After many request for updates to our C172 V8 project I wrote an update article for Air Facts Journal to explain some of the challenges of working through the FAA certification process as a small, self funded, business. As mentioned in prior post here on HBA, Our experiment was to prove GA could benefit from something as simple as installing a modern car engine on old certified airframes, making them both cheap and environmentally friendly to fly. The engine design, building and testing was to FAA CAR 3 and part 33 certification standards and was a challenging experiment…. But was fun and worth it once the aircraft took its first flight burning only lead-free cleaner cheaper ethanol car gas and realizing a climb rate 2x that of even a new C172. Our group of engineers was overly giddy when realizing dozens of flight testing data points were almost exactly as predicted.
We got request from all over the globe to sell a bolt-on engine kit, so we decided to develop an automotive engine bolt-on kit for old certified legacy airframes that were not economically viable to overhaul engines. many of these old planes were being parted out as they were worth more as scrap and parts even though they were still in flying condition. This kit would require owners swap their standard airworthiness certificate for experimental exhibition which has about same operating limits as amateur built category. This is where the project ceased to be fun.
As many of you know here, the FAA is less than helpful when it comes to GA policy or help. The article was intended to answer why we have had little progress in bringing an experimental engine conversion to market, as well as answer many fellow HBA members questions regarding the process. I think many will relate to our challenges as well as be a learning experience for others when working through FAA issues of their own.
The article link is
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/
and on our website
WWW.CORSAIRV8.COM
I hope some here will find it interesting if not perhaps helpful. It’s not intended to be discouraging, but more remind us of the benefits of experimental. I also recommend reader some of the article’s comments from readers.
We got request from all over the globe to sell a bolt-on engine kit, so we decided to develop an automotive engine bolt-on kit for old certified legacy airframes that were not economically viable to overhaul engines. many of these old planes were being parted out as they were worth more as scrap and parts even though they were still in flying condition. This kit would require owners swap their standard airworthiness certificate for experimental exhibition which has about same operating limits as amateur built category. This is where the project ceased to be fun.
As many of you know here, the FAA is less than helpful when it comes to GA policy or help. The article was intended to answer why we have had little progress in bringing an experimental engine conversion to market, as well as answer many fellow HBA members questions regarding the process. I think many will relate to our challenges as well as be a learning experience for others when working through FAA issues of their own.
The article link is
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/
and on our website
WWW.CORSAIRV8.COM
I hope some here will find it interesting if not perhaps helpful. It’s not intended to be discouraging, but more remind us of the benefits of experimental. I also recommend reader some of the article’s comments from readers.
