Private and commercial pilot training in EXPERIMENTAL C172

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

I posted last year about our experimental C172 project that is powered by a V8 aluminum marine engine. Our intent was to significantly lower cost and emissions, including eliminating leaded AVGAS (it is flex-fuel rated so takes most car and rec gas, but AVGAS works as well). We get a number of emails from forum members asking for updates so thought I would post latest.

Our test plan included demonstrating the engine can meet the normal missions of piston aircraft, including private and commercial pilot training including check rides. Last year, our first pilot completed their commercial pilot training and FAA check ride. This month, our first student pilot completed her private pilot training and passed her FAA check ride in our test C172 aircraft. With the direct operating cost of our C172 less than $29/hr, The flight cost for her PPL was about $3,800 (60 hours of fuel, engine reserves, CFI and FAA examiner/DPE fee). All with only burning ethanol car gas with modern emissions. The Commercial pilot program had same cost savings. There’s more specific info on corsairV8.com if interested.

We think that a c172 or PA28 could rent for less than $75/hr with our engine which would also increase rental fleet, especially flying clubs. This would mean a lot more pilot starts and cleaner emissions.

We have about another 100 hours to complete test program while continuing routine inspections (mechanical, vibration, structural, ect..) and oil analysis. Our next airframe to install the engine on will be a larger single or maybe twin, as well as add hybrid component.

We designed the engine kit to be a direct replacement for stock engines on legacy certified piston aircraft, but not sure certified STC will happen soon. Many of you asked what’s taking so long? Quick answer is FAA doesn’t really care much about GA and unless you have a lot of $ to hire several DERs, such as Boeing or Cessna, essentially your own personal FAA employee on your payroll. We don’t have that tier of $ and have to work directly with FAA…… to give you an idea, simple paperwork that FAA typically issues to well funded companies within weeks, whereas we have been waiting for more than 2 years on some stuff. FAA has also done some weasel-like bureaucratic maneuvering to avoid having to deal with us….even as a non-certified/experimental engine.

So, not sure when will we would be able to sell it at this rate or if it’s worth the trouble…. but for us it was more of a challenge than a potential business (we only sought the STC after getting a lot of sales inquires worldwide). So, for those that asked, I hope this answers some of your questions. We’ll try to update the website more often.

 

[schmookeeg]

Huh, I thought you couldn't use experimental aircraft for flight training (or, for that matter, experimental research for carrying any non-crew members)

Good luck on what is surely an ambitious project.

 

[RyanB]

I would never, I repeat never, fly behind an auto converted engine. It’s been tried many, many times and so far none of them have proven to be as reliable as the conventional aircraft specific engines. YMMV.

 

[RyanB]

Many of you asked what’s taking so long? Quick answer is FAA doesn’t really care much about GA and unless you have a lot of $ to hire several DERs, such as Boeing or Cessna, essentially your own personal FAA employee on your payroll. We don’t have that tier of $ and have to work directly with FAA…… to give you an idea, simple paperwork that FAA typically issues to well funded companies within weeks, whereas we have been waiting for more than 2 years on some stuff. FAA has also done some weasel-like bureaucratic maneuvering to avoid having to deal with us….even as a non-certified/experimental engine.

The FAA isn’t going to issue an STC for that.

 

[asicer]

I would never, I repeat never, fly behind an auto converted engine. It’s been tried many, many times and so far none of them have proven to be as reliable as the conventional aircraft specific engines. YMMV.

The Austro (converted from a Mercedes Benz) seems to be doing OK.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would never, I repeat never, fly behind an auto converted engine. It’s been tried many, many times and so far none of them have proven to be as reliable as the conventional aircraft specific engines. YMMV.

You weren’t paying attention…

V8 aluminum marine engine

 

[kyleb]

Huh, I thought you couldn't use experimental aircraft for flight training (or, for that matter, experimental research for carrying any non-crew members)

You can absolutely use an EAB for training. Now, whether the DPE is comfortable doing the check ride in it may be a different issue.

I'd love to see this airplane's operating limits. And the FWF weight (or W/B). And to know how many hours it has flown.

 

[frfly172]

What marine engine are they using?

 

[RyanB]

FAA has also done some weasel-like bureaucratic maneuvering to avoid having to deal with us….even as a non-certified/experimental engine.

What ‘weasel-like’ maneuvering are we talking about here?

 

[MauleSkinner]

You can absolutely use an EAB for training.

FWIW, this appears to be Experimental-Exhibition, not EAB.

 

[kyleb]

FWIW, this appears to be Experimental-Exhibition, not EAB.

Which was why I said EAB, to give Schmookeeg some good information what you can do with an EAB. Clearly, the airplane in question here isn't an EAB, so what you can do with it very much depends on its operating limits. Again, love to see those and the W/B. And the HP claims, and the efficiency claims, and...

 

[schmookeeg]

You can absolutely use an EAB for training. Now, whether the DPE is comfortable doing the check ride in it may be a different issue.

I'd love to see this airplane's operating limits. And the FWF weight (or W/B). And to know how many hours it has flown.

Thanks. I was thinking in a flight school perspective. Seems that is still a no-no and you need to own the eab in question.

So the learner pilot being crowed about here could not have paid for the plane itself. So i assume it is a family member or other friend of the owner.

For exhibition... That is another where i thought it was restricted to crew only? I guess it depends on opspec but.... If they are experimental to test an engine, how on earth is their fsdo allowing that??

This post raises a pile more questions than answers for me.

 

[RyanB]

I guess it depends on opspec but.... If they are experimental to test an engine, how on earth is their fsdo allowing that??

Ditto.

 

[Brad Z]

FWIW, this appears to be Experimental-Exhibition, not EAB.

You mean experimental research and development certificate? I don't think the FAA issued a certificate to show up to air shows.

 

[nauga]

I won't speak to the wisdom of training in an airplane like this, but the reg that defines LODAs references 'experimental' aircraft, it does not restrict LODAs to secondaries like amateur built.

This post raises a pile more questions than answers for me.

As they do every time this airplane comes up.

Nauga,
who knows there's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't play baseball

 

[nauga]

You mean experimental research and development certificate? I don't think the FAA issued a certificate to show up to air shows.

You might want to check that.

ETA: until I looked into this airplane the last time it came up here I'd never seen multiple categories on an experimental AC.

Nauga,
and the approval lottery

 

[Brad Z]

You might want to check that.

ETA: until I looked into this airplane the last time it came up here I'd never seen multiple categories on an experimental AC.

Nauga,
and the approval lottery

Okay, just looked up N72CX: experimental- Market Survey, Exhibition, Crew Training, Research and Development

 

[Bell206]

I don't think the FAA issued a certificate to show up to air shows.

FYI: you'll find there is a path where an aircraft will obtain a Exp R&D certificate then switch over to Exp Exh certificate once the research side is completed and they want to show it off. I know nothing of training in it but would really like to see the Ops-Limits on this one as there's seems to be a disconnect in this story.

 

[schmookeeg]

Okay, just looked up N72CX: experimental- Market Survey, Exhibition, Crew Training, Research and Development

Huh. I never would have thought "crew training" meant "get your PPL" -- I assumed it was for transition training into something.. well, experimental.

Good on em. I want to be in their FSDO jurisdiction.

 

[O2 Birddog]

The Austro (converted from a Mercedes Benz) seems to be doing OK.

As I recall Honda did one as well. It worked fantastic but they decided it just wasn't going to be economically viable for the company.

As for Mercedes, their 600 series was based off of an automobile engine and powered a lot of WWII aircraft quite successfully.

The problem with auto engines is that there's simply not enough of a market to make it worth their investment to produce aircraft engines based on their automotive designs.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

The FAA isn’t going to issue an STC for that.

RyanB…… that’s a pretty definitive statement…. Seeing that FAA already issued a G1 paper for the STC and that the 2 certified diesels are auto conversions…… not to mention Porsche and Toyota and Honda part 23 certified engines…..Can you please enlighten me on your statement? Can you also please briefly state your aerospace engineering and/or certification regulatory experience and why it’s not possible? We obviously missed something.

my intent with post was just an update on project, as completing flight training was a significant indication of how an alternative engine on older aircraft can fulfill designed missions at less cost and emissions. NASA came to same conclusion when proposing and tested auto conversions as a means to modernize the GA fleet. Not trying to market or sell anything, just giving an update on what many feel is a neat project and inquired.

Most the exp legal stuff for EXP asked is on website and answers the questions asked here. As far as EXP EXHIBITION operating limits, or any category for that matter, these are national policy and found in Faa order 8130.2j. For class 1 aircraft in exhibition is essentially same as exp AB except for yearly program letter/fax. Also, training is allowed in exp aircraft as noted on website reference.

thanks to those with words of encouragement. We are not a big company, merely a hand full of GA guys with skill sets and backgrounds capable of doing this as a challenge…. And self funding it, but having a fun time figuring things out and flying for cheap. When I rented c172s in the 1980s, most were about $40-45/hr and there were a lot of rentals. Nothing else changed other than the cost. We think it neat that you can fly the same aircraft for less than half the cost and no leaded gas emissions.

GA is dying a slow but constant death….fewer rentals, fewer pilots, fewer insurance carriers and hanger options, airports closing, ect…, all of which significantly increases cost and further reduces number of Wanabe pilots each year. I get there is a surge of new pilots due to airline hiring, but few will return to fly GA after they are hired. GA needs ways to substantially lower cost and emissions and it will likely be small entities that find possible solutions.

 

[O2 Birddog]

RyanB…… that’s a pretty definitive statement…. Seeing that FAA already issued a G1 paper for the STC and that the 2 certified diesels are auto conversions…… not to mention Porsche and Toyota and Honda part 23 certified engines…..Can you please enlighten me on your statement? Can you also please briefly state your aerospace engineering and/or certification regulatory experience and why it’s not possible? We obviously missed something.

my intent with post was just an update on project, as completing flight training was a significant indication of how an alternative engine on older aircraft can fulfill designed missions at less cost and emissions. NASA came to same conclusion when proposing and tested auto conversions as a means to modernize the GA fleet. Not trying to market or sell anything, just giving an update on what many feel is a neat project and inquired.

Most the exp legal stuff for EXP asked is on website and answers the questions asked here. As far as EXP EXHIBITION operating limits, or any category for that matter, these are national policy and found in Faa order 8130.2j. For class 1 aircraft in exhibition is essentially same as exp AB except for yearly program letter/fax. Also, training is allowed in exp aircraft as noted on website reference.

thanks to those with words of encouragement. We are not a big company, merely a hand full of GA guys with skill sets and backgrounds capable of doing this as a challenge…. And self funding it, but having a fun time figuring things out and flying for cheap. When I rented c172s in the 1980s, most were about $40-45/hr and there were a lot of rentals. Nothing else changed other than the cost. We think it neat that you can fly the same aircraft for less than half the cost and no leaded gas emissions.

GA is dying a slow but constant death….fewer rentals, fewer pilots, fewer insurance carriers and hanger options, airports closing, ect…, all of which significantly increases cost and further reduces number of Wanabe pilots each year. I get there is a surge of new pilots due to airline hiring, but few will return to fly GA after they are hired. GA needs ways to substantially lower cost and emissions and it will likely be small entities that find possible solutions.

What you are doing is the equivalent of building your own plane from a kit. Few people have that kind of dedication. I hope you are successful in the end.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The Austro (converted from a Mercedes Benz) seems to be doing OK.

I especially love the "hot start" procedure

 

[MBDiagMan]

You weren’t paying attention…

Oh! A MARINE engine, not an automotive engine! Oh, well then, that’s very different?

 

[Bell206]

Can you also please briefly state your aerospace engineering and/or certification regulatory experience

The same question for you since you havent answered this in your previous threads. Engineer? Pilot? A&P? Investor? PR guy?

Seeing that FAA already issued a G1 paper

This paper merely states what regulations you need to address in STC process. Where do you stand on the other issue papers? Speaking of the process, what "weasel" tactics are you implying the ACO is using with your project? Feel free to be as technical as you want in your explanation as I've been through this process a few times. Never had that problem with either an ACO or MIDO. Now if your relying on the ACO engineers to review your data it does take 2 years. Been that way for as long as I remember. And the only reason other companies get it faster is they hire their own DER/DARs to crunch the data. No mystery or conspiracy against your 172.

As far as EXP EXHIBITION operating limits, or any category for that matter, these are national policy and found in Faa order 8130.2j.

Please. We know what ops limits are. Since each aircraft is issued limitations as part of the AWC the question is to see the specific limitations for your 172.

FWIW: You seem to have a good product, however, you continuely shoot yourself in the foot with some of your comments...especially to those who do know how the system works. And given you state on your website you are not pursuing the certified domestic market for this venture your ongoing presentation comes across as a "false flag" effort to merely sell your idea and possibly interest more investors. Same path as the e-aircraft side....

 

[jrcox19]

I have to agree with some of the above posters. OP is rarely active here other than to talk about the next "big accomplishment" of this V8 Cessna 172. While it's a noble endeavor, it feels like it's all just an advertisement to me.

 

[steingar]

There have always been naysayers, always will be. I hope the OP gets his certification and gets rich selling engine kits. Another engine solution would be a very good thing for GA, where you have to pay the equivalent of a high-end luxury car to re-engine your aircraft.

 

[Justin Brady]

What's wrong with trying to gather interest in their project? Seems cool to me.

And auto engines are many decades ahead of ga engines. Most ga engines haven't changed since the 50s. I don't see what all the fuss is about or why anyone has a problem with people trying to bring some innovation to a stagnant industry.

Don't like his posts don't read them. Personally I think it's a cool project and appreciate any updates.

 

[martym]

Huh. I never would have thought "crew training" meant "get your PPL" .

It doesn’t. You won’t see an FBO or flight school with an experimental anything for rent on the flight line with the intent of training students.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I have to agree with some of the above posters. OP is rarely active here other than to talk about the next "big accomplishment" of this V8 Cessna 172. While it's a noble endeavor, it feels like it's all just an advertisement to me.

If @AlphaPilotFlyer doesn't have other reason/desire to post here other than periodic updates on a project? He didn't ask for donations/investments into his/her company. I wouldn't think a marketing effort would have a bit more "panache" if that's what it was. I mean, it's not as if it's complete vaporware.

 

[Dana]

It doesn’t. You won’t see an FBO or flight school with an experimental anything for rent on the flight line with the intent of training students.

If the operating limitations don't explicitly prohibit it you can do primary flight instruction in an experimental (with the appropriate LODA). You just can't charge for the use of the aircraft. But if he obtains a STC, it'd be no different from the J-3 with a STC'd O-200 my local FBO uses for Sport Pilot instruction.

Now obtaining a STC without the engine production documentation a certificated aircraft engine has, that's another story.

 

[FancyG]

Thanks for the update.

Nothing would be cooler than accomplishing what you're trying to do for our community. And think of the reduced neighbor complaints with a rugged V8 cruising overhead.

Don't let the fast and spurious mod responses speak for the rest of us. Yeah guys, six of the first ten comments were big-brained mods hating on innovation. FAA is always hiring, achieve your dreams: https://www.faa.gov/jobs/career_fields/aviation_careers/asi

 

[schmookeeg]

If the operating limitations don't explicitly prohibit it you can do primary flight instruction in an experimental (with the appropriate LODA). You just can't charge for the use of the aircraft. But if he obtains a STC, it'd be no different from the J-3 with a STC'd O-200 my local FBO uses for Sport Pilot instruction.

Now obtaining a STC without the engine production documentation a certificated aircraft engine has, that's another story.

Yeah, feels like a "letter of the thing, not spirit of the thing" situation. I'd probably have kept it on the DL Had there been a mishap, that would have been one spicy NTSB report I think. Luckily there wasn't one.

 

[RyanB]

I hope the OP gets his certification and gets rich selling engine kits.

It’s fun to live in a fantasy world, isn’t it? It would be very cost prohibitive to try and certify such a thing, as the ROI wouldn’t measure up. A certified aircraft specific engine would cost less in the end, believe me, and the performance will be better. This stuff has been done time and time again over the years and none of them have ever taken any share of the market. Even if you did get certification, you’d never, ever make any money on it. I’m not intending to be a naysayer, I'm just speaking on the reality of it.

 

[SoonerAviator]

It’s fun to live in a fantasy world, isn’t it? It would be very cost prohibitive to try and certify such a thing, as the ROI wouldn’t measure up. A certified aircraft specific engine would cost less in the end, believe me, and the performance will be better. This stuff has been done time and time again over the years and none of them have ever taken any share of the market. Even if you did get certification, you’d never, ever make any money on it. I’m not intending to be a naysayer, I'm just speaking on the reality of it.

Unless the FAA fumbles on the unleaded AvGas issue and then everyone goes scrambling for an unleaded mogas solution . . .

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Again, I really only posted here for an update of the project based on request for updates. I don't want to get into technical debate or for different EXP categories and prefer to simply post the FAA reference for anyone to look at for themselves..... I learned it only turns into a distracting blog of some members posting pontifications of why we can't do something and that we are breaking the regs or that our design is flawed because of something they read in a forum or on the web somewhere.... of which I then feel compelled to answer which often leads to the same pontificator(s) following-up/countering with more accusations, and so on, and so on. Again, really just wanted to update on the project here as I think many feel its as interesting as we do. I hope many find that reducing cost by more than half on the SAME aircraft, all while and eliminating lead and significantly reducing other emissions, illustrates that such things really are not as complicated as we are lead to believe. There's many small companies doing neat stuff that could start to bring GA from 1950's, but most won't be able to,,,, not because the tech doesn't work, but the archaic FAA cert cost and liability risk.

In college, we did a study of how to solve problem of pilots losing their spatial orientation in IMC, as many other researchers and groups tackled, and which remains a significant problem even today. Through simulator events with low to mid time pilots, we presented same IMC and maneuvers using different size attitude indicators/artificial horizons; amazingly enough (sarcasm), the larger the size of the artificial horizon, the less likely pilots got disorientated. So, I expect if one was to now look at numbers of accidents for disorientation with the normal vac artificial vs those with large flap panels, there would be a significant delta. So, obvious fix would be for FAA to fast track digital panels or bigger gyros that show a horizon 2-3x the size of a typical 3" vac gyro. But this was a problem for many commercial reasons as making such a display would be a lot of $ to certify even though such tech and components had became cheap such as that on your smart phone (when did your smart phone ever fail? Now think if the phone was only programed to do that one job/app and void of any other programming. Now install 2 Ipads, what are the odds of both failing?). I would argue Iphones are way more reliable than original certified GA equipment or even new. But, FAA does not see it that way, and will require such a manufacturer to spend way more money than most companies or individuals have or reasonable considering the shrinking GA market size and aging fleet vintage to recover expense.... REGARDLESS of how many pilots and passengers may have been saved over the decades.... they don't care. I can give other examples of a simple low fuel float switch warning system that would have cost less than $50 to make that simply flashed a light and beep when a tank reached 4 gal level....it was used in millions are cars since the 1970's and simply modified to fit a specific tank size. But again, the cost to certify this thing was way more than made any sense. Running tanks dry is still a significant cause of crashes decades later; and although this would not eliminate it entirely, man it would sure of helped. Again, FAA did not care of the benefits or that the components were well proven or the statistics the device showed would likely prevent many such accidents, and project was dropped like so may others. How many crashes could have been prevented since 1980's if this was available for about $200?

As far as commercial viability for our engine kit, it has potential as we think we can sell the entire kit for about same cost of factory overhaul of original engine after selling original engine to established overhaul shop that wants them. Actually, we think we can get cost to less than factory overhaul cost. One of or main motivations is finally eliminating lead gas and significantly reduce emissions with a economically viable solution for legacy aircraft. If we can't make it a viable product, we tried, and most often enjoyed the endeavor and concurring the challenges. All of us have real jobs and don't need it to make a fortune or even market it, so we'll only push it so far. With the FAA being far less than helpful or just doing their job, we would need a significant investment for even a production of non-cert/exp engine version. Considering working with foreign partner to certify CAA elsewhere if practicable.

I would like, however, to directly respond to earlier critical post about not posting G1 issue paper online and alluding that we may be hiding something (G1 is essentially a detailed document outlining what FAA and applicant finally agree how and to demonstrate that something meets the certification basis, such as demonstrating an engine component meets 14 CFR part 33....... sorry for boring most, but I want to be clear). Attached is also a thing called a compliance checklist that details exactly what regulations will be shown to be compliant with. These docs are ALWAYS considered proprietary by even FAA as they are expensive documents to produce (often by multiple & expensive DERs) and normally only issued after negotiations with FAA ACO, MIDO and or relative directorates. When a DER, I always had NDA even though I was the guy writing the thing. For anyone self-proclaimed familiar with the process to assert or allude that we should openly post such docs on the internet is questionable. I doubt that few if any such docs can be found online regardless of its vintage. To allude we may be less than upfront otherwise, is the very reason we stopped posting details when asked online. To be clear, we never marketed or solicited any money from anyone anytime (we are self-funded and this started as a cool project). If our posting seems as marketing rather than just information about our progress for nothing more than it may be of interest to pilots, it was not intent and we will curtail posting outside our website. Such insinuations often take on a life of their own online and very reason we shy from such online topics now.

We were considering reaching out to popular pilot youtubers to fly our plane for a unbias review. If anyone here can recommend a tuber, please drop us a line on website. Sorry for long post. Once again, thanks for the interest and the many inquires about the project.

 

[steingar]

It’s fun to live in a fantasy world, isn’t it? It would be very cost prohibitive to try and certify such a thing, as the ROI wouldn’t measure up. A certified aircraft specific engine would cost less in the end, believe me, and the performance will be better. This stuff has been done time and time again over the years and none of them have ever taken any share of the market. Even if you did get certification, you’d never, ever make any money on it. I’m not intending to be a naysayer, I'm just speaking on the reality of it.

Paul Bertorelli's take. There are a whole bunch of conditions that need to be met for a new engine to really make market penetration, but it can happen and can make gobs of money, just ask the guys at Rotax. Can one set of underfunded folks do it at a country airport? Probably not, but I still applaud the effort. If no-one did the improbable we'd all be far poorer.

 

[Bell206]

to directly respond to earlier critical post about not posting G1 issue paper online

Not quite. No where was it requested to post your G1 issue paper. And you shouldn’t post it. What was requested was a copy of the OPERATING LIMITATIONS that are attached to your AWC for the 172 in reference to the questions on performing training ops in it. This has zero to do with your STC application or process. Let’s keep the facts straight.

It’s these types of misleading answers, and the lack of other answers, that reduce your credibility on a professional level. If you really think this modification is a game changer, and you are personally committed to it, you would do yourself a better service by at least answering the pertinent questions posted here and in other places instead of just the hype you currently post. All’s I see is a sales pitch to generate a widespread following for whatever reason. But what's the point of a widespread following if you do not plan to sell it in the US, i.e., PoA users and domestic others?

If money is that tight why not pursue a One Time Only STC which can reduce your costs a respective amount? Then you could get it off experimental and really expand your market. You could then offer as a modification in kit form and provide consulting services for the kit owners to obtain their own One Time STC. There are other options if your intent is to approve this.

I’ve said it’s a good idea regardless of those who think I fit into the naysayer side of things. I don’t. But when I see and hear of something aviation related that is off track and affects others in the industry I’ll call it as I see it. Prove me wrong.