YouTuber recommendations to fly my plane

[Bell206]

I don't know what else I can tell ya outside of the novel size post I just wrote ..... I try one more time to answer

No PMs. This should be discussed here just as it has been in previous threads. So maybe a different approach. Since you will not obtain an STC for the Corsair V8 nor market it in the US due to tort issues, why do you need a Youtuber to promote this project AND continue to repeatedly hype it on PoA? Whats the endgame here?

but it was clear FAA leadership did not want anything that could keep old planes flying on a scale such a kit may do,

In my experience, I do not agree with that given all the efforts the FAA has made over the past 25-30 years to do just the opposite. Regardless, since you focused your attention on the “leadership” it appears you hoped the FAA would go against established international agreements and conventions and give your Corsair a special path to certification. And when it didn’t happen you make comments like the one above. The FAA doesn’t create markets or opportunities; they just ensure those items remain in sync with those established rules and agreements. Nothing more.

If you really want to grow this, perhaps yank the V8 off the 172 and repackage it as an un-certified engine built to Part 33 specs then get your youtuber to feature it as a viable replacement to any engine. If an E/AB’r want to buy it sell it. Or if a 172 owner wants to buy it, sell it to them. As a secondary business, given you are a designee and have experience with the engine, offer to provide consulting services on installing that engine on the airframe. And if it’s a 172 buyer offer additional services to get it on Exp/Exh. This basically leaves all the liability and approval responsibilities on the buyer/owner. Then build a 2nd engine.

 

[schmookeeg]

then you are way out of line alluding we did not disclose the "realality" and not, or avoided, answering any questions that reviewed your preceived reality. Perhaps Think before pushing enter your next opining.

He didn't say that, he said you opened with the entertaining bit (500hp skyhawk) but left out the uninteresting bit (limited to 220hp)

 

[Dana]

it was clear FAA leadership did not want anything that could keep old planes flying on a scale such a kit may do, and other kit manufacturers would later make if we were successful, and FAA had great leeway in what would be needed by each applicant converting.

I doubt that's it. To get an STC for general use, the FAA wants to see an equivalent level of safety to the original TC. Regardless of how good the core engine you're testing is, unless you have complete control over over the manufacturing process of every part of the engine, you can't guarantee that the core engine you're using won't have an invisible but unsafe design change with the next engine you receive. There's no way an auto maker will give you that level of access to their production and quality control system for such a tiny fraction of their business.

Even if you replaced the engine in every C-172 ever built, that's still less than 1% of the number of cars GM builds every year. That's not enough to amortize the potential liability and risk of exposure of sensitive production data.

 

[kyleb]

He didn't say that, he said you opened with the entertaining bit (500hp skyhawk) but left out the uninteresting bit (limited to 220hp)

This has been a frustrating project to watch over the years. Lots of "much cheaper to operate", but not much on the specifications side. I remember that initially it was like pulling teeth to get a clear understanding of how the aircraft was registered and how much weight the new FWF added. And the business model never made sense to me. I can't understand how/why you wouldn't offer the FWF in the Experimental/Amateur Built category to get some laps around the track before attempting a move into the certified world. That's been a path to success for dozens of products ranging from ignitions, to starters, engines, avionics, and nearly everything else.

 

[Albany Tom]

I’m surprised the cg is manageable in a 500hp 172.
Most 500 hp engines are going to be significantly heavier than a stock engine.

I don't think it would be a huge deal, as long as you scaled up the wing, fuse, and tail to compensate. Like the jump from a 172 to a 182 to a 206, except bigger than a 206, which I think is 300HP and seats about 6? So, with 500 and everything else being equal, I'd expect it to be about a 10 seater, guessing.

Now Piper did something sort of similar with the PA-28-150, which is really a 2-up plane, more or less, but at 180 or 200 it's fine 4, and the 235 which is really nice. I think 180 or 200 is the sweet spot for that airframe, though, just my opinion. Take it to 300 HP, it's the PA-32 and a 6 seater.

None of them are going to be fast, the HP is just about the payload, and that can of course translate to range if you add more tank capacity.

It probably sounds like I'm joking about all this stuff, and yeah, I am, but if you're tossing out the whole certification thing and just making something that flies, then why not? Put a 182 wing on the top, stretch the fuse a bit, make the tail bigger, and call it a day. With RC stuff we had folks that would do that all the time. I pulled too many G's in a pattern plane, the wing floated down gently while the rest went straight into the ground like an arrow. A friend took that wing, put it on a foamy P-51 fuse, and he had a plane that kinda looked like a Mustang, but flew like a pattern plane. A non-certified 172, or PA-28 really, is not that different from a big RC plane in the grand scheme of things.

If you're swapping parts around, have some fun with it. An ICE is pretty simple at the core, it's an air pump. The two ways to have meaningful power increases are to spin it faster, and boost it. So rather than take a high revving car engine and carry along the water system and add a gearbox, maybe take an existing airplane engine design, strengthen it up, add a supercharger, and run it on E85. Maybe an updated Continental O-190. I bet you could get close to 200HP out if it. That would be pretty cool. Probably weighs half as much as a sbc/ls. Better cowling and fins should handle the cooling, and forged parts and modern alloys could be 2x the strength. Range would probably go down 30% or so, because the fuel is less efficient, but that's going to be the case with anything running alcohol anyway, and this is all for fun, so why not?

Easy to toss this out on paper, though, no cost or investment in that.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

I don't know what else I can tell you guys. Forget I asked.....I just posted here to ask for a recommendation for youtuber to post a new video after request following Oshkosh .... never promoted sales or anything here or elsewhere, including on our own site... i just answered in detail every question that was asked of me regardless it was posted elsewhere or even on this site multiple times .... the weight specifically was even asked here and answered years ago, merely search my posts..... The AWC is not only public record but mentioned in multiple times in multiple places (originally R&D, crew training, exhibition and market survey... now just exhibition). It's impossible to continually answer same questions every time asked, and annoying being accused of not answering every question (even already covered) if not asked at the time or expecting a complete historical record each time.

Post diverted way off centerline, but thanks to those offering original post RE recommendations... got some great offers to help and hope to get a few cool flying videos made by someone that knows how to make them. Any suggestions on what to cover in video also appreciated.

Bell.... you obviously have far more aero engineering experience, auto conversion experience, jeteye-like industry wisdom, FAA certification expertise in all things & categories, not to mention an ivy league MBA enlightenment in regards to our business strategies and it's naive misguidencance. In fact, I think the only person that knows more about our project than we do, is you. One can only imagine the amazing flying machines you have built single-handedly or with limited resources... the very concept of flaps, the Millenium Falcon and the flying car seems to come to mind as one invisions such accolades; and can not but imagine the wealth, private jets and beautiful women such accomplishments bring. Your pontificating criticisms leaves us humbled and thankful as we have noted all in dire hope to learn from. Thank you. As such, Please refrain from quoting or otherwise considering our mere existence henceforth, in hopes you can concentrate on enlightening others.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

This has been a frustrating project to watch over the years. Lots of "much cheaper to operate", but not much on the specifications side. I remember that initially it was like pulling teeth to get a clear understanding of how the aircraft was registered and how much weight the new FWF added. And the business model never made sense to me. I can't understand how/why you wouldn't offer the FWF in the Experimental/Amateur Built category to get some laps around the track before attempting a move into the certified world. That's been a path to success for dozens of products ranging from ignitions, to starters, engines, avionics, and nearly everything else.

all I can say is what I outlined in prior post..... Again, the AB market for a 500HP V8 wasn't there at the time or now in our estimation using multiple sources and GAMA input, and cost to build a smaller V4 or V6 (which had lower stress limits) to meet said need to same cert basis would be financial suicide considering the competition already in that space and its size already not meeting current capacity of suppliers. The AB market, we felt, did not see the value of the preposition enough. The market strategy of targeting cert airframes was and remains sound considering initial investment, a PAM far bigger than AB, higher margins even at retail cost of complete kit same as overhauling OE engine, fleet customers that saw value of higher TBO, cheaper and cleaner car gas, lower noise and lower cost consumable parts, wide availability of local part sources . The strategy may not have made sense to you, but several factors and sources were consulted and considered by experienced folks. Also, again, we started this as a project to prove a practical GA solution existed from a small group of passionate aero geeks self funded, that had real full time jobs.... it was to offer a exp kit to lower costs, eliminate leaded gas and reduce emissions, and work on a challenging but fun project, and mission creeped into certified for good reasons. The weight and registration issues were not a secret, even included in the EAA or AOPA magazine (cant recall which or both) years ago but links on site or mayne in FAX page. We considered some info proprietary when requested, such as cert plans, software development and tech drawings, but it's out there ( the kit adds about 230 lbs with extra and larger batteries, and rear baggage mods for battery trays and electronics, all of which mitigated by existing STC addition of some tail spars and 6 ply tires and max flap 30... our C172K actually now has almost a 50 lb greater usable ). If you asked these questions to me in the past here or on HBA I am sure I or one of us here answered....please send the post if so. Our intent was to simply share a cool project with online pilots that thought it was cool and wanted updates.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

I came here to say this! If you want aviation videos, go to Erik. Good guy and does great work.

thanks, PM sent.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

I’m pretty sure FlyingDoodles is Texas based and her videos focus on exactly what you’re talking about. Most of them are flying with the owners and learning about their planes.

thanks... just heard from her.

 

[kyleb]

all I can say is what I outlined in prior post..... Again, the AB market for a 500HP V8 wasn't there at the time or now in our estimation using multiple sources and GAMA input, and cost to build a smaller V4 or V6 (which had lower stress limits) to meet said need to same cert basis would be financial suicide considering the competition already in that space and its size already not meeting current capacity of suppliers. The AB market, we felt, did not see the value of the preposition enough.

The RV-10 crowd is paying $90K for 260 HP engines that weigh about the same as your conversions. They don't need 500 HP, they need 250 or a bit more. That's an obvious market. the challenge is that they are paying $200K to build everything aft of the firewall and you'll have to convince them your engine is a viable solution, not a detour that'll cost 'em time and money before they swap it out for a Lycoming. The RV-15 crowd is coming along and that engine is expensive and heavy too. Not 200+ pounds heavier than a -320 or -360 but 50+ lbs heavier. There could be a market there.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

thanks ... we did look at this model years ago but most believed the 4 seaters would not be all that popular. I think that with MOSAIC such planes may be factory produced in LSA and with looking at again ....thanks for suggesting

 

[Bell206]

In fact, I think the only person that knows more about our project than we do, is you.

Maybe so. Several years ago I was asked to look into a project for possible investment. Revolutionary I was told. After some research, a few phone calls, and a number of clarifying questions, I found the project goals unattainable in its current form on various levels. And here we are today and you still can’t answer a direct question and some how hold the FAA culpable in your project failure. Even when offered a possible route to salvage your engine concept, you replied in a predictable manner. So yeah, maybe I do understand your project better than you do. Regardless, for your next project I hope you learned something from this one and to remember the old adage still holds true: when you point a finger at someone to assign blame, there are always three fingers pointing back at you. Best of luck.

 

[MauleSkinner]

and some how hold the FAA culpable in your project failure.

Maybe they need a different spokesperson.

 

[Albany Tom]

I just thought it was a hobby thing.

 

[Dan Thomas]

He didn't say that, he said you opened with the entertaining bit (500hp skyhawk) but left out the uninteresting bit (limited to 220hp)

Yes. A form of dishonesty. He posted:

I got a 500HP C172 experimental that gets a lot of attention as well as continual requests for more info and videos.

...which generated a lot of questions about the performance of a 500-hp 172. Then he admits:

The engine is rated for 500Hp ish in automotive applications, but it’s flat rated to max 220HP for c172 as this was max certified

He also keeps claiming:

We got the cost down 60% (about $20 ann hour currently)

...which wouldn't even cover the cost of annual airframe, engine and propeller inspections, or altimetry devices recerts, or ELT maintenance, or tires, or oil changes, or insurance, or...

It might cover the fuel.

 

[schmookeeg]

At least he takes criticism well.

 

[172andyou]

He also keeps claiming:

...which wouldn't even cover the cost of annual airframe, engine and propeller inspections, or altimetry devices recerts, or ELT maintenance, or tires, or oil changes, or insurance, or...

It might cover the fuel.

He also wrote that it's a 60% reduction. Given the GPH rates given, it's a virtual certainty he's referring to just the gas costs.

 

[planenut777]

I got a 500HP C172 experimental that gets a lot of attention as well as continual requests for more info and videos. Early on we did a few amateurish YouTube’s just using simple GoPro cameras (actually cheap knock-offs from Amazon) that we used for flight testing program. As simple as it seemed, videoing and editing a decent video was more work than we thought and never did more videos after flight test phase. After flying it to last Oshkosh and request for more videos, decided to maybe reach out to some established pilot YouTubers that actually know what they are doing.

Before I reach out to some, wondering if any PoA’ers may know any personally that may be a good fit. Basically, looking to answers most common questions and share what’s it like to fly compared to a stock C172. Plane is based in Denver area but a few friends are flying it all over building time or to check rides in it, so if they are not too local maybe could meet them somewhere. It will be in Texas for a CFI ride the first week of February.

Thanks.

Not sure they're a good a fit for you but the guy that runs the Taking Off/In the Hangar You Tube channels is based in the DFW area. I've got a lukewarm opinion of the guy myself, but he may fit your needs since he's a news/interview style channel.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

thanks....ill look him ip