experimental Exhibition as well.

 

[Jeff767]

This came up on another thread but experimental exhibition is a very restrictive category. I am shocked actually that he was allowed to conduct flight training in the aircraft. It certainly is very far outside the normal approvals for that category. He must have a great relationship with the local FAA office.
Experimental exhibition category:

• Exhibition: to exhibit an aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics for air shows, motion pictures, television, and similar productions, and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency.
• 
  
  Requirements to fly a Experimental exhibition category aircraft:
• How do I get an FAA authorization to operate an experimental-exhibition aircraft?
  
  If you want to add an experimental-exhibition aircraft authorization to your current pilot certificate, you must:
  1. Get ground and flight training from an:
     • Authorized Instructor (AI) with a certificate that includes these aircraft, or
     • A Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) with the appropriate pilot certificate.
     Instructors are responsible for the content and adequacy of the training program.
     
     
  2. Pass a practical test
     After you complete the training, you and your instructor must complete an FAA Form 8710.1 application and schedule a practical test with an Experimental Aircraft Examiner (EAE).
     
     Your EAE may not be the same person as your AI or CFI. Your EAE will conduct the practical test using the FAA ATP Practical Test Standards.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

This came up on another thread but experimental exhibition is a very restrictive category. I am shocked actually that he was allowed to conduct flight training in the aircraft. It certainly is very far outside the normal approvals for that category. He must have a great relationship with the local FAA office.
Experimental exhibition category:

• Exhibition: to exhibit an aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics for air shows, motion pictures, television, and similar productions, and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency.
• 
  
  Requirements to fly a Experimental exhibition category aircraft:
• How do I get an FAA authorization to operate an experimental-exhibition aircraft?
  
  If you want to add an experimental-exhibition aircraft authorization to your current pilot certificate, you must:
  1. Get ground and flight training from an:
     • Authorized Instructor (AI) with a certificate that includes these aircraft, or
     • A Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) with the appropriate pilot certificate.
     Instructors are responsible for the content and adequacy of the training program.
     
     
  2. Pass a practical test
     After you complete the training, you and your instructor must complete an FAA Form 8710.1 application and schedule a practical test with an Experimental Aircraft Examiner (EAE).
     
     Your EAE may not be the same person as your AI or CFI. Your EAE will conduct the practical test using the FAA ATP Practical Test Standards.

Or didn’t ask

 

[Kenny Phillips]

FYI: plus the cost of converting your standard AWC to Restricted or ExE. From the same website:

View attachment 101627

Yeah, I would imagine it will cost tens of millions to get a new piston engine certified. (It can cost billions, with a 'B', to certify a large turbofan.)
Any 'experimental' tag on a 172 will limit its usefulness. One cannot convert that plane to E/AB.

 

[Bell206]

I would imagine it will cost tens of millions to get a new piston engine certified.

FWIW: From what I've seen on the diesel side of the certification process the initial certification costs have been on a reasonably lower scale. It seems that traceability during the manufacture process is one of the main issues when it comes to cost. But even if the R&D/Certification costs were cheaper if there is no market how does one attempt to get their ROI? Must be something to it as I thought there would have been a factory diesel 182 by now and one or two rotorcraft in the pipeline.

 

[unsafervguy]

Or didn’t ask

if he didn't and now its public on a forum, i would bet the faa will be asking for that certificate back, along with every other one he has..........

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Actually, Experimental Exhibition category limitations are similar to amateur built now. Current C172 Exp has no geographic limitations after the phase 1 testing (initial test flights, usually 25-40 hours, but could be a lot less depending on the aircraft). EXP operation limits are national policy now and detailed in order 8130.2 if you need something to read to sleep. Many think EXP Exhibition restrictive, mostly because it was and local FSDO had considerable say which left it often arbitrary... now limitations for each category are national policy and published (although FSDO can put additional limits, mostly for specific reasons as aircraft size or operating area concerns).

RE dialing engine to 300 HP, yes its possible but nowhere practical. We flew the C172 up to 250 HP during testing, not because we thought it just may work, but for over limit analysis stuff- mostly prop related. Our design was to make the kit as inexpensive and simple as possible so that you could put it on an old airframe that wasn't worth cost of remanning engine or to reduce operating cost as much as possible, so only developed fixed pitch props. Initial props were hand carved for our mission, but 250HP is just too much for a fixed pitch on anything, unless its designed specifically for a small performance envelope. The C172 drag profile remains the same regardless of power, so anything much over 220HP was just wasteful. We are considering putting the engine on a C210, which would obviously have a CS prop.

Jeff767- the exhibition rules you stated in post are for mostly jet and/or large aircraft or when multiple crew members are required. Mostly see this in larger vintage or jets that don't have a type certificate or there is no approved training program in existence. Example would be say you restore a Convair 880 passenger jet from the desert.... no entity flies it anymore, there's no DPE's or inspectors qualified or even alive anymore, no current approved training exist anymore, you would need to get signed off as an experimental CFI and/or DPE to instruct in it (there is actually a specific national FAA office for this stuff you would deal with). But for smaller aircraft like a C172 in experimental, any old CFI or DPE rated in class & category will do, unless EXP operating limits say different. There was a recent change for CFI's to get a LODA from FAA if they are training someone in a EXP..... which is simply done by sending an email and getting response (usually within 2 days).

RE aircraft drop in value as EXP... not sure. I would expect a drop initially, but the op cost savings and increased performance is considerable, and I would pay more for our current C172 than even newer models I think. Experimental avionics are amazing and fraction of the cost of certified, and parts a lot cheaper and far wider selection (we put in a 4 point race car certified seatbelt harness for $150, whereas the certified versions were 6x the cost). Experimental segment continues to grow bigger each year for a reason, and for good reason, especially for the private owner that's not wanting to rent it out.

AS far as training and check rides in EXP, its allowed per FAA policy (ref FAA 8900.1 Vol 3, Chapter 11.... again, a good sleep aid) as long as its not being rented out. However, FAA inspectors or DPE's are not obligated to teach or perform check rides in EXP aircraft.

3-292 FLIGHT TRAINING IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
A. Use of Experimental Aircraft for Flight Training. Persons may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training in an aircraft holding an experimental certificate issued for any of the purposes specified in § 21.191. Other than the person receiving flight training, the operation must not involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or be prohibited by the aircraft’s operating limitations.
B. Flight Instructors. Flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft, but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and as described in paragraph 3-293. An experimental aircraft owner may not rent an experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flight.
C. Experimental Aircraft Owners. Owners of experimental aircraft may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training received in their aircraft. An owner of an experimental aircraft may not receive compensation for the use of their aircraft to provide flight training except in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and described in paragraph 3-293. An owner of an experimental LSA may not rent the experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flights.
D. Flight in Experimental Aircraft. The FAA does not require flight instructors, pilot examiners, and aviation safety inspectors (ASI) to fly in experimental aircraft. The decision whether or not to provide flight training or conduct a check in an experimental aircraft is left to the discretion and judgment of the individual.


Hope this answers above questions. I feel my original posting may have drifted off centerline a bit, so maybe I should start another thread for EXP topics if there's any interest, but many already exist in PoA.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

if he didn't and now its public on a forum, i would bet the faa will be asking for that certificate back, along with every other one he has..........

You would think but anecdotal evidence shows they only investigate leads for cases that are obviously not legit and ignore real problems. I think one requires less work than the other.

 

[Jeff767]

Still don’t understand how you got the permissions you have received. Your quote on flight training is what applies in general to experimental aircraft and in particular to amateur built. If you review the entire FAA reference you quote you will find chapter 12. It’s one of several chapters that add restriction above the basic experimental rules. Note where it says “and the following”

12-1. Introduction. This chapter provides policies and procedures for issuing special airworthiness certificates for the experimental purpose of exhibition per § 21.191(d).
12-2. Procedures for Issuing Airworthiness Certificates. Follow chapter 4 of this order and the following:
a. Review Application. Verify the application, including the program letter, demonstrates eligibility for the requested experimental purpose of exhibition. This purpose includes exhibiting the aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, fly-ins, and similar events; for motion picture, television, and similar productions; and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such events and productions.

If what you’re claiming is true thousands of aircraft would already have been converted to the exhibition category. Posting the program letter would verify what you say is correct.

 

[Bell206]

Actually, Experimental Exhibition category limitations are similar to amateur built now.

Many think EXP Exhibition restrictive, mostly because it was and local FSDO had considerable say which left it often arbitrary... now limitations for each category are national policy and published (although FSDO can put additional limits, mostly for specific reasons as aircraft size or operating area concerns).

While I understand you’re trying to create a market for your product, making general statements like this does not do it justice. For one your approval to use Experimental Exhibition as a STC developer is very different than a private individual who walks into their local FSDO and wants to put their TC'd weekender aircraft on ExExhibit. We’re not talking about a Yak or PC-3 here. And let’s not forget about the yearly Program Letter requirement which is not required for E/AB. Being realistic on ExExhibit vs simply a marketing strategy would better serve your potential clientele who for the most part do not understand the finer points of the aviation system.

Corsair is developing the alternative engine and working towards a supplemental type certificate (STC) for several legacy piston aircraft types.

further proving the engine conversion may be a real game changer in making GA affordable again.

While you continue to call it a “game changer” perhaps you’ll finally answer/clarify this: Will your V8 be offered in the US under an STC or is it still your intention only to offer the STC outside the US as stated on your website? I believe your answer here will define if it is a game changer or not.

RE aircraft drop in value as EXP... not sure. I would expect a drop initially, but the op cost savings and increased performance is considerable, and I would pay more for our current C172 than even newer models I think.

Now if Experimental Exhibition will be your primary market in the US why not offer the conversion service as part of the purchase price? It would definitely offset some of my comments here and in other circles and provide a more realistic view on the costs/value changes of such a conversion. However, where I think “value” comes more into play is in what is the “used” market value for a ExExhibit Cessna 172? Will any potential used buyers be able to obtain the same ExExhibit approvals? Or what would be the cost to convert a Corsiar 172 back to a Standard AWC? This route would go a long way to educate your potential Corsair buyers on what decisions need to be made at the owner level.

Experimental avionics are amazing and fraction of the cost of certified, and parts a lot cheaper and far wider selection (we put in a 4 point race car certified seatbelt harness for $150, whereas the certified versions were 6x the cost).

As has been discussed at length, there is no defined FAA classification of “experimental” parts or avionics, or whatever. And vendors do not have the authority to dictate what parts get installed in what aircraft. How an aircraft is operationally classified only determines whether Part 43 is applicable or not, not what parts get installed. “Experimental” parts/avionics can be legally installed in a TC’d aircraft per Part 43. I would have expected a person who works in the industry not to promote this fallacy. But then again you are trying to develop a market.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

I'm regretting starting this post.... To be clear, we are not selling anything to anyone, and certainly not trying to promote any "fallacy" as prior member alludes to, and really don't want to get into any more cut & pasting of regs/policy/ect contest. We did put a lot of work into answering common questions as these on the website for full transparency if considering converting to EXP. Again, bringing this to market, especially here in US, takes considerable capitol investment especially compared to potential to ROI and GA risk; this is why certified GA pistons are stuck in the 1950's. Toyota realized this after certifying a GA piston, and decided to scrap the entire program after spending millions. We don't have Toyota's resources. We started this out as a neat engineering project and for personal use. When word got out we started getting a bunch of inquires, and put up a simple website that explained what and how we were doing it, including sharing our process as well getting a lot of input from the EXP community from others with auto conversions (when we decided to gage any commercial interest, attorney suggested we remove our design suggestions as we could be easily sued if anyone used them and crashed... so we did... and re-did website). It was a challenging and fun project, and began to get about 2-4 emails a day from potential buyers and dealers.... thus the current website that tried to answer common questions. Neither of us could have afforded any flight training at current cost when starting out young, and really think something like this can be a real help to boost GA. No one is going to rich off anything like this.

But I do feel compelled to answer earlier posted criticisms and some questions before ending my postings on this topic:

Being realistic on Ex-Exhibit vs simply a marketing strategy would better serve your potential clientele who for the most part do not understand the finer points of the aviation system.

Our website makes process very clear RE EXP/EX. It clearly states taking a cert to EXP is not easy and can be way more expensive that simply buying a cert plane, and I have commented in prior post to this fact. We dive into the EXP limitations as well. This C172 has a multipurpose AC but only exhibition is current (all phase 1 testing, MS, and crew training was completed) and it is operated per regs and policies under FAA scrutiny.

You quote on flight training is what applies in general to experimental aircraft and in particular to amateur built.

I simply quoted current FAA FSIMs documented policies, specifically -
A. Use of Experimental Aircraft for Flight Training. Persons may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training in an aircraft holding an experimental certificate issued for any of the purposes specified in § 21.191. Other than the person receiving flight training, the operation must not involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or be prohibited by the aircraft’s operating limitations.
Part 21.191 referenced above specifically includes exhibition category. Again, you cannot rent the thing out or receive any compensation for its use. EAA also has some reference material on subject, and even starting a flying club with it (equity base where owners own part of plane and not technically renting). The FAA does not make it easy to convert. It requires a lot of work typically outside a normal pilot's skill set, threshold for aggravation, and money; this is likely why there are not a lot out there. In fact, I would not suggest it unless there was a kit available that had all the hard work completed including documents and required analysis, and plane was really for personal flying. After the initial program letter, pretty simple with help from your DAR, annual letter is quick edit and not a big deal. As mentioned earlier, exhibition op limits are clearly listed in national policy in the 8130.2 I noted..... specifically, in appendix D, exhibition specific limits are noted as 'D' in Colum, however, many won't be included for a class 1 piston such as a C172 (such as references to jet powered, multi engine or multi crew... these won't be applicable or included).

Will your V8 be offered in the US under an STC or is it still your intention only to offer the STC outside the US as stated on your website?

Great question. We initially posted the website to see if there as indeed interest in moving forward on STC. The US is a tough market in terms of liability. We sought quotes when developing business plan, but only company interested wanted almost 3x the cost of each kit initially for each kit sold, all others acted as if were wanted to retroactively insure the Hindenburg. Otherwise, we would have to hire a band of attorneys to cloak the company in a complex web of shell companies and constantly pay these guys to keep up the barrier. This wasn't the case outside US. So, to answer your question directly, we would need considerable funding to sell a certified unit in the US, at least initially, to buffer expected litigation cost. If we do decide to commercially produce and sell in US, will most likely be to public entities or sold to specific customer bases that have limits on selling it to others. Again, our intent was just to offer a cheap way to keep old planes flying at cost more can afford, and EXP is only practical way.... we didn't see these challenges focused until after getting the thing flying.

in the US why not offer the conversion service as part of the purchase price?
Our design is pretty modular so there is not a lot of fabrication needed for install. We anticipate a 40 hour install labor period. We have a lot of interested shops wanting to become dealers and installers all over the world, so install shops should not be an issue. We don't really want to get into the install business. But to answer your question more directly... we can install it if there is not a local shop. We worked hard on making it a rather easy install, so its not all that difficult. We have software that runs hundreds of test through the ECM that picks up most install errors, along with troubleshooting info.

“Experimental” parts/avionics can be legally installed in a TC’d aircraft per Part 43. I would have expected a person who works in the industry not to promote this fallacy.
That's not exactly a correct statement, but I take issue with your suggestion I am promoting a fallacy. Originally and/or previously certified aircraft operated or converted to EXP still have to adhere to part 43 in many respects; such as needing an A&P (or other approved entity per 43) to perform maintenance and inspections. For example, a V8 on a C172 doesn't meet part 43 or original TC, but it's allowed (exp are considered unairworthy because they do not comply with any TC). Part 43 does say it has to be installed in a manner conforming, and installed by approved entity, ect.., and most exp op limits state that major alterations must be sent to FSDO or MIDO for consideration, sort of like a 337 approval, but major alternation definition are basically major items that can be a real safety factor, such as new prop. Our plane inspected by FAA MIDO and there is many non-C172 or "certified" parts that would not otherwise be approved in standard category. . I am not promoting anything not true or correct, and your assertion otherwise is misguided. AS stated earlier, experimental is not for everyone, but it offers a lot of advantages.

 

[Bell206]

To be clear, we are not selling anything to anyone,

To be clear also, I’ve got nothing against your project. But that is not how your comments and posts are being taken especially when you use phrases like “game changer” and “make GA affordable again.” Perhaps you should re-read your OP here as it comes across as a sales pitch to a number of people.

really think something like this can be a real help to boost GA.

Again, our intent was just to offer a cheap way to keep old planes flying at cost more can afford, and EXP is only practical way.

Here it is again. Help who? If you are not selling it nor developing it beyond experimental? Do you see how this might be read/interpreted by the GA community? Maybe you don’t, but you generate a lot of interest when you state this. Either that or you’re a born salesman.

and EXP is only practical way.

Experimental segment continues to grow bigger each year for a reason, and for good reason, especially for the private owner that's not wanting to rent it out.

AS stated earlier, experimental is not for everyone, but it offers a lot of advantages.

Our website makes process very clear RE EXP/EX. It clearly states taking a cert to EXP is not easy

Your website does, but your posts do not. Your posts here generated several inquiries on how to go experimental exhibit as it seems to be so easy since you compared it to E/AB. You’ve also made this same claim in other circles that in one case it took a trip to the FSDO to explain the complexities of putting a TC’d aircraft on Exp/Exhibit. So I’ve dealt with this outside of PoA as well. It’s nothing personal but it gets old explaining to people how what they read on your website or other similar websites that it is not that easy or practical to go that route. So when I get a chance to discuss this direct with the "horse's mouth" so to speak, I will.

Great question. We initially posted the website to see if there as indeed interest in moving forward on STC. The US is a tough market in terms of liability.

This is the 1st time, to the best of my knowledge, you have answered this question directly on PoA or other venues. Thank you.

in the US why not offer the conversion service as part of the purchase price? Our design is pretty modular so there is not a lot of fabrication needed for install. We anticipate a 40 hour install labor period.

You took my comment out of context. The conversion service was directed at assisting the owner with the experimental exhibition approval. To save me time and misery in the future, perhaps you could outline on your website what it would take if an owner should ever want to reverse the Corsair alteration and return to a Standard AWC.

That's not exactly a correct statement, but I take issue with your suggestion I am promoting a fallacy.

I simply followed your exact words:

Experimental avionics are amazing and fraction of the cost of certified, and parts a lot cheaper and far wider selection (we put in a 4 point race car certified seatbelt harness for $150, whereas the certified versions were 6x the cost).

As I stated, there are no experimental parts. To imply you need an experimental classified aircraft to install those type parts is false, i.e., a fallacy. You don’t. You can install any item you want on any aircraft as long as you follow the proper guidance whether that aircraft is type-certificated or experimental. The same parts and avionics you installed on your Corsair 172 I can install on a Cessna 172 per Part 43. So nothing misguided. Regardless your statement on using “experimental” parts again comes across to the GA community as a promotion to sell your kit, to go experimental exhibition, and put whatever they want on their 172 which is opposite to what you said above:

To be clear, we are not selling anything to anyone,

 

[NordicDave]

To be clear, we are not selling anything to anyone,

Then what’s the point?

 

[40YearDream]

It's a real shame that the US has such a formidable systemic barrier, to what is clearly a major and long over-due engineering improvement - to finally move away from nearly 100-year-old piston engine technology!

 

[TryingForFlyingSoloDeMio]

Hola from Argentina.

I look for affordable plane training, I find post. company website show second pilot obtain private pilot license. want receive also.

many technical words in post above, don't care. license in photo is real. that my goal. nothing else. Need private pilot licnese.

how to speak with company business to receive private pilot license for affordable price. How I communicate? Phone? I email but no respond. Will come to america for private license. Chile/Argentina cost is over 20,000USD

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Hola … Most info on website ….PM me if need more info