V8 172

Friend of mine is building an LS1 Navion.
 
Bell206 said:
An interesting caveat... And people wondered in the "spam can" thread why aircraft OEMs don't invest in new aircraft models.
View attachment 88864
Click to expand...
I didn’t know POA had our own airworthiness categories. Bravo!

also seeing the C-172 installation with the cowl off I envisioned one with a hood scoop and chrome side pipes.
 
flyingron said:
Friend of mine is building an LS1 Navion.
Click to expand...
A Navion needs one; those things are draggy!
Edit: yet another website confusing detonation and pre-ignition, and even combining the two.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting and will be watching. I mean a V-8.!!!

''AUX EFI system is capable of completely returning a failed engine to normal operations within 1 second should the main EFI or its components fail.''
Click to expand...
WOW.!!



jsstevens said:
also seeing the C-172 installation with the cowl off I envisioned one with a hood scoop and chrome side pipes.
Click to expand...


I can see decals on the cowling....Isky cam, Hooker hedders, Drink Mountain Dew, NASCAR and Skoal. Chrome stacks, a ''Dixie'' flag and tobacco stains from the pilot window rearward....and oversized mudgrips on the mains....
 
Not gonna hold my breath, but wouldn’t that be nice...?
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
Seems to be a successful powerplant
Click to expand...

It might be when they make some.
"Testing is expected to be complete by Q3 of 2020. We expect to complete engine specs and cost to be available Q1 2021."

"The engine block is a marine version of the General Motors L series engine"
 
Gearbox, 140 pound weight penalty, limited testing. It's a great idea but it's got a lot going against it. I hope they make it work.
 
Interesting! Great to see someone interested in bringing GA combustion engines up to par with the modern world

Hope they make it!!
 
If forced to bet a $1, we are a few years away from seeing an STC for sale. Promising as it appears they are taking a ground up approach for repurposing and thinking about oiling systems, sensors, and purposed built FEDEC.

Too many prior attempts to stuff a car engine into a plane, without considering the implications of aviation. Encouraging they are running the engine at more reasonable RPM with less requirements for the gear reduction.
 
i have got to question a company that downplays the restrictions of putting your aircraft into experimental exhibition.
 
unsafervguy said:
i have got to question a company that downplays the restrictions of putting your aircraft into experimental exhibition.
Click to expand...
I had the same thoughts. I don't think you can just install a different engine like that and certify it as experimental
 
AKBill said:
I had the same thoughts. I don't think you can just install a different engine like that and certify it as experimental
Click to expand...
you pretty much can, the problem is, the op-limits that will be issued are really up to the fsdo that issues them. there really is not a set standard like when they issue EAB op-limits. so you may get a op-limits that limit you to no passengers, day VFR only, or something else that is very restrictive.
 
Hope it works out better than the Thielert diesel. Part of the issue with something new is re-training the users.
 
40YearDream said:
Hope it works out better than the Thielert diesel. Part of the issue with something new is re-training the users.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I've often wondered the same thing when it comes to the future prospect of electric aviation

I have to think though that with FADEC user training can be fairly limited

I've been told by many pilots that when it comes to powerplant operation turbines are easier to fly than pistons
 
unsafervguy said:
there really is not a set standard like when they issue EAB op-limits
Click to expand...
I believe the Corsair boys are implying E/AB use as any other Experimental category can be time and location limited regardless of the ops-limits. Plus I doubt any person could get a Special AWC EXP just to convert their 172 to fly it around the pattern on weekends. Considering they point to Restricted and what I assume to be Public Use aircraft for their domestic market, I'd say they are pushing it toward government type contract aircraft. But who knows, maybe they'll prove me wrong.
 
Zeldman said:
Very interesting and will be watching. I mean a V-8.!!!

WOW.!!

I can see decals on the cowling....Isky cam, Hooker hedders, Drink Mountain Dew, NASCAR and Skoal. Chrome stacks, a ''Dixie'' flag and tobacco stains from the pilot window rearward....and oversized mudgrips on the mains....
Click to expand...

It needs a blower hat..and zoomies...:D
 
unsafervguy said:
i have got to question a company that downplays the restrictions of putting your aircraft into experimental exhibition.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they were downplaying it at all. What I understood from their website was they hope to have it approved one day but that’s not their focus because the FAA are a bunch of pricks and they need money now so the market focus would be elsewhere but IF you were restricted, public use or experimental you could feel free to ask for a quote and they would be happy to take your money.

I don’t see that as downplaying experimental certification. I see that as an unfortunate consequence of over regulation.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Just imagine aviation with no regulation. :eek:
Click to expand...

Like most unregulated risky things, some would die, most wouldn’t, and insurance would clamp down and force things needed to bother insuring any of it.

Wouldn’t really be the end of the world. Just move the paperwork so it had to go to the insurance company every year.
 
What was it that ultimately doomed the Thielert? I seem to remember it being pretty expensive, to the point where it was difficult for the average Joe to justify. Hope that won't be the case here.
 
An aluminum block? You can't overhaul aluminum. No one rebores those; you replace. I question the 3000 TB"O" and wonder if what they really want is to say 3000 TB"R." Even then, Continental only has a 2400hr TBR aluminum block engine and those don't push you into experimental!

Don't see hp listed, 8 cylinders instead of 4 and ethanol allowed!? Good luck, I do wish them the best. Also, smart on them not to go domestic, liability in the USA is insane.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Government regulation does not make things better
Click to expand...
Never said it did. However, I think you missed their point on why they're not selling to TC'd aircraft domestically. Considering they're obtaining FAA STC approval it's obviously not a regulatory or FAA personnel issue, but solely a civil tort lawyer issue. They said so themselves quite bluntly on their website.;)
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Just move the paperwork so it had to go to the insurance company every year.
Click to expand...
The problem with a no-regulation plan is that the US would have to resign from all their international treaties, agreements, and ICAO. So imagine what would happen to the domestic aviation industry if they couldn't sell products and articles or operate N reg/built aircraft outside the US. A simple example is the owner maintained aircraft in CA which can't be exported or flown outside CA due to that TCCA rule does not meet the requirements of several bi-lateral agreements and ICAO guidelines.
 
wheaties said:
Don't see hp listed,
Click to expand...

The web site is pretty poor, but I had a look round and from memory they are aiming for 220hp. The idea is to keep it turning relatively slowly for that 3000hr TBO.

By the way, I notice that Deltahawk have re-done their web site, made it smaller:) Certification real-real-soon-now:) After what, 15 years,or is it more?

I wish them both well.

Edit: - Formed in 1996 so nearly 25 years.
 
Last edited:
wheaties said:
An aluminum block? You can't overhaul aluminum. No one rebores those; you replace. I question the 3000 TB"O" and wonder if what they really want is to say 3000 TB"R." Even then, Continental only has a 2400hr TBR aluminum block engine and those don't push you into experimental!

Don't see hp listed, 8 cylinders instead of 4 and ethanol allowed!? Good luck, I do wish them the best. Also, smart on them not to go domestic, liability in the USA is insane.
Click to expand...
Lol, well the beauty of TB"R" on an LS-series block is that you could do full replacement cheaper than a top overhaul of a Lycontisaurus.
 
wheaties said:
An aluminum block? You can't overhaul aluminum. No one rebores those; you replace. I question the 3000 TB"O" and wonder if what they really want is to say 3000 TB"R." Even then, Continental only has a 2400hr TBR aluminum block engine and those don't push you into experimental!

Don't see hp listed, 8 cylinders instead of 4 and ethanol allowed!? Good luck, I do wish them the best. Also, smart on them not to go domestic, liability in the USA is insane.
Click to expand...

It’s steel sleeves in an aluminum block. At overhaul you just re-sleeve it.
 
Bell206 said:
Never said it did. However, I think you missed their point on why they're not selling to TC'd aircraft domestically. Considering they're obtaining FAA STC approval it's obviously not a regulatory or FAA personnel issue, but solely a civil tort lawyer issue. They said so themselves quite bluntly on their website.;)
Click to expand...
I did not say you did. I said it didn’t.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top