The $20/hour Cessna 172 experiment—Update

E

E.W.

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 3, 2022
Messages
47
Display Name
Display name:
Edmund
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/

yR3Fou.jpg


I found this article particularly fascinating. They found a way to address the leaded gas issue. Plus reduced operating costs, emissions and noise. You get one guess what the roadblock is.
 
I love the idea here.

However, I am personally not overly impressed with these numbers they provide:
Our 1969 Cessna 172K has over 500 hours of completed development and flight testing logged, as well as about 150 hours of private and commercial pilot training and FAA check rides.
Click to expand...

All of 500 hrs and they think they should be allowed to certify this as the next big thing? And only 150 hrs of training time, the main use of 172s?

So yeah, love the idea, needs more proving out in my mind.

-----------

On a different note, if this idea goes, I can see the hangar talk "Yeah, had my buddy drop by with his tuner, he upped the HP by another 50hp. Of course, when I take it to the shop, we dial it back down. You really should try it, the only way a ramp check will know is if the FAA guy scans the PCM."

I could see having a more modern computer controlled common engine leading to more people toying around with it than with the older purely mechanical ones.

-----------

On an even more different note, I can sense the owner's frustration w/ the FAA. I heard his complaint about the big companies and their lobbying power, etc. Yet I never saw where he tried to talk with AOPA, EAA, maybe even GAMI. It seems the author expects a certain path, but once it is revealed that that path is not how it works, it seems there is no attempt to work the path that exists, but rather he wants to complain about the path.

Yes, this is written from a comfortable seat where I have no skin in the game, so easy to point out issues.

Again, let me reiterate that I love the idea presented and I wish them success.
 
Interesting idea stalled by government bureaucracy. But this line in the article sounds quite scary (my emphasis):

“We can now see over 75 engine parameters in real time with engine running or shut down, view past engine log memory to see exact conditions at time of fault, and even turn fuel pumps on/off through all normal and backup circuits from anywhere in the world.”

Seems like the case of just because you can, doesn’t mean you should provide such capabilities. I realize it’s experimental, but still…
 
FoCoJayco said:
Interesting idea stalled by government bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Which certification requirement(s) would you drop to help speed the implementation of concepts/products like this?

As someone already said-the path to approval has been defined for a long time. He’s shouting at the rain. Doubt that helps him.
 
guest user said:
I love the idea here.

However, I am personally not overly impressed with these numbers they provide:


All of 500 hrs and they think they should be allowed to certify this as the next big thing? And only 150 hrs of training time, the main use of 172s?

So yeah, love the idea, needs more proving out in my mind.

-----------

On a different note, if this idea goes, I can see the hangar talk "Yeah, had my buddy drop by with his tuner, he upped the HP by another 50hp. Of course, when I take it to the shop, we dial it back down. You really should try it, the only way a ramp check will know is if the FAA guy scans the PCM."

I could see having a more modern computer controlled common engine leading to more people toying around with it than with the older purely mechanical ones.

-----------

On an even more different note, I can sense the owner's frustration w/ the FAA. I heard his complaint about the big companies and their lobbying power, etc. Yet I never saw where he tried to talk with AOPA, EAA, maybe even GAMI. It seems the author expects a certain path, but once it is revealed that that path is not how it works, it seems there is no attempt to work the path that exists, but rather he wants to complain about the path.

Yes, this is written from a comfortable seat where I have no skin in the game, so easy to point out issues.

Again, let me reiterate that I love the idea presented and I wish them success.
Click to expand...
WRT numbers-He could have a million hours and it would not matter. LS motors probably have a hundred million hours in other applications, doesn’t matter.

wrt path-he’s self funded so of course he’s skipping the path because (presumably) he doesn’t have millions
 
kyleb said:
Which certification requirement(s) would you drop to help speed the implementation of concepts/products like this?

As someone already said-the path to approval has been defined for a long time. He’s shouting at the rain. Doubt that helps him.
Click to expand...
To start, the prohibition of taking a certificated aircraft to experimental with the addition of this engine. I could see that a LS engine could be a very enticing option to someone with an older airframe. And I don't think I would balk at buying a certificated airframe that was "demoted" to experimental by adding the LS engine, if the rest of the airframe was okay.

And it's not just dropping requirements, it's speeding up the glacial pace at which the FAA moves, for example with the unleaded avgas certification.
 
LesGawlik said:
To start, the prohibition of taking a certificated aircraft to experimental with the addition of this engine.
Click to expand...

That wasn’t his goal. What certification requirement would you eliminate that would help him achieve his stated goal of putting these in trainers?
 
kyleb said:
That wasn’t his goal. What certification requirement would you eliminate that would help him achieve his stated goal of putting these in trainers?
Click to expand...
As the article says, 14 CFR part 43, which is applicable to any aircraft originally certified under a type certificate, regardless of whether it is now in the experimental category.
 
500 hours in one engine after all these years does not convince me of much.
 
LesGawlik said:
it's speeding up the glacial pace at which the FAA moves
Click to expand...
Thats only provided they as the STC applicant have completed the necessary steps for the FAA move on. Outside of having a stated G1 issue letter, there is no other status of where the project is in the STC process. The aircraft has been flying for several years under Experimental-Exhibition so they should be at least at Phase IV in the process but several things just don't add up in the narrative. So maybe the hold up isn't the FAA? The funny thing is the FAA individual mentioned in the article works in the Flight Standards Services which is not the department that handles aircraft certification.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
500 hours in one engine after all these years does not convince me of much.
Click to expand...

I might have missed it, but how many years has he been flying it? I mean, being self-funded and running it 100-150hrs per year is probably about all I'd expect. It surely wouldn't be convincing from a conversion proposition, but it's hard to have 1,000+ hours on something when you're funding it out of your own pocketbook.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I might have missed it, but how many years has he been flying it? I mean, being self-funded and running it 100-150hrs per year is probably about all I'd expect. It surely wouldn't be convincing from a conversion proposition, but it's hard to have 1,000+ hours on something when you're funding it out of your own pocketbook.
Click to expand...
That all may be true, but it still doesn't convince me of much. Frankly, I don't really understand what his goal is. Everyone seems to have a different take. To me, it seems, the best route to certification is a proven track record, which you could get with EAB. Similar to Rotax. They are now basically the defacto standard for SLSA certified aircraft.
 
Bell206 said:
Thats only provided they as the STC applicant have completed the necessary steps for the FAA move on. Outside of having a stated G1 issue letter, there is no other status of where the project is in the STC process. The aircraft has been flying for several years under Experimental-Exhibition so they should be at least at Phase IV in the process but several things just don't add up in the narrative. So maybe the hold up isn't the FAA? The funny thing is the FAA individual mentioned in the article works in the Flight Standards Services which is not the department that handles aircraft certification.
Click to expand...
Do you think the FAA worked at a reasonable pace in the G100UL certification?
 
LesGawlik said:
As the article says, 14 CFR part 43, which is applicable to any aircraft originally certified under a type certificate, regardless of whether it is now in the experimental category.
Click to expand...

From the article:

"Since we were planning on performing most of the same testing required for certification anyway, we started down the land-mined path to FAA certification to obtain a supplemental type certificate (STC). The proposed STC would allow owners of older legacy piston aircraft to install our engine kit.... "

Which step in the STC approval process would you remove?
 
LesGawlik said:
Do you think the FAA worked at a reasonable pace in the G100UL certification?
Click to expand...
I dont know enough of the details to make an informed reply but if I were to guess I would say the pace was in the ballpark. Could it have been approved sooner, probably. How much sooner, I dont know.

The fact they had to develop/approve the testing procedures as none existed probably added 3-4 years right there. And considering they were seeking an AML-STC that would incorporate 100s of airframe and engine TCs this definitely wasnt your average project. Plus since the 737 MAX issue the certification services side has had they're hands full. So in my book, if you look at a compareble AML-STC process of 3-4 years and add in the test approvals time, you're looking at a 6-8 year process. Throw in the MAX factor and the fact they elected to remain independent of the existing initiative programs, maybe another 2 years. And not to mention the political/personal issues of a huge project like this.

So if they started the STC process in 2010-2011 it would be somewhat close. But this all a guess. What I do know is a project of this size and scope wont happen in a few years.
 
These guys again. Have they published an estimated conversion price and installed weight?

There's a reason aero engines are built they way they are, and not like auto engines.
 
FormerHangie said:
These guys again. Have they published an estimated conversion price and installed weight?

There's a reason aero engines are built they way they are, and not like auto engines.
Click to expand...

The "for sale" ad on Barnstormers (?) lists the empty weight as 16XX pounds - I don't remember the exact number, but how does that compare to the typical empty weight of a C-172? That gives a hint about the weight trade-off.
 
The engine swap STCs the FAA does issue are all to put a new type certificated engine in an aircraft that originally had a different engine. To make this project a go, he'd probably have to first get a TC for the engine, with all the testing and manufacturing traceability and quality control that entails. That's a huge project (and expense) even for Lycoming. And GM would have to be willing to cooperate and provide that traceability documentation, in what for them is a very tiny market with potentially large liability.
 
kyleb said:
The "for sale" ad on Barnstormers (?) lists the empty weight as 16XX pounds - I don't remember the exact number, but how does that compare to the typical empty weight of a C-172? That gives a hint about the weight trade-off.
Click to expand...

A 172N is in the low 1400 lb range, the 172R is approaching 1700. I'd assume they'd have converted an older one, so maybe 150 extra 150 lbs.

Edit: The AirFacts article says the airframe is a 172K, which has an empty weight in the low 1300s and grosses at 2300.
 
Last edited:
To me this article just exemplifies how harmful the FAA is to the entire General Aviation community.
 
E.W. said:
To me this article just exemplifies how harmful the FAA is to the entire General Aviation community.
Click to expand...

The guy who's pushing the engine didn't make a viable certification effort. That's not on the FAA.

You actually have to make an effort to get it certified before you can complain.
 
kyleb said:
The guy who's pushing the engine didn't make a viable certification effort. That's not on the FAA. ...
Click to expand...

Isn't that like accusing the homeless person of not even attempting to buy a house? The author talked at length about the bureaucracy problems and costs involved with certification.
 
I’m having deja vu with another thread on the same product.

they have one engine and no real plan. They apparently just brought a certification focal onboard and are now surprised at the costs to certify.
 
I’m shocked to learn that it’s difficult and expensive to certify a complex piece of equipment, vital to the proper operation of an aircraft. If it weren’t for this valiant soul, I would have remained ignorant.

seriously, building one engine and going on marketing jags with the same info every six months for years is not impressive to me. Get the thing in a hundred EABs and I’ll start thinking you might be on to something.

I don’t know squat about the certification process, but frankly I’d be skeptical of its value if they certified an engine with only 500 hours of “testing” behind a single prototype.
 
E.W. said:
The author talked at length about the bureaucracy problems and costs involved with certification.
Click to expand...

He said he wanted cheaper operating costs for flight school aircraft. That would be a great thing if he could do it. But the FAA would be ignoring its responsibility by allowing that without it going through the full certification process. He had to know that before he began tilting at this particular windmill. And let's be realistic. No information has been provided that indicates he even made a legitimate effort at certification.

The certification process is a marathon. He didn't quit before the finish line. He basically quit at the starting line. Now he's whining about the length of the marathon he claims he wanted to run. Beyond that, he's (IMO) been disingenuous. He (or his supporters) have posted the same articles and similar posts on various forums. All lacking any solid information about things like installed weight, cost, testing data, or even the exact nature of the aircraft's certification (ex-exhibition, ex-R&D, etc.) and its real world utility as registered/certified today. He's been really stingy with FACTS. The kind of stuff anyone who'd be interested in this would really want to see and understand. Instead of heading down a potentially viable path (experimentals), where he could sell some engines if the product works as advertised, he's ignored that opportunity and complained that the FAA is standing in the way.

It is a smoke, mirrors, and baloney sandwich and I'm not buying.
 
E.W. said:
Isn't that like accusing the homeless person of not even attempting to buy a house? The author talked at length about the bureaucracy problems and costs involved with certification.
Click to expand...
Not really. Its more like a homeless person complaining about property taxes.

Having been through the STC process myself and based on what they have posted, I've not seen anything that shows this was a serious effort on their part. The fact they believe their experience as an airline pilot and an IT guy is sufficient to see this complex project through without the need of A&Ps or DERs is rather revealing. Besides even if they were to obtain an STC, by their own admission, they have zero intent to market this modification in the US. So how would this project benefit the entire GA community?

But if you think this project exemplifies the certification process at large you would be mistaken. Every year new/modified aviation products and articles are FAA certified using the same process with no problems. It is what it is.
 
Bell206 said:
I dont know enough of the details to make an informed reply but if I were to guess I would say the pace was in the ballpark. Could it have been approved sooner, probably. How much sooner, I dont know.
Click to expand...
\
From what I read from GAMI, the FAA dragged its feet and slowed down the process significantly.
 
LesGawlik said:
\
From what I read from GAMI, the FAA dragged its feet and slowed down the process significantly.
Click to expand...

Everyone wants the process to go faster until something like Mobil AV-1 oil or the 737 Max hits the streets, then it is torches and pitchforks time. Unless I'm missing something, we don't know what was going on behind closed doors at the FAA, so while we question the speed (or lack thereof) of the process, we really don't know *why* it is taking so long. FAA problem, data problem, trip into the unknown problem?
 
Last edited:
LesGawlik said:
From what I read from GAMI, the FAA dragged its feet and slowed down the process significantly.
Click to expand...
Which is a similar stance taken in the OP article. One sided. I would be interested to hear from the ACO Project Manager on his take, or see the certification plan, or read the conformity reports to see how efficient the process was.

It would also depend on how you define “dragging its feet.” As I mentioned they had to design and approve the test procedures as well. So how long should it take to develop a certification test for a product that never existed before? To me its like how long should an annual inspection take on your aircraft? And if I took hours or days longer to complete it, was I dragging my feet or making sure it was 100% airworthy?
 
They were referring to month after month of failure to respond. It's not hard to disguise sloth as concerns of safety. It's the typical governmental preserve your ass strategy- if you don't make any decisions, you can't be blamed for making a bad decision.
 
LesGawlik said:
They were referring to month after month of failure to respond. It's not hard to disguise sloth as concerns of safety. It's the typical governmental preserve your *** strategy- if you don't make any decisions, you can't be blamed for making a bad decision.
Click to expand...
"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

Nauga,
who took a number
 
LesGawlik said:
They were referring to month after month of failure to respond.
Click to expand...
Except the one who they blamed for the lack of response has nothing to do with certifications, i.e, STCs. So sounds like there was another priority more important than the STC. All pomp and no circumstance.
 
kyleb said:
He (or his supporters) have posted the same articles and similar posts on various forums. All lacking any solid information about things like installed weight, cost, testing data, or even the exact nature of the aircraft's certification (ex-exhibition, ex-R&D, etc.)....
Click to expand...

Cessna 172K N72CX is registered to "Corsair Engine Technologies." The Engine section of their registraion says "EXP/AMAT" engine like ~6500 aircraft on the FAA registry, about half of which are not Experimental Amateur-Built. The aircraft's certification is listed Experimental, with the sub-categories Market Survey, Exhibition, Crew Training, and Research and Development.

Almost won the EXP Bingo game, with only Amateur-Built, Operating Kit-Built Aircraft, and the various iterations of Experimental Light Sport missing.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
It appears they can’t get investors because they cant expect any significant return on investment…they need a marketing person.

And maybe someone who understands that when the FAA says something, they actually mean it.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top