Is this plane airworthy in this condition? Did you get an STC for it? It obviously doesn't meet the TC with this engine installed. Either way, that is pretty sweet.
I will keep the IO-360 in my 172. Automobile engines, even a Corvette, are simply not designed for the continuous high power operation of aircraft engines. Can you even get an insurance company to cover the aircraft (now relicensed in the Experimental category) when you install that engine?
@lshobie LoL so when its time to land and you try to reduce airspeed by reducing throttle on that toyota engine and stays full bore, wtf you gonna do.
@GodAmerica I said left rudder because the engine isn't turning in the "normal" direction it is turning the opposite way, therefore you would need opposite rudder then what one would be use to ;-)
That's OK...I'll stick with the tried, true and purpose-built dependability of Conti's and Lyc's. You couldn't give me an aircraft with automotive anything! 400HP huh? Is that to make up for the poor P/W ratio and the immensely diminished useful load? I will definitely give an A for effort but I don't believe auto engines translate well in real-world aviation use.
@cardinaldriver I'm not going to get into the debate about auto vs. certified. i fly certified planes so i dont care. but what I will say that the weight of a aluminum small block from a vette is roughly the same as o-470, the small block runs between 409 lbs to 440. the 0-470 continental is roughly the same so is the IO-520 and 550, and actually can get close to 500 lbs. this guy just has it in the wrong airplane, he should have put it in a 180, 182 or 185 home built
@aircraftwiz Way to name yourself aircraftwiz and know nothing about aircraft. At the very least don't be lazy and look up what P-factor is since you clearly don't know, then reread my comment and come up with an educated response.
so you put a motor in that was NOT made for sustained high rpm for long periods of time, and that has at least twice the amount of cylinders that can potentionally fail.... lose-lose situation to me.
What is the point of putting a V8 in a 172 air frame? Sure, it has the potential to go faster, but the you still can't make it go faster than the Vne speed without risking damage to the wings.
No thanks. I'm guessing that a gearbox is being used since this engine will need to turn at 5K RPM to make 400HP. How many of these gearboxes have been to 3000 hours? Also there's no redundancy in the ignition or computer systems. Bottom line: Too many things to break. That's why traditional AC engines are simple.
What I don`t understand is, all engine manufacturers have access to the same technologies and engineers and if there would be any advantage in using car engines in planes or even single beneficial features, why don`t they just do it?
I´m not a pilot but I wouldn`t fly in a single engine plane with a car motor in it.
If you get this modification, you may begin to hear people accuse you of having a midlife crisis. The interior of your aircraft will begin to smell like cheap plastic, and the seats will become loose and flimsy. Then you will feel a sudden urge to get a tattoo, eat more hamburgers, and drag race other aircraft on the taxiways. Finally, the whole thing will fall apart at about the same time as they foreclose on your house. It will be fun though.
OK, seems like you would need some kind of gear reduction, automotive engines typically make "peak power" at approximately 6,000 rpm, if you have a goal prop RPM of approximately 2,500 you would want a reduction of approximately 2.5:1, right?
lol Uuuum Ya PDQLM go back to school boy! Aircraft engines do not run at 95% throttle the intire duration of a flight ONLY Purhaps during take off But sustained flight only requires for most aircraft 35-65% throttle depending on the speed you want to travel. 95% throttle is dangerous as well, and runs the risk of Over speed damaging and stressing the Airframe. A Catastrophic failure can accure going to fast and will result in a Fatality. Dumass =P !!!
the future of all flying is jets i persoanlly beleive. piston engines will be obsolete one day even for small aircraft. consider that a jet engine uses less materials and is smaller depending on the technology used. in the future all families will be flying themselves on holiday and airlines will be used much less. just imagine being able to fly around the world with the same freedom as a car gives you. refueling stations will be installed across the north atlantic for small planes
Knowing where the crank centerline is on a V8 and where the prop is on that plane, I would BET there is a gearbox on that too! pdqlm don't know diddly!
@N8149X Completely agree. Went to A&P school with a guy who owned a 172 and wanted more horses for takeoff. Didn't replace the engine, just had his engine altered to increase cubic inches.
what about the redundant systems common to aircraft engines but not usually found on car engines except my new dodge which has 16 plugs . ie duel spark plugs ect. how did you overcome those issues. sounds smooth. what is your top speed now or can you still not exceed the vne for that Cessna
@tpaladino why? Cessnas 172 are made to withstand max speeds of around 160kts. A jet engine could make it faster (asuming you can fit it somewhere), but what would be the point if u cant go faster than the Vne speed without redesigning the whole plane.
@DreamVikings I don't mean a jet, I mean a gas turbine prop engine. It's not about speed, its about efficiency and maintenance. Gas turbines are very efficient, have fewer moving parts (less upkeep) and run on cheaper gas (Jet A) than piston engines. They also vibrate much less, which puts less total wear on the airframe.
There have been a bunch of gas turbine conversions in Cessnas and other single engine light aircraft.
@tpaladino Oh sorry i misunderstood your comment. I was like "wtf". Yeah some turbine sets are sold for customizing engines, and as u said there can be some light planes with them. But the issue of this video is noise reduction, not power. I assume supercharged engines are noisier. Dunno.
Actually most aircraft engines unless using a special gearbox run max of about 4200rpm to avoid throwing off props due to centrifugal force. Thats why many Lycoming and Continental engines make best power at full throttle by about 2700rpm.
The Lycoming and Contintal engines are air cooled thus louder since no water jacket to absorb noise. LS motor weighs about 390lbs, Lycoming flat six weighs about 350lbs. IIRC flat four weighs about 285lbs.
@Streamliner009 Cooled by airflow. Thats why some planes are oriented against the wind for engine tests on ground. Its meant to be cooled by the air. Too long functioning on the ground and the heat rises too much. Also plugs get carbon polluted if plane kept at low rpm for too long.
@Streamliner009 yes youre right. Besides its a V8 i doubt the last cylinders could get proper refrigeration by airflow. Hmm maybe u should ask the video author.
This has no proven reliability yet. If you look at their website you'll see the engine is not approved for overhauls only a replacement. So when it's time for a new engine. You just have to get a replacement engine... I'd much rather have my IO-360 with the simplicity of all the mechanical moving parts. A lot less to break and a lot more to overhaul/repair. For example you can clean.replace intake and exhaust valves, cylinders etc. etc.
Have you priced the operating costs of an LS based motors vs a Lycoming or Continental? There's no comparison. Since aviation fuel is leaded, in theory, the LS heads (with their chromoly valves and already hardened valve seats) should last twice as long as they do now. Also since aviation fuel has no ethanol, you don't have to worry about cylinder wall wash, along with a more complete, fast burn vs "pump gas". With the EFI tuning available for LS engines, you can achieve close to 10gph or less
And the FAA passed this? I would think if this is so common everyone is doing it. What did the insurance company think of this? Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's safe.
@viper8red The FAA doesn't have to "pass" it. If you look at the FAA's records for this aircraft (based on tail number) you'll see that it has an experimental airworthiness certificate. You can do almost anything you want to an experimental as you no longer have to conform to type certificates, STCs, etc.
With 400hp available, he can climb quickly to cruise altitude and throttle WAAAAAY back to keep it under VNE. Fuel burns would be about the same or less. At high altitude, that 400hp is more like 300hp, making this still an excellent performer. Can he call it a Cessna 472?
@N8149X You're right. You aren't an A&P. You also don't sound like you have any experience at all with LSX series motors. Your 1-4 are based on uneducated guesses.
@JCeeZ93 lol Uuuum Ya PDQLM go back to school boy! Aircraft engines do not run at 95% throttle the intire duration of a flight ONLY Purhaps during take off But sustained flight only requires for most aircraft 35-65% throttle depending on the speed you want to travel. 95% throttle is dangerous as well, and runs the risk of Over speed damaging and stressing the Airframe. A Catastrophic failure can accure going to fast and will result in a Fatality. Dumass =P !!!
Does it makes sense to put a car engine onto an airplane? Does It effectively reduce costs without compromising security? I think engineers have designed the aircraft engines with the idea to make them as lightweight as possible, as safe as possible and as economically as possible.
The only advantage that I see would be to use a car engine that we already have.
Look, the dude obviously solved all the problems associated with putting a car's engine in a plane. Quit complaining. However, I do not see an Experimental on this Cessna therefore it is ILLEGAL to fly it.
@TecnamTwin Check the aircraft's registration on the FAA's website. It has an experimental airworthiness certificate. An no one says the "Experimental" placard must be on the outside...only visible from the entry point into the aircraft. It could very well be placarded somewhere on the inside. I know, because that's where my experimental placard is.
It would be a bitch to have an PCM Car Engine on an Airplane,imagine while flying the PCM put the Engine on Low Power Safe Mode and throw down the RPM cause of the improper Atmospheric Pressure.
In a car it will gear up/down and continue going,on an Airplane you're screwed.
But in case those guys think about Gearing and solve all the PCM and Electronic Throttle related concerns,Cessna will be faster than ever,and it already goes to 230km Cruising with the 150hp Flat 6Banger.
I am very newb to this, but can planes use some kind of clutch or gearing to keep RPM's up at lower without taxing the engine? Wouldnt that also increase range?
The Chevy 350 has been pushing my wood prop air boat since 1980 with near no maintenance and fires up every time. Higher workload too than if it was on a small plane.
When are they going to show one of these things taking off??? and to all you anti auto guys, ya obviously an auto engine could use some redundancy built in to make them safer for aviation but really come on, they are technologically advanced, very reliable, light weight. half the parts on aircraft's are re labeled car parts anyways, just 6-10 times the regular price.
There's a huge difference between car engines and aircraft engines. Car engines connect to a transmission that uses a series of gear reductions to keep the RPMs within a certain range. Aircraft engines connect directly to a propellor, and therefore spend 95% of their time running at almost max RPM. There's your reliability problem.
@pdqlm Airplanes generally have fixed gear reductions. This engine is 2.5 times more powerful than the standard engine in this aircraft, so its actually less stress on the engine.
@spencercjohnson How about instead of making another worthless comment you correct me with your infinite knowledge of such things? So far you have contributed nothing. Nice marching band you have there.
@pdqlm But max RPM is between 2500-3000 RPM for most piston engines, not very high for a car engine. The problem I'm imagining here is the weight and balance.
@pdqlm Nah, some planes have a fixed pitch prop, others (like possibly this one) have some sort of "gearbox" between engine and prop. Also planes dont spend most time at max rpm. Thats only for takeoff in small planes. On cruise you usually can choose 65% power for best economy, 75% for mixed economy and range, and 85% for max speed and high consumption.
@pdqlm This is a geared engine and operates at about 4500 rpm max and can operate more efficient than "typical" straight off crank shaft aircraft engine and geared engines swing bigger prop for horsepower. .this geared feature also isolates the crankshaft from the shock of propellor
@pdqlm There have been reduction gears in aircrafts for over 70 years. Look up Spitfire's and Messerschmitts from WW2, hell, even the Mustangs had reduction gears. Huge huge engines with very narrow power range.
@dunderogbrak Good stuff, good to know about Spitfires.
That is a Cessna, that's the bird I'm talking about. There is no such thing as a Cessna 172 with a gear box - it wasn't designed for one and there's no room. That plane had a 4 cylinder engine before, now it has a V-8 and you're saying it has a gear box too?
Anyway, how are we so sure it has a gear box? Did he say? Even if it has a simple gear reduction - I'm still right - UNLESS he's in there shifting gears. LIike a Corvette.
@pdqlm Just to make sure you don't misunderstand...again..., I never mentioned gearboxes. I said "reduction gears". Your point is that the crank is directly connected to the propshaft, hence why it should never last, according to you and your post. Another thing about a V8 in general compared to an inline 4. It's not that much longer, a couple inches more because cylinder banks are slightly staggered, but that's it. If you need to make statements, make sure they are correct.
@dunderogbrak I think the point pdqlm is trying to make is that automobile engines are not industrial engines designed to run at at higher power ranges for sustained periods of time. Having said that I have no doubt that there are very different maintenance and inspection parameters for purpose built aircraft engines vs modified auto engines. The website supports that assumption. I agree that pdqlm hasn't done his homework, lots of aircraft engines have geared reduction.
@kaysandesses Safety. Aircafts have shorter and more detailed service intervals because it's kinda hard to just pull over to the side if you have a problem. Aircraft engines does not run full bore at longer periods either, you have take-off and fast climb where you use much more than 75% throttle, and nowadays where it's more normal to have pitch control, that's where you control rpms. In general. If you want to talk engines running with high loads 24/7 you have to look at marine engines.
@kaysandesses Safety. Aircafts have shorter and more detailed service intervals because it's kinda hard to just pull over to the side if you have a problem. Aircraft engines does not run full bore at longer periods either, you have take-off and fast climb where you use much more than 75% throttle, and nowadays where it's more normal to have pitch control, that's where you control rpms. In general. If you want to talk engines running with high loads 24/7 you have to look at marine engines.
@dunderogbrak Safety, of course! I used to mechanic on diesel industrial engines that were literally in 24/7 operation. It was typical to get 50,000 to 70,000 hours on the bottom end. We were able to get that kind of run out of them because they were substantially de-rated for the application.
I looked at the website in more depth and see where they're rating the 'vette engine at 3000 TBO, which seems pretty impressive for a recip. aircraft engine.
cont'd: Even though the 'vette engine is a "throw-away" at 3000 hrs, the cost of a replacement engine is dramatically less than the overhaul of a Continental or Lycoming engine. It will be interesting to see the life they get from these engines in actual use.
@kaysandesses The lifespan of a LS1 in an aircraft is not much different from any other piston engine when proper aeronautical routine maintenance is followed. I'm so sure about that that I'm looking forward to any counter argument on that statement. I hope they expand and apply forced induction on them aswell, then it would be 1935 all over again. :)
@dunderogbrak The theoretical lifespan of the engine is 3000 TBO. Considering they haven't even approached 3000 hrs in actual aircraft use the TBO figure has apparently been obtained via review of the design parameters and "lab" engine testing. That is why I said it will be interesting to see if it holds up in ACTUAL use. The unknown variable is how well an engine designed for auto use will actually last in an aircraft application even taking application specific maintenance into account.
@dunderogbrak@dunderogbrak I think the point pdqlm is trying to make is that automobile engines are not industrial engines designed to run at at higher power ranges for sustained periods of time. Having said that I have no doubt that there are very different maintenance and inspection parameters for purpose built aircraft engines vs modified auto engines. The website supports that assumption. I agree that pdqlm hasn't done his homework, the graphic on the website shows a reduction unit.
@pdqlm Wow, is this ever ignorant! Planes don't spend 95% of their time running at "almost max RPM" any more than a car does. The engines run at the speeds they were designed for, just like a car's engine.
The biggest problem with car engines, is that they are, AFAIK, not designed with aeronautical reliability in mind. How about making up for that with some kind of backup emergency, say rocket propulsion system? Or some kind of system that would drive the propeller just enough time to make a survivable emergency landing? The full airframe parachute also helps making the whole thing safe.
@Insanity714 Look up the Soloy conversions they do for 206s, that's basically the same airframe but stretched. They put some serious power on those airplanes.
@Insanity714 You fit right in with the "can't do it" crowd. You will be happier with them. You know, sitting around at Starbucks sucking on a latte with your a**hole buddies.
Since it's a vette based motor, even though it's probably the older LS1, might should say Bowling Green instead of carrying the stigma of Detroit.. As noted by the anti-US comment a few below this one..
@cessna150captain You're not wrong with the P Factor comment!! However, I think you'd need a whole load of left rudder, as the prop spins opposite to Lycoming.
this is the best way to prety much tell the FAA to shove it. slightly alter airframe roots and slap a new name on it call it home built/experimental and there ya goo
This is fantastic. As a student pilot and car enthusiast, I constantly ponder why cheap, well understood automotive powerplants aren't used. I begrudge to cost to fly and maintain entry level planes... I understand the needs of supply and demand, but with all the planes and parts in the nation, you have to wonder why the prices are so inflated.
this is great better and cheaper than the continental and lycoming examples flying there is kit spitfires in oz with some of these options nice to see a 172 with better than the 150hp some of them were shipped with tho there is alot of conversions to 180 and 200hp for the hot weather and desert operations good stuff all that are toey they still have to pass a 100 hourly id be keen to fly one of these
OK, here's my 2 cents! Don't like auto engines in airplanes; aircraft engines are engineered to work at around 70% of their rated power for a long period of time. Auto engines use their power to get the car "rollin", then the power is reduced (i.e. my wife's Buick turns 2200 or 2400 rpm at 70 mph). Those engine installations never work over time. Oh, did you notice that the prop is turning "backwards"? Hummmmm lots of "left" rudder for that dude on takeoff.
@mmichaeldonavon I do agree, automobile engines are not designed for max load and this can be detrimental for the engine as it drives along at 3,000 RPM for long hours. Its a neat concept, especially since the corvette uses a "dry sump" oil system which can help reduce the oil movement problems associated with V and Inline engines as the engine turns above 1 latteral G.
The 172 may not have flown but there are airplanes with the LS1. Check this out google LS1 geareddrives. The problem with using car engines is they produce their peak HP at higher than optimal RPM. So to use them in an ariplane you have the extra weight and possibility of failure of a speed reduction drive.
@Membrane556 As a ASE certified Master Auto tech and L1 certified in computor controls and a pilot. Seen many cars towed in for no run due to a engine control problems. They are great for cars. But on a SINGLE engine light aircraft, You can't get more reliable than a dual magneto ingnition. Yes the carburators are old school, but you can lose the aircrafts TOTAL electrical system and the engine will still run.
I wonder if it has the "Bigfoot" gas pedel in it
4NICK8TER1 1 day ago
humph.... interesting.
NIGHTEHAWK 2 days ago
Is this plane airworthy in this condition? Did you get an STC for it? It obviously doesn't meet the TC with this engine installed. Either way, that is pretty sweet.
MrIdasam 3 days ago
is this engine still air cooled? seems to me the engine may be cheaper but not cost effective
MrTotallyhooked 3 days ago
The belt squeak has me a little worried.
PirateSygnal 2 weeks ago
@PirateSygnal That's prop noise you hear, lmao
edgeflyer69 6 days ago
@edgeflyer69 Huh, in flying since 1984, I've never heard a prop sound like a sqealing belt.
PirateSygnal 6 days ago
So when you do something like this, Does it change it to experamential? What are the major tests the FCC needs to see for you to be able to fly it?
OceanStateTuning 2 weeks ago
the chev 350cid engine is bullet proof...will outlast a toyota eng any day....
Snickersbite 3 weeks ago
@Snickersbite But does it beat a Lycoming?
edgeflyer69 6 days ago
I will keep the IO-360 in my 172. Automobile engines, even a Corvette, are simply not designed for the continuous high power operation of aircraft engines. Can you even get an insurance company to cover the aircraft (now relicensed in the Experimental category) when you install that engine?
niceflyer80 3 weeks ago
AWESOME!!! Can it drift?
Dongskie2 1 month ago
I like the idea of auto engines, but give me a toyota engine over a north american engine any day, a little more reliable in the air.
lshobie 1 month ago
@lshobie LoL so when its time to land and you try to reduce airspeed by reducing throttle on that toyota engine and stays full bore, wtf you gonna do.
apage251 1 month ago
@apage251 LOL< awesome come back!
lshobie 1 month ago
@lshobie Actually you could just turn the ignition off. But still......
apage251 3 weeks ago
@apage251 ya i got it:)
lshobie 3 weeks ago
How fast will this 172 go? I imagine at full throttle, there is considerable climb and urge for the plane to climb!
theMuffinMan9999 1 month ago
@theMuffinMan9999 Guess 400HP can easily go over Vne at level flight....
Blazingspitfire 1 month ago
why dont use the corvette engine in a corvette car:p
streetfiter1 1 month ago
Imagine the left turning tendency on that airplane....
Blazingspitfire 1 month ago
@Blazingspitfire RIGHT RUDDER!
GodAmerica 1 month ago
@GodAmerica NO, LEFT RUDDER!!!!!!
craigwright1000 1 month ago
@craigwright1000 with that much left turning tendency? why did you say left? should be right
GodAmerica 1 month ago
@GodAmerica I said left rudder because the engine isn't turning in the "normal" direction it is turning the opposite way, therefore you would need opposite rudder then what one would be use to ;-)
craigwright1000 1 month ago
@craigwright1000 good observation ... didnt see that :) either way his legs are sore
GodAmerica 1 month ago
@GodAmerica Agreed!!!
craigwright1000 1 month ago
Is there and STC for this???
wes4569 1 month ago
Feel sorry for the guy who tested a car engine into a plane and the plane exploded from the front end D:
xweert711 2 months ago
not a quiet aviation anymore :/
GtaCd321 2 months ago
That's OK...I'll stick with the tried, true and purpose-built dependability of Conti's and Lyc's. You couldn't give me an aircraft with automotive anything! 400HP huh? Is that to make up for the poor P/W ratio and the immensely diminished useful load? I will definitely give an A for effort but I don't believe auto engines translate well in real-world aviation use.
cardinaldriver 2 months ago
@cardinaldriver I'm not going to get into the debate about auto vs. certified. i fly certified planes so i dont care. but what I will say that the weight of a aluminum small block from a vette is roughly the same as o-470, the small block runs between 409 lbs to 440. the 0-470 continental is roughly the same so is the IO-520 and 550, and actually can get close to 500 lbs. this guy just has it in the wrong airplane, he should have put it in a 180, 182 or 185 home built
HARRYFRIGGINPOTTER1 1 month ago
Your right foot must be dieing just cause of P-factor alone...
bretahtah1 2 months ago
Comment removed
aircraftwiz 2 months ago
@aircraftwiz Way to name yourself aircraftwiz and know nothing about aircraft. At the very least don't be lazy and look up what P-factor is since you clearly don't know, then reread my comment and come up with an educated response.
bretahtah1 2 months ago
Comment removed
aircraftwiz 2 months ago
Comment removed
aircraftwiz 2 months ago
so you put a motor in that was NOT made for sustained high rpm for long periods of time, and that has at least twice the amount of cylinders that can potentionally fail.... lose-lose situation to me.
ilovegoatsecks 2 months ago 2
WTFF!! niceee
mrdanieldao 2 months ago
So how did you manage to get an experimental airworthiness cert in a Cessna 172?
Weefles 2 months ago
@Weefles Theres no such thing as an experimental airworthiness certificate.
anguissette 2 months ago
@anguissette I didn't mean to say that. I meant, you don't go to Cessna. You just have to show to the FAA that your STC is safe.
anguissette 2 months ago
What is the point of putting a V8 in a 172 air frame? Sure, it has the potential to go faster, but the you still can't make it go faster than the Vne speed without risking damage to the wings.
mxhonda2 2 months ago
I wouldn't buy one unless it had a bug catcher sticking out over the top of the engine cowling.
rustyATV 3 months ago
pdqlm. An airplane of this types rpm's rarely, if ever exceed 3,000 rpm. So that should'nt be an issue.
ridedirtba1 3 months ago
does it fly?
njshrivnauth 3 months ago
quietaviation... heh... ironic.
komrad36 3 months ago
Ever look at aircraft light bulbs. Auto bulb=$1. Same bulb with AERO stamped on it= $20. Aircraft parts industry= Jews R Us INC.
madisonelectronic 3 months ago
@madisonelectronic The high price due to the potential liabilities that the products carry along with them.
akkalakakalakka 3 months ago
No thanks. I'm guessing that a gearbox is being used since this engine will need to turn at 5K RPM to make 400HP. How many of these gearboxes have been to 3000 hours? Also there's no redundancy in the ignition or computer systems. Bottom line: Too many things to break. That's why traditional AC engines are simple.
denhou1974 3 months ago
What I don`t understand is, all engine manufacturers have access to the same technologies and engineers and if there would be any advantage in using car engines in planes or even single beneficial features, why don`t they just do it?
I´m not a pilot but I wouldn`t fly in a single engine plane with a car motor in it.
It somehow goes against my survival instinct.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
If you get this modification, you may begin to hear people accuse you of having a midlife crisis. The interior of your aircraft will begin to smell like cheap plastic, and the seats will become loose and flimsy. Then you will feel a sudden urge to get a tattoo, eat more hamburgers, and drag race other aircraft on the taxiways. Finally, the whole thing will fall apart at about the same time as they foreclose on your house. It will be fun though.
888888username 3 months ago 2
OK, seems like you would need some kind of gear reduction, automotive engines typically make "peak power" at approximately 6,000 rpm, if you have a goal prop RPM of approximately 2,500 you would want a reduction of approximately 2.5:1, right?
pattyaaron 4 months ago
just wondering, but this is the Aluminum Block and heads right? Whats the total weight for that mod?
Bravo21 4 months ago
no thanks, I'll stick with lycoming.
Car engines belong in cars for a reason.....
tradernorton05 4 months ago
no thanks, I'll stick with lycoming.
Car engines belong in cars for a reason.....
tradernorton05 4 months ago
lol Uuuum Ya PDQLM go back to school boy! Aircraft engines do not run at 95% throttle the intire duration of a flight ONLY Purhaps during take off But sustained flight only requires for most aircraft 35-65% throttle depending on the speed you want to travel. 95% throttle is dangerous as well, and runs the risk of Over speed damaging and stressing the Airframe. A Catastrophic failure can accure going to fast and will result in a Fatality. Dumass =P !!!
RifullOfTheWest 4 months ago
@RifullOfTheWest Most aircraft? Cessnas with 400 hp car engines, more likely.
dullday 4 months ago
Probably a little more torque than the 4 banger
toogoodbw 4 months ago
the future of all flying is jets i persoanlly beleive. piston engines will be obsolete one day even for small aircraft. consider that a jet engine uses less materials and is smaller depending on the technology used. in the future all families will be flying themselves on holiday and airlines will be used much less. just imagine being able to fly around the world with the same freedom as a car gives you. refueling stations will be installed across the north atlantic for small planes
210482fmj 4 months ago
It looks really great but...Will it blend?
Jay18Jay 4 months ago
Knowing where the crank centerline is on a V8 and where the prop is on that plane, I would BET there is a gearbox on that too! pdqlm don't know diddly!
sapropbuster 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
sapropbuster 5 months ago
@N8149X Completely agree. Went to A&P school with a guy who owned a 172 and wanted more horses for takeoff. Didn't replace the engine, just had his engine altered to increase cubic inches.
Razor22A 5 months ago
what about the redundant systems common to aircraft engines but not usually found on car engines except my new dodge which has 16 plugs . ie duel spark plugs ect. how did you overcome those issues. sounds smooth. what is your top speed now or can you still not exceed the vne for that Cessna
captrich420 5 months ago
Proves even a turd will fly with a big enough engine in it. Buy the professionally built aircraft engine and fly safer.
lakewood85 5 months ago
sounds like a rod is loose
fuzziruggi 5 months ago
could a cessna 172 be built to handle small jet engines. some jet engines are only 24 inches in length. you could have 4 of them.
210482fmj 5 months ago
looool, it makes a better sound than the original Cessna's engine!
Boss1186 5 months ago
I still don't understand why we're messing around with piston engines here. It seems to me that small turbines are the way to go.
tpaladino 5 months ago
@tpaladino why? Cessnas 172 are made to withstand max speeds of around 160kts. A jet engine could make it faster (asuming you can fit it somewhere), but what would be the point if u cant go faster than the Vne speed without redesigning the whole plane.
DreamVikings 5 months ago
@DreamVikings I don't mean a jet, I mean a gas turbine prop engine. It's not about speed, its about efficiency and maintenance. Gas turbines are very efficient, have fewer moving parts (less upkeep) and run on cheaper gas (Jet A) than piston engines. They also vibrate much less, which puts less total wear on the airframe.
There have been a bunch of gas turbine conversions in Cessnas and other single engine light aircraft.
tpaladino 5 months ago
@tpaladino Oh sorry i misunderstood your comment. I was like "wtf". Yeah some turbine sets are sold for customizing engines, and as u said there can be some light planes with them. But the issue of this video is noise reduction, not power. I assume supercharged engines are noisier. Dunno.
DreamVikings 5 months ago
I have heard of "pilots" putting automotive parts in aircraft... i guess now you can!
gewglesux 5 months ago
@gewglesux u can do whatever the plane manufacturer allows after properly certified.
DreamVikings 5 months ago
@DreamVikings Thanks for the reply... I guess you can..
gewglesux 5 months ago
Actually most aircraft engines unless using a special gearbox run max of about 4200rpm to avoid throwing off props due to centrifugal force. Thats why many Lycoming and Continental engines make best power at full throttle by about 2700rpm.
The Lycoming and Contintal engines are air cooled thus louder since no water jacket to absorb noise. LS motor weighs about 390lbs, Lycoming flat six weighs about 350lbs. IIRC flat four weighs about 285lbs.
Probably chin rad below prop
Anlushac11 6 months ago
how is it cooled? where's the radiator?
Streamliner009 6 months ago
@Streamliner009 Cooled by airflow. Thats why some planes are oriented against the wind for engine tests on ground. Its meant to be cooled by the air. Too long functioning on the ground and the heat rises too much. Also plugs get carbon polluted if plane kept at low rpm for too long.
DreamVikings 5 months ago
@DreamVikings But the Corvette engine is water cooled, there must be a radiator somewhere I think.
Streamliner009 5 months ago
@Streamliner009 yes youre right. Besides its a V8 i doubt the last cylinders could get proper refrigeration by airflow. Hmm maybe u should ask the video author.
DreamVikings 5 months ago
Quiet Aviation???? How Ironic:)
thestig747 6 months ago
Quiet Aviation?
Not so quiet after you cram an LS2 into a 172!
motokid032 6 months ago
Whats the torque effect on that thing on the ground roll for take off and at slow air speeds? Is there enough rudder to compensate?
TaxfreeSVT 6 months ago
sweet!
Rick1885 6 months ago
How hard is it to get used to RIGHT turning tendencies after being used to other aircraft?
jollyrgr3 7 months ago
This has no proven reliability yet. If you look at their website you'll see the engine is not approved for overhauls only a replacement. So when it's time for a new engine. You just have to get a replacement engine... I'd much rather have my IO-360 with the simplicity of all the mechanical moving parts. A lot less to break and a lot more to overhaul/repair. For example you can clean.replace intake and exhaust valves, cylinders etc. etc.
AmericanAirFan 7 months ago
Have you priced the operating costs of an LS based motors vs a Lycoming or Continental? There's no comparison. Since aviation fuel is leaded, in theory, the LS heads (with their chromoly valves and already hardened valve seats) should last twice as long as they do now. Also since aviation fuel has no ethanol, you don't have to worry about cylinder wall wash, along with a more complete, fast burn vs "pump gas". With the EFI tuning available for LS engines, you can achieve close to 10gph or less
ramdaspadhye 7 months ago
And the FAA passed this? I would think if this is so common everyone is doing it. What did the insurance company think of this? Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's safe.
viper8red 7 months ago
@viper8red The FAA doesn't have to "pass" it. If you look at the FAA's records for this aircraft (based on tail number) you'll see that it has an experimental airworthiness certificate. You can do almost anything you want to an experimental as you no longer have to conform to type certificates, STCs, etc.
jdpainter 7 months ago
With 400hp available, he can climb quickly to cruise altitude and throttle WAAAAAY back to keep it under VNE. Fuel burns would be about the same or less. At high altitude, that 400hp is more like 300hp, making this still an excellent performer. Can he call it a Cessna 472?
wingspan99 7 months ago
@N8149X You're right. You aren't an A&P. You also don't sound like you have any experience at all with LSX series motors. Your 1-4 are based on uneducated guesses.
JustinStrife 7 months ago
I bet that you can CLIMB Vertically with IT
Climb Rate - 10,000 Feet Per Minute
JCeeZ93 7 months ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCeeZ93 lol Uuuum Ya PDQLM go back to school boy! Aircraft engines do not run at 95% throttle the intire duration of a flight ONLY Purhaps during take off But sustained flight only requires for most aircraft 35-65% throttle depending on the speed you want to travel. 95% throttle is dangerous as well, and runs the risk of Over speed damaging and stressing the Airframe. A Catastrophic failure can accure going to fast and will result in a Fatality. Dumass =P !!!
RifullOfTheWest 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCeeZ93 7 months ago
Does it makes sense to put a car engine onto an airplane? Does It effectively reduce costs without compromising security? I think engineers have designed the aircraft engines with the idea to make them as lightweight as possible, as safe as possible and as economically as possible.
The only advantage that I see would be to use a car engine that we already have.
sorry, I do not speak English well
adriansi1111 7 months ago
Look, the dude obviously solved all the problems associated with putting a car's engine in a plane. Quit complaining. However, I do not see an Experimental on this Cessna therefore it is ILLEGAL to fly it.
TecnamTwin 8 months ago
@TecnamTwin Check the aircraft's registration on the FAA's website. It has an experimental airworthiness certificate. An no one says the "Experimental" placard must be on the outside...only visible from the entry point into the aircraft. It could very well be placarded somewhere on the inside. I know, because that's where my experimental placard is.
jdpainter 7 months ago
Comment removed
kencerpovicz 8 months ago
Only in Detroit...
FSXman1000 8 months ago
It least it sounds good...
moreleftpedal 8 months ago
Is this the LS2?
It would be a bitch to have an PCM Car Engine on an Airplane,imagine while flying the PCM put the Engine on Low Power Safe Mode and throw down the RPM cause of the improper Atmospheric Pressure.
In a car it will gear up/down and continue going,on an Airplane you're screwed.
But in case those guys think about Gearing and solve all the PCM and Electronic Throttle related concerns,Cessna will be faster than ever,and it already goes to 230km Cruising with the 150hp Flat 6Banger.
truebassB 8 months ago
surely oxygen values at altitude are going to play havoc with this motors fueling.
leuvenlife 8 months ago
is a 400hp engine in a 172 even safe??
spiker84 8 months ago
I meant RPM's down.
noezzi 8 months ago
I am very newb to this, but can planes use some kind of clutch or gearing to keep RPM's up at lower without taxing the engine? Wouldnt that also increase range?
noezzi 8 months ago
@noezzi
Propeller RPMs are relatively low... normally peaking out around 2500 RPM...
TURBOPossum 8 months ago
The Chevy 350 has been pushing my wood prop air boat since 1980 with near no maintenance and fires up every time. Higher workload too than if it was on a small plane.
MegaErocks 9 months ago
When are they going to show one of these things taking off??? and to all you anti auto guys, ya obviously an auto engine could use some redundancy built in to make them safer for aviation but really come on, they are technologically advanced, very reliable, light weight. half the parts on aircraft's are re labeled car parts anyways, just 6-10 times the regular price.
HARRYFRIGGINPOTTER1 9 months ago
There's a huge difference between car engines and aircraft engines. Car engines connect to a transmission that uses a series of gear reductions to keep the RPMs within a certain range. Aircraft engines connect directly to a propellor, and therefore spend 95% of their time running at almost max RPM. There's your reliability problem.
pdqlm 9 months ago 14
@pdqlm Airplanes generally have fixed gear reductions. This engine is 2.5 times more powerful than the standard engine in this aircraft, so its actually less stress on the engine.
Prometheus203 9 months ago
@pdqlm ever heard of gearing down? pretty common look at even the ww2 spitfire etc
fxgtz 7 months ago
@pdqlm This plane uses a gearbox stupid
Go get an engineering degree
spencercjohnson 5 months ago
Comment removed
Jeff7477 5 months ago
@Jeff7477 Are you as dumb as you sound get off youtube and study
spencercjohnson 5 months ago
Comment removed
Jeff7477 5 months ago
@spencercjohnson How about instead of making another worthless comment you correct me with your infinite knowledge of such things? So far you have contributed nothing. Nice marching band you have there.
Jeff7477 5 months ago
@pdqlm But max RPM is between 2500-3000 RPM for most piston engines, not very high for a car engine. The problem I'm imagining here is the weight and balance.
crazyassmofoz 5 months ago
@crazyassmofoz Most piston *aircraft engines, that is.
crazyassmofoz 5 months ago
@pdqlm Nah, some planes have a fixed pitch prop, others (like possibly this one) have some sort of "gearbox" between engine and prop. Also planes dont spend most time at max rpm. Thats only for takeoff in small planes. On cruise you usually can choose 65% power for best economy, 75% for mixed economy and range, and 85% for max speed and high consumption.
DreamVikings 5 months ago
@pdqlm This is a geared engine and operates at about 4500 rpm max and can operate more efficient than "typical" straight off crank shaft aircraft engine and geared engines swing bigger prop for horsepower. .this geared feature also isolates the crankshaft from the shock of propellor
blastforyou 5 months ago
@pdqlm There have been reduction gears in aircrafts for over 70 years. Look up Spitfire's and Messerschmitts from WW2, hell, even the Mustangs had reduction gears. Huge huge engines with very narrow power range.
dunderogbrak 4 months ago
Comment removed
pdqlm 4 months ago
@dunderogbrak Good stuff, good to know about Spitfires.
That is a Cessna, that's the bird I'm talking about. There is no such thing as a Cessna 172 with a gear box - it wasn't designed for one and there's no room. That plane had a 4 cylinder engine before, now it has a V-8 and you're saying it has a gear box too?
Anyway, how are we so sure it has a gear box? Did he say? Even if it has a simple gear reduction - I'm still right - UNLESS he's in there shifting gears. LIike a Corvette.
pdqlm 4 months ago
@pdqlm If you would just google "quietaviation" , you could see for yourself but I guess you're just too boneheaded to do that.
dunderogbrak 4 months ago
@pdqlm Just to make sure you don't misunderstand...again..., I never mentioned gearboxes. I said "reduction gears". Your point is that the crank is directly connected to the propshaft, hence why it should never last, according to you and your post. Another thing about a V8 in general compared to an inline 4. It's not that much longer, a couple inches more because cylinder banks are slightly staggered, but that's it. If you need to make statements, make sure they are correct.
dunderogbrak 4 months ago
@dunderogbrak I think the point pdqlm is trying to make is that automobile engines are not industrial engines designed to run at at higher power ranges for sustained periods of time. Having said that I have no doubt that there are very different maintenance and inspection parameters for purpose built aircraft engines vs modified auto engines. The website supports that assumption. I agree that pdqlm hasn't done his homework, lots of aircraft engines have geared reduction.
kaysandesses 4 months ago
@kaysandesses Safety. Aircafts have shorter and more detailed service intervals because it's kinda hard to just pull over to the side if you have a problem. Aircraft engines does not run full bore at longer periods either, you have take-off and fast climb where you use much more than 75% throttle, and nowadays where it's more normal to have pitch control, that's where you control rpms. In general. If you want to talk engines running with high loads 24/7 you have to look at marine engines.
dunderogbrak 4 months ago
@kaysandesses Safety. Aircafts have shorter and more detailed service intervals because it's kinda hard to just pull over to the side if you have a problem. Aircraft engines does not run full bore at longer periods either, you have take-off and fast climb where you use much more than 75% throttle, and nowadays where it's more normal to have pitch control, that's where you control rpms. In general. If you want to talk engines running with high loads 24/7 you have to look at marine engines.
dunderogbrak 4 months ago
@dunderogbrak Safety, of course! I used to mechanic on diesel industrial engines that were literally in 24/7 operation. It was typical to get 50,000 to 70,000 hours on the bottom end. We were able to get that kind of run out of them because they were substantially de-rated for the application.
I looked at the website in more depth and see where they're rating the 'vette engine at 3000 TBO, which seems pretty impressive for a recip. aircraft engine.
kaysandesses 4 months ago
@dunderogbrak
cont'd: Even though the 'vette engine is a "throw-away" at 3000 hrs, the cost of a replacement engine is dramatically less than the overhaul of a Continental or Lycoming engine. It will be interesting to see the life they get from these engines in actual use.
kaysandesses 4 months ago
@kaysandesses The lifespan of a LS1 in an aircraft is not much different from any other piston engine when proper aeronautical routine maintenance is followed. I'm so sure about that that I'm looking forward to any counter argument on that statement. I hope they expand and apply forced induction on them aswell, then it would be 1935 all over again. :)
dunderogbrak 4 months ago
@dunderogbrak The theoretical lifespan of the engine is 3000 TBO. Considering they haven't even approached 3000 hrs in actual aircraft use the TBO figure has apparently been obtained via review of the design parameters and "lab" engine testing. That is why I said it will be interesting to see if it holds up in ACTUAL use. The unknown variable is how well an engine designed for auto use will actually last in an aircraft application even taking application specific maintenance into account.
kaysandesses 4 months ago
@dunderogbrak @dunderogbrak I think the point pdqlm is trying to make is that automobile engines are not industrial engines designed to run at at higher power ranges for sustained periods of time. Having said that I have no doubt that there are very different maintenance and inspection parameters for purpose built aircraft engines vs modified auto engines. The website supports that assumption. I agree that pdqlm hasn't done his homework, the graphic on the website shows a reduction unit.
kaysandesses 4 months ago
@pdqlm Wow, is this ever ignorant! Planes don't spend 95% of their time running at "almost max RPM" any more than a car does. The engines run at the speeds they were designed for, just like a car's engine.
redraevyn 4 months ago
@redraevyn I'm with you on that, I went a little overboard.
So the question is, am I wrong? Is there not a huge difference between aircraft engines and car engines?
pdqlm 4 months ago
@pdqlm What if he just took the gearbox oiff and connected the car engine right to the prop?
nik0lhc 3 months ago
@pdqlm
really? a ton of engines run a gear reduction.
and props are all engineered to have a best level of RPMs. and they are not that high 2000-3000RPMS
I dont think i would want 1 car engine in a plane though. Keep it simple keep it crude and i want everything doubled up
There has to be a market for a 150-300 class turbine and keep the costs to 20-40k that would take the private aviation industry by storm
Zeksteve 3 months ago
yooooo thats the coolest think now i got a corvette and a cessna it doesnt get better than that
MASTERMARK360 10 months ago
The biggest problem with car engines, is that they are, AFAIK, not designed with aeronautical reliability in mind. How about making up for that with some kind of backup emergency, say rocket propulsion system? Or some kind of system that would drive the propeller just enough time to make a survivable emergency landing? The full airframe parachute also helps making the whole thing safe.
rolfen 10 months ago
haha the whole airframe is rocking
rolfen 10 months ago
What does this do to CG and MPG??
Dominoes282 10 months ago
that things is soooooo badass...lol
acballerr 10 months ago
is it an electric engine???
averredude101 11 months ago
@averredude101 No, its the engine from a Corvette.
PeetPeeet 10 months ago
It looks like a 1967 or 1968 cessna 172
navajopa31 11 months ago
Sweet sounding engine but why would you waste it on a C-172?
FantasticBob7000 11 months ago
Looks like a 150 to me not a 172
flownder28 1 year ago
Nighthawk He is talking about a electronically controlled engine. if you need more clarification. NO carb, or points.
nmmark11 1 year ago
shit i dont want to be within 50 miles of that fuckin thing flying. theres a reason they dont put 400hp engines in skyhawks
Insanity714 1 year ago
@Insanity714 Look up the Soloy conversions they do for 206s, that's basically the same airframe but stretched. They put some serious power on those airplanes.
PeetPeeet 10 months ago
@Insanity714 You fit right in with the "can't do it" crowd. You will be happier with them. You know, sitting around at Starbucks sucking on a latte with your a**hole buddies.
gonetoworkbbackin5mi 4 months ago
why?
kcoikid 1 year ago
@kcoikid Why not?
PeetPeeet 10 months ago
Since it's a vette based motor, even though it's probably the older LS1, might should say Bowling Green instead of carrying the stigma of Detroit.. As noted by the anti-US comment a few below this one..
l3thDisciple 1 year ago
Imagine the P-factor on this thing on a STOL takeoff. Your right leg would get cramps. Still looks fun though...
cessna150captain 1 year ago
@cessna150captain You're not wrong with the P Factor comment!! However, I think you'd need a whole load of left rudder, as the prop spins opposite to Lycoming.
Cheers
sactu1 11 months ago
Best of detroit engineering hahah yes it´s going wery well in detroit!
Pease of us junk!
ollonsvin 1 year ago
thatd take some getting used to.... in hearing a v8 fire up, id wanna stomp on the right pedal.... hmm that wouldnt work so well in a plane haha
worldtravel101 1 year ago
this is the best way to prety much tell the FAA to shove it. slightly alter airframe roots and slap a new name on it call it home built/experimental and there ya goo
druryt 1 year ago
How is that an "electronic engine," man that old timer is losing it..
nighthawk0077 1 year ago
This is fantastic. As a student pilot and car enthusiast, I constantly ponder why cheap, well understood automotive powerplants aren't used. I begrudge to cost to fly and maintain entry level planes... I understand the needs of supply and demand, but with all the planes and parts in the nation, you have to wonder why the prices are so inflated.
rocktakesover 1 year ago
I'd like to know what RPM's you're running while at cruising speed...
zcg3 1 year ago 2
woa that sounds strange, but my god it sounds good.
jonthedoors 1 year ago
this is great better and cheaper than the continental and lycoming examples flying there is kit spitfires in oz with some of these options nice to see a 172 with better than the 150hp some of them were shipped with tho there is alot of conversions to 180 and 200hp for the hot weather and desert operations good stuff all that are toey they still have to pass a 100 hourly id be keen to fly one of these
spannaspinna 1 year ago
Not sure what happened to the aircraft. I searched for the tail-number in the FAA database and it was no longer listed. Hmmmm.
RCShadow 1 year ago
Amazing!!! So cool.
panzertank15 1 year ago
Is that a constant speed prop?
sikdogs63 1 year ago
This is stupid, car engines arent designed to fly. Ive seen alot of kitplanes crash from using car engines that fail in flight.
DAL3294 1 year ago
I'm assuming you use a different transmission
timothy51886 1 year ago
LMAO, the engine would just fly out of the cowl cover and the plane would just stay there :P
MegaPascal31 1 year ago
like the quick startup :)
Mysticlambo 1 year ago
OK, here's my 2 cents! Don't like auto engines in airplanes; aircraft engines are engineered to work at around 70% of their rated power for a long period of time. Auto engines use their power to get the car "rollin", then the power is reduced (i.e. my wife's Buick turns 2200 or 2400 rpm at 70 mph). Those engine installations never work over time. Oh, did you notice that the prop is turning "backwards"? Hummmmm lots of "left" rudder for that dude on takeoff.
mmichaeldonavon 1 year ago
@mmichaeldonavon I do agree, automobile engines are not designed for max load and this can be detrimental for the engine as it drives along at 3,000 RPM for long hours. Its a neat concept, especially since the corvette uses a "dry sump" oil system which can help reduce the oil movement problems associated with V and Inline engines as the engine turns above 1 latteral G.
the1bigace 1 year ago
The 172 may not have flown but there are airplanes with the LS1. Check this out google LS1 geareddrives. The problem with using car engines is they produce their peak HP at higher than optimal RPM. So to use them in an ariplane you have the extra weight and possibility of failure of a speed reduction drive.
Avi8tor857 1 year ago
fly?
kefster00 1 year ago
The V8 actually might be more reliable then the continental or lycoming it replaced.
More modern materials fuel injection etc.
I really don't get why most GA aircraft still have carbs they should have went the way of the dinosaur in the 80s.
Membrane556 1 year ago
@Membrane556 As a ASE certified Master Auto tech and L1 certified in computor controls and a pilot. Seen many cars towed in for no run due to a engine control problems. They are great for cars. But on a SINGLE engine light aircraft, You can't get more reliable than a dual magneto ingnition. Yes the carburators are old school, but you can lose the aircrafts TOTAL electrical system and the engine will still run.
azkiid 1 year ago