Kitplanes auto engine roundup...sad!

pfarber

pfarber

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jun 20, 2021
Messages
1,653
Display Name
pfarber
So out of extreme boredom I looked at the 2026 Kitplanes engine buyers guide.... such that it is.

I go to the auto engine section and see that you have two options: 400+hp LS3's or mostly sub 150hp import engines.

Hey, car motor companies: make an IO-360 killer. We need a 180-200hp car motor to replace the '360'. High revving 4 cylinders are not the solution nor are significantly derated V8's.
 
pfarber said:
Hey, car motor companies: make an IO-360 killer. We need a 180-200hp car motor to replace the '360'. High revving 4 cylinders are not the solution nor are significantly derated V8's.
Click to expand...

Aaaaand, you just shot down any auto based replacement with your stated requirements.
 
Everything about Kitplanes is sad now that it's owned by Firecrown (along with Flying and Plane & Pilot).

But regarding engines, it won't happen. High rpm is what an auto needs to meet fuel efficiency and emissions requirements. And derating is necessary because auto engines aren't designed to run at 100% power continuously, like an aircraft engine is.

Or maybe nobody paid the editors enough...
 
Chevrolet Duramax 4-Cyl Diesel: 181hp @ 3,400 RPM. (520# weight might be an issue)
 
Doesn't Viking fit the bill for what you are asking for?
 
I just responded to you in the other thread about why car engines have not and are not viable replacements in light aircraft.

midwestpa24

Post in thread 'Pending cost of FAA mandates for legacy aircraft'

pfarber said:
I mean why hasn't someone cloned a 172 with a car motor yet? The patents for the 172 are all long gone. Just don't call it a 172, call it a 271 Anssec
Click to expand...

Over my many years, I have seen many experimental builders and others try to adapt an automotive engine to aviation use. I have yet to see one that was able to spend more time flying it than fixing it, and most either suffered catastrophic failures and were replaced with an aircraft engine, were destroyed, or have become abandoned hangar queens.

The problem is the engines are engineered for the mission they were designed for...
  • Like
 
pfarber said:
Hey, car motor companies: make an IO-360 killer. We need a 180-200hp car motor to replace the '360'. High revving 4 cylinders are not the solution nor are significantly derated V8's
Click to expand...
Yeah. Those money-making car companies need some way to lose money, and spending a couple billion dollars to develop an engine that might sell a couple thousand units per year is the way to go. A nice side-market for their millions of cars per year.

A few years ago, there were 97 million cars and light trucks built and delivered, worldwide, in one year. That same year, about 1100 light airplanes were built and sold, worldwide. Do the math: That's over 88,000 vehicles for every light airplane. The economies of scale are really serious here. Add the liability aspect, the numerous engine models required, and the history of failed attempts, and a carmaker would have to have insane board members to even consider fooling with it.
 
The Mercedes OM640 has left the room in 2012.

Part of the problem: if the automotive supplier stops the mass production of the base engine, the theoretical cost advantages are gone. We see currently rarely a production run exceeding a decade. So when you are done with whatever FAA/EASA certification and ready for business - the foundation of your business has collapsed
 
How about boat engines?
Yamaha or Mercury might have something suitable.
 
aggiepack said:
Part of the problem: if the automotive supplier stops the mass production of the base engine, the theoretical cost advantages are gone
Click to expand...
Austro ran into this with their Mercedes cores, which required additional certification tasks at each design cycle change. I believe their solution was to produce a specific engine core in house under license from Mercedes. But another item some forget is the number of engine variants that are supported by legacy OEMS. For example on the TC side the IO-360 mentioned above has 80+ variants, each for a specific aircraft application. So, to believe one can develop a single drop in replacement engine that will apply to the entire fleet are a bit unrealistic.
 
Im still waiting to see if Kawasaki is able to bring anything to the table.
 
pfarber said:
So out of extreme boredom I looked at the 2026 Kitplanes engine buyers guide.... such that it is.

I go to the auto engine section and see that you have two options: 400+hp LS3's or mostly sub 150hp import engines.

Hey, car motor companies: make an IO-360 killer. We need a 180-200hp car motor to replace the '360'. High revving 4 cylinders are not the solution nor are significantly derated V8's.
Click to expand...

Car companies, with a very few exception, sell in volume. According to GAMA's General Aviation Shipments report, there were 1,585 piston singles, 197 piston twins, and 206 piston helicopters shipped last year. That's a total of 2185 new engines required for 2025's GA production. To put this in perspective, the Honda engine plant in Anna, Ohio, can produce 1,180,000 engines in a year. If that plant produced all the new engines for GA, it would consume 0.2% of this one plant's production. None of the mass market carmakers would have any interest in that. There are some small boutique auto manufacturers such as Koenigsegg who deal with small numbers, but their engines would be priced in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There have been instances where the carmakers sell engines to other carmakers, and some have sold engines that were used as a core for marine use, but I don't see much of any more.
 
Bell206 said:
Why not buy a long block engine of your choice, modifiy as you see fit, and sell it? You obviously know what needs to happen given this and your other comments.... Why wait on the car companies or any other OEM to save recreational aviation?
Click to expand...
I don't expect Ford et al to make an airplane motor, but a company to use a Ford core as one. IIRC Toyota or Porsche have certified a car motor for airplanes... but it was so long ago I don't remember exactly.

Why don't I do it? The same reason as you won't, I guess.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yeah. Those money-making car companies need some way to lose money, and spending a couple billion dollars to develop an engine that might sell a couple thousand units per year is the way to go. A nice side-market for their millions of cars per year.

A few years ago, there were 97 million cars and light trucks built and delivered, worldwide, in one year. That same year, about 1100 light airplanes were built and sold, worldwide. Do the math: That's over 88,000 vehicles for every light airplane. The economies of scale are really serious here. Add the liability aspect, the numerous engine models required, and the history of failed attempts, and a carmaker would have to have insane board members to even consider fooling with it.
Click to expand...
You made the mistake of assuming 'car motor company' meant Ford/Chevy et al, not the topic of the post referring to existing car motor companies (Jibaru, Corvair etc).

I guess that's to be expected as the standard knee jerk reaction to any talk of car motors. Its not about volume or scale, there simply is nothing in the 200hp range available in car motors in E/AB land. 4 cylinders are not the answer as the bearing speeds are way to fast at 7000+ RPM. Turbos can lower the RPM range but now you have turbos to worry about.
 
Bell206 said:
Austro ran into this with their Mercedes cores, which required additional certification tasks at each design cycle change. I believe their solution was to produce a specific engine core in house under license from Mercedes. But another item some forget is the number of engine variants that are supported by legacy OEMS. For example on the TC side the IO-360 mentioned above has 80+ variants, each for a specific aircraft application. So, to believe one can develop a single drop in replacement engine that will apply to the entire fleet are a bit unrealistic.
Click to expand...
No, its not unrealistic for the E/AB world. Think long block/short block. You have a 200hp 'frame' that you can then customize.

Certified is hopeless. The FAA is the problem 100%. There should be an STC for an LS engine 172/182 by now. There are a few flying as exhibition and one rumored STC... but its hard to get anything from the company with the STC.
 
The FAA won't certify an engine, TC or STC, without complete traceability of all components... and despite having vastly better QA and PLM systems than anything in the aviation world, no automaker producing the core engine will share that data with an aftermarket engine converter. Too much liability for too little gain.
 
:yeahthat:

https://corsairpower.com/c172-experimental-update/

Such Gordian knots can only be cut by those who can afford to
* engage in regulatory capture, and/or
* have a legal team that can navigate breaking any laws that need breaking along the way

Out-of-court settlements with victims' families aren't cheap, you know.

GeorgeC,
pimpin' ain't easy
 
pfarber said:
Hey, car motor companies: make an IO-360 killer. We need a 180-200hp car motor to replace the '360'. High revving 4 cylinders are not the solution nor are significantly derated V8's.
Click to expand...

Right, I'd hate to see a 300+ cubic inch engine turn low RPMs and produce a measly 150 continuous horsepower. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Dana said:
The FAA won't certify an engine, TC or STC, without complete traceability of all components... and despite having vastly better QA and PLM systems than anything in the aviation world, no automaker producing the core engine will share that data with an aftermarket engine converter. Too much liability for too little gain.
Click to expand...

Do our little engines have to meet AS 9100 certification standards? If so, oy vey.
 
pfarber said:
You made the mistake of assuming 'car motor company' meant Ford/Chevy et al, not the topic of the post referring to existing car motor companies (Jibaru, Corvair etc).
Click to expand...
The Corvair was a Chevy (General Motors) car designed to compete with the VW Beetle way back in the early '60s. It gained a bad rep for LOC accidents. Its air-cooled six-cylinder opposed engines are sometimes used in homebuilts.

But what is a Jibaru? Maybe you mean Jabiru, the aircraft and engine manufacturer? No cars there.

So who is mistaken?
 
pfarber said:
No, its not unrealistic for the E/AB world. Think long block/short block. You have a 200hp 'frame' that you can then customize.
Click to expand...
pfarber said:
Why don't I do it? The same reason as you won't, I guess.
Click to expand...
Not me. I never inspired to build a car engine for any aircraft, E/AB or TC’d. But since you state it is realistic for the E/AB world, back to the post #4 question: why not buy a long block engine of your choice, modify as you see fit, and sell it?

Dana said:
The FAA won't certify an engine, TC or STC, without complete traceability of all components... and despite having vastly better QA and PLM systems than anything in the aviation world,
Click to expand...
True, but there are several key differences between aviation and auto QC systems regardless how good the auto side is. One example, when auto parts or other non-approved parts are installed or used on aircraft, someone within the OEM/vendor/install system must take responsibility those parts conform to the appropriate type design. And if that someone errs in this job, or misrepresents those parts within the aviation system, it’s one of the few violations that can have a permanent effect on your aviation career.
 
Bell206 said:
True, but there are several key differences between aviation and auto QC systems regardless how good the auto side is. One example, when auto parts or other non-approved parts are installed or used on aircraft, someone within the OEM/vendor/install system must take responsibility those parts conform to the appropriate type design. And if that someone errs in this job, or misrepresents those parts within the aviation system, it’s one of the few violations that can have a permanent effect on your aviation career.
Click to expand...
Right, and without access to the automaker's records, how can the installer verify that every internal part complies?
 
Dana said:
Right, and without access to the automaker's records, how can the installer verify that every internal part complies?
Click to expand...
I believe Austro bought bare blocks and separate parts from Mercedes, then assembled everything once each item was conformed as one option. However, even though one could follow the same route for a gas engine conformity, the main issue which has been widely discussed is the difficulty in passing the fire tests for Part 33. As I mentioned earlier, when you get up to the sanctioned racing levels where engines are required to meet certain safety standards, you would definitely have a better chance to pass those Part 33 tests vs a crate marine engine... but at a much higher acquisition cost. IMO and experience, if there really was a workable car motor option that met the necessary requirements for TC'd aircraft, it would have happened many years ago.
 
Bell206 said:
if there really was a workable car motor option that met the necessary requirements for TC'd aircraft, it would have happened many years ago.
Click to expand...
It did... Limbach built (maybe still does build?) certified engines based on VW engines.

Of course VW engines have a long and successful history in experimental aircraft, though they're not in the HP range the OP is interested in.
 
Dana said:
It did... Limbach built (maybe still does build?) certified engines based on VW engines.
Click to expand...
There were also others like the Porshe and Toyota Part 33 engines mentioned earlier, however, they were more a niche market and were never mainstream, which is what I meant. Toyota had even built a 4-place aircraft for their engine with Burt Rutan, but both projects were cancelled due to lack of market interest. The fact those OEMs didn't have a large enough market to support those engines, with their resources, brings to question how an STC'd marine V8 crate engine would have such a significantly larger market?
 
Bell206 said:
The fact those OEMs didn't have a large enough market to support those engines, with their resources, brings to question how an STC'd marine V8 crate engine would have such a significantly larger market?
Click to expand...
With big companies and resources comes big overhead.
A small DAS in the late-2000s could get you an STC package for a mid-complexity avi/interior install for 50k. The OEM was asking 4x that price, if not more.
 
August will mark 20 years since I started my first job in the aviation industry, from some company in Pennsylvania that makes engines that probably everyone on this board has flown behind at some point in time. In that time, basically nothing has changed in the aviation engine world, just that the components on most of these engines have gotten older and been rebuilt more times. The program(s) I worked on at that company have mostly not been adopted in the field, which is sad and due to multiple reasons.

The challenges haven't changed at all in those 20 years. Certification barriers are immense, the legacy fleet will always make up most of the piston GA fleet (see certification barriers, plus cost of any STC to make things viable), liability makes sourcing of existing engines difficult, Jet-A is not a direct replacement for diesel, people will ultimately have to pay for all of these changes (which cost money)...

Are there options for improving things? Yes, and I worked on some of those that really would get us most of what we want and need with existing piston aircraft engines just fine. There are others that were worked on that never got fielded that would help things further. I'd love to see it all, or even any of it, happen. But really, there are a lot of things that could be done with existing engines that would make them better.
 
AV8R_87 said:
With big companies and resources comes big overhead. A small DAS in the late-2000s could get you an STC package for a mid-complexity avi/interior install for 50k. The OEM was asking 4x that price, if not more.
Click to expand...
True. But, unfortunately with engine/powerplant certification projects the number of resources tends to be larger on several levels. Even compared to complex EMS interior STC work, the engine STC work requires a larger and more diverse support structure, which in my experience is why there are so few STC'd engine options at 4-cyl SEL class.
 
viking 175 is based on the Honda K series. I recognize the V8 is heavy on the smaller EABs, perhaps a derated 6?

Seems the Viking folks have made most of their installations on STOL airplanes and the like, I would like to hear of some RV completions instead, before I'd be willing to go that route. The economics of lycosaurus are so terrible that treating up these PRSUs as consumables to be replaced preemtively comes out cheaper than legacy overhauls. And yes, I already live on my own recognizance M thru F, spare me the safety canard.
 
hindsight2020 said:
viking 175 is based on the Honda K series. I recognize the V8 is heavy on the smaller EABs, perhaps a derated 6?

Seems the Viking folks have made most of their installations on STOL airplanes and the like, I would like to hear of some RV completions instead, before I'd be willing to go that route. The economics of lycosaurus are so terrible that treating up these PRSUs as consumables to be replaced preemtively comes out cheaper than legacy overhauls. And yes, I already live on my own recognizance M thru F, spare me the safety canard.
Click to expand...
There is an inconvenience canard too. Breaking down away from home can get real expensive.
 
kyleb said:
There is an inconvenience canard too. Breaking down away from home can get real expensive.
Click to expand...
You're correct, that is a canard too. To wit, BTDT, got the T-shirt, and yup...had Lyco written on it.
 
Dan Thomas said:
But what is a Jibaru? Maybe you mean Jabiru, the aircraft and engine manufacturer? No cars ther
Click to expand...
THere is a company using Sabaru engines.. may or may nor have been Jibaru... I'm going from memory.

Maybe Viking?

Rotax is/was a snowmobile engine at the start, and got pulled kicking and screaming into aviation. Toyota certified an airplane motor.

FV2400-2TC was FAA certified​


As for 300+cu/in displacement de-rated etc that's solely a limitation of prop speed, not performance. All the monster V12's/Radials and 10ft+ diameter props needed PSRUs otherwise they are merely noise makers, not 400mph fighters.

The main critical factor for longevity is bearing speed. Over 4000rpm (ish) you lose a lot of safety margin for reliability. You could play with journal size by then you run into oil bearing issues.

The LS is an easy (although less than perfect choice) for a 200hp engine. A 60deg all aluminum V6 is a much lighter and better fit, but would not be direct drive. I would hope that owners would see the monetary advantage of say a $20k new engine with $5k overhaul costs that didn't need $50 spark plugs (8 of them?) and $200 oil changed every 20-50 hours. Also unleaded gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top