V8 cessna ( Chevy engine)

bugsiegel

bugsiegel

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
73
Display Name
Display name:
Bugsiegel
Came across a tube video of a Cessna with a modern LS engine installed, 400plus HP?
Looked like the video was posted a few years ago.
Did this concept ever amount to anything more than a single application?
Quiet aviation was the outfit who posted the video.
 
Ben Haas has a V8 set up in his zenith, it's pretty sweet
 
bugsiegel said:
Came across a tube video of a Cessna with a modern LS engine installed, 400plus HP?
Looked like the video was posted a few years ago.
Did this concept ever amount to anything more than a single application?
Quiet aviation was the outfit who posted the video.
Click to expand...

Those guys were based at X04.... I was part owner in that airport 30 years ago.....

IIRC... Quiet bit off more then they could chew by trying to get the FAA to certify it... IMHO , they should have started with the experimental crown first to establish some real time , hard data...

Oh Yeah,,,,

Here is my "deathtrap" :D:D:D:yikes:..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
 
Last edited:
Here's a 172 with a Chevy V6:
auto172.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
Wonder what it takes to take a 172 and make it a experimental?

I'd image buying a 172 with a run out or toasted engine for cheap, do the conversion, might not be bad?
 
James331 said:
Wonder what it takes to take a 172 and make it a experimental?

I'd image buying a 172 with a run out or toasted engine for cheap, do the conversion, might not be bad?
Click to expand...

Experimental R&D? (research and development)

Experimental-Exhibition?

Either way, you will have a host of restrictions to comply with.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Experimental R&D? (research and development)

Experimental-Exhibition?

Either way, you will have a host of restrictions to comply with.
Click to expand...

And even more fun if you want to return it to normal category like my boss did after installing a TSIO-520 in a Navion. He got it there, but there was tons and tons of paperwork.
 
StinkBug said:
Anyone care to elaborate on the major ones that'd be a pain in the ass?
Click to expand...

Where and when you are allowed to operate as well as who may be onboard. They do ease up them though with time and proving the installation isn't going to fall out of the sky. The Commander with the Orendas on it has been flying Ex R&D for decades and the only restriction that's left on it is "No Commercial Ops." The guy flies it all over with his family.
 
StinkBug said:
Anyone care to elaborate on the major ones that'd be a pain in the ass?
Click to expand...
The picture I posted was that of the Northwest Aero Products test bed. They had an Experimental R&D certificate. It was only good for one year, and they basically had to justify the need to continue the Experiemental certifiate. Renewal was reasonably smooth at first, but then the FAA guy they were working with left and the new guy was a lot more particular.

Their operating limitations were pretty strict, too. Required crew only, onboard, and the airframe annual had to be performed by an A&P (not a problem since the developer had one). IIRC, they were required to restore the airplane to its Type Certificated condition at the conclusion of testing.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
The Commander with the Orendas on it has been flying Ex R&D for decades and the only restriction that's left on it is "No Commercial Ops." The guy flies it all over with his family.
Click to expand...

Well, as usual, henning is just making it up as he goes. :rolleyes2:

The aircraft you are referring too, N60QR, is Experimental, R&D. As of its last set of compliance instructions passengers can only be carried if they are essential to the purpose of flight (no flying family members for recreation), the plane can only be flown VFR Day Only, can't be flown over congested areas and also has limitations on the areas it can be flown. It also has a whole host of other limitations.

Nice try henning.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Well, as usual, henning is just making it up as he goes. :rolleyes2:

The aircraft you are referring too, N60QR, is Experimental, R&D. As of its last set of compliance instructions passengers can only be carried if they are essential to the purpose of flight (no flying family members for recreation), the plane can only be flown VFR Day Only, can't be flown over congested areas and also has limitations on the areas it can be flown. It also has a whole host of other limitations.

Nice try henning.
Click to expand...

Ok, he's advertising differently when I talked to him about it a couple years back.
 
unsafervguy said:
hotrod? no matter how much HP you put on it you still have a ton of drag on that airframe.
Click to expand...

That's why the airplane version of drag racing is time to climb. The ability to climb is the ultimate expression of horsepower.

I would not save money building a Chevy for a plane, I would end up spending as much as on a new certified 350hp Lycoming or Continental. However I will have a 700hp engine with a 2 speed Lenco re-drive so I can efficiently use 350. The bottom end would also be built of components that withstand 2500 horsepower, same as the Lenco box. I might even have enough left over for a thrOttleable Nitrous kit so I can spray equal parts of Nitrous Oxide and Nitromethane to keep the engine running as a "reciprocating rocket", and a prop that'll shift into high gear at high altitude. It would be fun for a record run.
 
Last edited:
Both Lyc and Conti solved the PRSU problem with their geared engines. They use a massive set of gears, in a massive set of bearings, including thrust load bearing, well lubricated.

Also, every helo uses a serious set of PRSU methods for driving the rotor, so it can be done.

Whatever you think your PRSU specs have qualified based on torque and thrust - prolly want to double that spec and give it another try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top