V8 engine Cessna 172

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

robertl

Well-Known Member
I'm not a mechanic, or an engineer but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before so I feel that I'm qualified to make this statement. How about you take the auto engine that you are working with, make whatever changes you want to make and just manufacture your own, under whatever criteria is standard for the aviation industry and call it an aircraft engine and not an auto engine. I know it would still have to be proven and all the FAA BS and this and that and bla, bla, bla stuff would still have to be done. But, that way, you're not trying to use something that was meant for one thing, an automobile, and using it for something else, an airplane. Do Lycoming and Continental manufacture their own engines and sub assemblies, "In House", or, are the engine blocks, cases, etc. manufactured by 3rd parties? If you're using a Chevy 350 ci engine for example, whoever is making if for Chevy could be your 3rd party supplier, if they were willing to do whatever extra testing is required, but it seems you are doing that extra testing already.
Bob

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The problem is, as soon as you certify the engine, you add liability concerns and nobody in the manufacturing chain wants any part of that exposure. Look at how lawyers sometimes use the "shotgun approach" after an accident- they name the airframer, prop, engine, avionics, fuel pump manufacturer etc. Any component maker who had parts on that plane can be named in a lawsuit. It simply isn't worth the trouble for many companies to provide parts for certified aircraft.

Also doesn't matter what you call something to the FAA. You'll have to vett and satisfy the process control and batching of each manufactured part going into an engine which is a huge task and greatly increases the costs of the finished product.

Is it really any wonder why almost no small company produces new certified engines today? Most people asking how a Lyconental or new certified diesel can cost $40-$100,000 dollars don't have a clue of what is involved to get there and make money at it. Look at all the failed attempts- Orenda, Mistral, EPS, Honda, Toyota just to name a few.

The reality is there are way easier ways to make a living in this world than producing certified aircraft engines.

Last edited:

slociviccoupe

Well-Known Member
Ls7 comes with a factory dry sump pan and tank. Only rewuires changing the oio pump for the dual inline pump pressure and scavenge pump, the oil pan, the tank and hoses. How much better can you get than oem gm parts for a factory dry sump.

dwalker

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Ls7 comes with a factory dry sump pan and tank. Only rewuires changing the oio pump for the dual inline pump pressure and scavenge pump, the oil pan, the tank and hoses. How much better can you get than oem gm parts for a factory dry sump.
The Dailey Engineering dry sump is better than OEM.

wrmiles

Member
Many years ago when I was at Cessna, there was a preliminary approach to GM to supply aircraft engines. I don't know many details except it didn't go anywhere. I imagine product liability, configuration control/QC requirements, and small volume were the cause of it not going anywhere.

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
When I was a lot younger and dumber, and Toyota went public with their aviation related development work on their V8, I brought it up with my stockbroker friend, wanting to buy some Toyota stock. He basically laughed at me, pointing out that the engine project was basically coffee break conversation for a company the size of Toyota. Of course, he was right. They could handle the liability issues (far more exposure in autos than any general aviation aircraft), but there was no real money to be made for them in aviation, compared to their revenue in more ground-bound endeavors.

speedracer

Well-Known Member
When I was a lot younger and dumber, and Toyota went public with their aviation related development work on their V8, I brought it up with my stockbroker friend, wanting to buy some Toyota stock. He basically laughed at me, pointing out that the engine project was basically coffee break conversation for a company the size of Toyota. Of course, he was right. They could handle the liability issues (far more exposure in autos than any general aviation aircraft), but there was no real money to be made for them in aviation, compared to their revenue in more ground-bound endeavors.
Many years ago Toyota contracted Shirl Dickey to install a Toyota engine in his Eracer (a side by side LongEZ spin off which he designed and marketed plans for). He did one runway flight for the camera and got paid.

PMD

Well-Known Member
Thielert and then Austro managed reasonably well by sourcing automotive engines and components to make aviation engines. You might, of course, notice that those did NOT come from the USA. The problem is how the US deals with the LLL - making people and companies completely unprotected from ridiculous lawsuits and settlements. Until the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) gets the legal and insurance runaway problem under control, we can simply watch the Genav and many, many other businesses simply move production to safe places outside of the USA. Do you think it is an co-incidence that the largest volume aviation engine manufacturer started, grew and is sustained by Canadian companies with European production?

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Do you think it is an co-incidence that the largest volume aviation engine manufacturer started, grew and is sustained by Canadian companies with European production?
The Special Light Sport rule and strict standards have prevented any new small USA engine manufacture. And the previous industry has disappeared.

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
Any component maker who had parts on that plane can be named in a lawsuit.

TarDevil

Come on; do you really believe that Slick (almost certainly have a lawyer on retainer) would write a $300k check to avoid a 10 minute session in front of a judge to show that they weren't involved with the plane? You can take the up with the Slick guys. I personally enjoyed working with that guy and can't imagine him lying to me. He was a no-nonsense type. For what it's worth, I asked the same question. I don't remember his exact reply - it was 38 years ago. thjakits Well-Known Member Come on; do you really believe that Slick (almost certainly have a lawyer on retainer) would write a$300k check to avoid a 10 minute session in front of a judge to show that they weren't involved with the plane?
.....especially if they could just sue that lawyer in return for accusing them of the impossible...

slociviccoupe

Well-Known Member
The Dailey Engineering dry sump is better than OEM.
You are correct. They make really nice dry sumps. My only concern is the aluminum rotors and longetivity. And worst case scenario the belt comes off. The oem ls7 pumps are mounted on nose of the crank.

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Until the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) gets the legal and insurance runaway problem under control,
Even though I agree with you, I don’t expect to see it happen.
A rep from Slick was traveling with me and said they were sued in a crash and the airplane had Bendix equipment. When they informed the plaintiff's lawyers, they were just told, "Come to court and prove it."
It is common practice to make settlements based on minimizing costs rather that resolving right from wrong. BTDT with corporate money rather than mine. At times, I wonder if things would be different if defendants asserted innocence and spent the money to prove it, even if it cost more.

BJC

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
At times, I wonder if things would be different if defendants asserted innocence and spent the money to prove it, even if it cost more.
Oh, just once!

HBA Supporter

PMD

Well-Known Member
Even though I agree with you, I don’t expect to see it happen.
My concern is that this and several other factors (mostly the switch from Capitalism to Casino Capitalism) plus mindless drift into globalism that will take the US economy down. It is already well on its way. Sadly, genav is a lot more fragile and less resilient than other business sectors and happens to be the one we are caught up in.

On the US lawsuit and settlement issue: I have unfortunately been there, done that and lost the T shirt. I have seen first hand the strategy where litigants literally calculate what they think you can spend and make darn sure to defend oneself/company against their malfiesence they clearly demonstrate that it will cost more than you can afford. That strategy (a common one) means you just bend over and stroke the settlement cheque. A legal system that not only allows, but encourages and rewards such things is iindeed broken.

Last edited:

tspear

Well-Known Member
Come on; do you really believe that Slick (almost certainly have a lawyer on retainer) would write a $300k check to avoid a 10 minute session in front of a judge to show that they weren't involved with the plane? I was a subject matter expert on an IT related suite about three years ago. The individual being sued was accused of stealing a program written in Java; because the new application he developed with no functional overlap or data model overlap and developed in JavaScript. Total bill$450K spent before the ten minute hearing where the judge threw out the case. That was money spent just on all the motions, and preliminary hearings.

Tim

lelievre12

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I was a subject matter expert on an IT related suite about three years ago. The individual being sued was accused of stealing a program written in Java; because the new application he developed with no functional overlap or data model overlap and developed in JavaScript.
Total bill $450K spent before the ten minute hearing where the judge threw out the case. That was money spent just on all the motions, and preliminary hearings. Tim Not just motions and hearings but the costs for each party to prepare the cases. Any reasonably complex affidavit is going to be >$50K and usually more than one is needed for both defendant and the plaintiff. In my own business I was around \$50K down this road when I realized that all this money on both sides could be used to settle instead of fight.

I instead called the plaintiffs, (two ex employees) arranged for a nice lunch and then settled out of court directly over a nice steak and glass of wine. My lawyers of course were furious that I had settled 'without them' but they knew that I knew that had it been left up to them, we never would have settled and would have fought until the very expensive 'end'. Lawyers billing by the hour have zero interest to settle. My advice always is to swallow your pride, and mediate directly with the plaintiff no matter how 'right' you are.