What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Corsair Power engine for 172

rv8ch

Well Known Member
Patron
Anyone know these guys? They seem to have a package for the 172 based on an auto/marine V8 engine.

The engine block is a marine version of the General Motors L series engine with 2 decades of proven reliability in everything from production muscle cars, HD trucks, boats and industrial applications, modified internally & externally for its aircraft mission. A few differences include internal changes to the internal lubrication system to prevent oil pump cavitation during maneuvering and uncoordinated flight; elimination of several potential single point of failure components; alternator capable of providing power even at prop wind-milling speeds; complete redundancy of fuel and spark delivery systems, to name just a few.

https://corsairpower.com/questions-answers/

Might be an option for the RV-10.
 
One of the guys from the company has posted a lot on HBA. Looks like they've done a lot of good testing on this and are continuing on with that (good). Only time will tell how reliable it is of course.

He's unfortunately made some claims about fuel burn and operating costs which don't pass the smell test. Ditto on the "projected" TBO of 3000 hours. Folks know how I feel about that subject before at least ONE example has attained that figure with no issues.

Bit too heavy for an RV-10 as well IMO.

They have a strange plan to certify this but not offer it for sale in the US for certified aircraft due to liability reasons. That would take millions and I don't see how they could ever meet the parts traceability and process control requirements of a certified engine using automotive components. The ROI time would be very long if they do this. Current pricing wouldn't support this plan either IMO. Certification is usually the death knell for projects like these...

Still early days with lots to prove. They are around 50 hours into a planned 200-300 hour test program on the engine.
 
Last edited:
Huh?

“...alternator provides power at windmilling speeds...”

Thats gotta hurt.

Why would you want alt power with an engine out? I think I would rather have no alt energy and a little better glide ratio than a fully charged battery at the crash site
 
Still early days with lots to prove. They are around 50 hours into a planned 200-300 hour test program on the engine.

Long way to go for success. 300 hrs won't touch it.

Any idea what engine is this based on - is that a GM LS engine?

With oil changes, checks, and small issues, 125hrs/wk is about all that I found sustainable in a lab endurance test. 1000 hrs in a lab is a good start, that is only 8 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Long way to go for success. 300 hrs won't touch it.

Any idea what engine is this based on - is that a GM LS engine?

With oil changes, checks, and small issues, 125hrs/wk is about all that I found sustainable in a lab endurance test. 1000 hrs in a lab is a good start, that is only 8 weeks.

Yes, LS engine so if you don't screw with the core and run factory timing and AFR values, you are part of the way there. The PSRU adds the other main unknowns with regards to TV and I agree, 300 hours isn't enough to validate something that will be sold to the EA masses and nowhere near enough to certify it.
 
The article references using mogas to achieve lower operating costs. You can do the same with a Lycoming. Comparing apples to apples, the fuel costs will be similar, assuming you want to haul fuel or your airport has mogas on hand.
 
The article references using mogas to achieve lower operating costs. You can do the same with a Lycoming. Comparing apples to apples, the fuel costs will be similar, assuming you want to haul fuel or your airport has mogas on hand.
I'm new around here, but aren't most Lycomings 100LL-only?
 
Long way to go for success. 300 hrs won't touch it.

Any idea what engine is this based on - is that a GM LS engine?

With oil changes, checks, and small issues, 125hrs/wk is about all that I found sustainable in a lab endurance test. 1000 hrs in a lab is a good start, that is only 8 weeks.

14 CFR 33 only requires 150 hour endurance run for certification. It wouldn't surprise me if they cover all certification requirements in the first 300 hours of testing and apply for initial certification with a standard 1200-2000 TBO, or have even more restrictive inspection requirements. This will allow them to start selling and installing the engines. After that they could apply for a service interval extension via AC 120-113 and use fleet data to gather all the requirements of section 10. I don't know much about the company, but if I were them, having a product on the market while you spend 6 months to a year doing the full 3000 hour endurance test would make more financial sense.
 
Maybe legal, but not good engineering.

14 CFR 33 only requires 150 hour endurance run for certification.

I know that Continental did this when I worked there and was shocked having come from the heavy duty diesel engineering world. I went back.

I know of several serious issues that this test did not catch.

There are many hours for other testing at conditions exceeding "limits" to be completed as well, much more than just a single endurance test for certification.

I honestly hope they are successful, there is a lot of tech improvement in that engine, but it also has to meet the higher load factors of flight and excellent reliability for ongoing component production.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Bill on this one. 150 hours isn't enough to prove much if you're projecting 3000 hour TBOs. I believe the company will be doing at least 200 hours of their own testing before deciding whether to pursue certification or not. The fuel is cheap...

It would be foolish not to flog this thing on a test stand and the flying test bed (2 engines at least) for a lot longer than that. Uncovering potential problems before release to the market will pay back many times over down the road if you have failures which could have been prevented. A good rep from the start means more sales ultimately.
 
Corsair V8

We have no intention of offering it for sale after only 300 hrs testing, experimental or otherwise. Right now just racking up time flying at MGW, min oil level, rapid throttle commands, different HP tuning and lowest octane fuel with ethanol.

In fact, if we decide to start selling the engine, not sure it would be offered here in US due to liability laws for aviation products. We were hoping FAA would share some of the grant money they give for developing new technologies that can eliminate leaded fuel in GA engines..... they were interested in that we had a C172 that ran on MOGAS and could work on aircraft up to 375 HP. BUT when they learned it was an engine replacement and not a modification for existing legacy aircraft pistons, they closed the door. They only will fund a projects that will allow legacy engines to operate lead free and the 2 aircraft engine manufacturers to keep building the same engine for another 50 years.

Our mission was simply offer an option when it came to TBO for about same cost that eliminated leaded fuel need, and had same emissions as modern cars, and considerably reduce cost by repowering older airframes that may be heading to salvage yards.

We posted video on YouTube of some of the test flying which demonstrates that it’s not such a whacky idea and has many advantages. Our beat up 1969 C172 test bed flies much better and way out performs any other C172 model at a cost of about 1/3 the cost of original engine.
 
“.

Why would you want alt power with an engine out? I think I would rather have no alt energy and a little better glide ratio than a fully charged battery at the crash site

The same reason that you would want a pmag that generates it's own power. If you have to shut off the master due to a fire or your earthx decides to shut itself down as they sometimes do, you want electrons flowing to the ignition in all cases. Many engines will restart at windmilling speeds if a fuel starvation issue is resolved. granted pretty unlikely that you experience an electric failure AND fuel starvation at the same time. One flaw with the pmag is that if you drop to 700 RPM on final, the ignition stops working. You generally want ignition, even at idle speeds.
 
Last edited:
.

In fact, if we decide to start selling the engine, not sure it would be offered here in US due to liability laws for aviation products. We were hoping FAA would share some of the grant money they give for developing new technologies that can eliminate leaded fuel in GA engines.....

Why would the FAA grant you US taxpayer dollars for a product that isn't going to benefit US customers?
 
Why would the FAA grant you US taxpayer dollars for a product that isn't going to benefit US customers?

1. Because FAA has been giving millions of tax payers money to hundreds of entities to eliminate leaded gas for over 4 decades with absolutely no progress. Yet the funding continues.

2. There are plenty of benefits to US- reference the volumes of data indicating the health effects of leaded emissions, especially children. All other industries eliminated led decades ago for good reason.

3. Reference that there is only 1 source of a TEL (led) gas’s additive that is constantly under pressure to stop making it, which would shut off all supply with few, if any, replacement. Should the supply stop, GA could take years to recover.

4. States, such as California, have stated they will make AVGAS illegal as soon as there is any replacement, regardless of cost or availability. We enjoy cheap AVGAS in US, alternatives won’t likely be so cheap.

So, there are many benefits in developing alternative solutions, weather it’s an automotive conversion or not..... I only asked for funding after we proved that there is another alternative that met their grant criteria (eliminate led emissions, made it cheap to deploy and an economical option come TBO and considerably improve emissions similar to modern cars... not to mentioned we already had a flying prototype with indisputable proof we had already exceeded the requirements).

So, we felt some funding should be directed in projects that don’t just fund unproven, non existent or theoretical fuels so we have the same engines for yet another 50 years. But maybe you are right, maybe the tax payers are better served by continuing to fund the same alt fuel programs for another couple of decades, regardless if all other engine industries have evolved from current aircraft piston designs 4 decades ago.
 
There are at least 6 manufacturers of TEL worldwide.

On the spark ignition aero engine front, outside of Continental and Lycoming, we have Rotax, AC-Aero, UL Power, Adept. All clean sheet aero engine designs which can burn Mogas or UL Avgas, as can Lyconentals for that matter.

Swift Fuels is increasing their distributor network on their 94UL avgas. This fuel has been on sale for around 5 years.

From Swift's website recently: "Swift 100R is a 100-Motor-Octane aviation gasoline designed to fully replace 100LL Leaded Avgas across the entire global piston fleet"

FAA Certification testing and ASTM fuel specifications are currently in-progress.
 
Last edited:
1. Because FAA has been giving millions of tax payers money to hundreds of entities to eliminate leaded gas for over 4 decades with absolutely no progress. Yet the funding continues.

2. There are plenty of benefits to US- reference the volumes of data indicating the health effects of leaded emissions, especially children. All other industries eliminated led decades ago for good reason.

3. Reference that there is only 1 source of a TEL (led) gas’s additive that is constantly under pressure to stop making it, which would shut off all supply with few, if any, replacement. Should the supply stop, GA could take years to recover.

4. States, such as California, have stated they will make AVGAS illegal as soon as there is any replacement, regardless of cost or availability. We enjoy cheap AVGAS in US, alternatives won’t likely be so cheap.

ago.

I guess I wasn't clear. You flat out state you aren't going to sell your engine in the US. So none of the points you listed will benefit US citizens. So why should the US government fund it? Not trying to get political here. I actually agree with everything you wrote and would love to see new blood in the engine world. I'm just trying to generate a different line of thought.

It's impossibly hard to bring new aviation products to market. Actively deciding to not to sell to the majority of that market ( which the US is) is like cutting off your arms so you can make weigh in for a boxing match.
 
Actually, was intending to sell the FWF kit for the C182 & 172 as an STC when starting out, and received a lot of interest even though were were trying to stay under the radar. After FAA refused our grant request because it didn't allow legacy engines to eliminate led, we contacted a couple of investment firms which ultimately had different visions. Along the way, we reached out to manufacturers product liability insurance carriers, of which most had no interest in the risk associated unless manufacturing was on a big scale, which still attached an impossible bill. Most did show interest in an experimental version as the risk are far lower. So, a certified version wont likely be plausible in US but experimental is do'able. At this point will likely explore interest in owners converting to experimental exhibition. It works for most personal owners that use their aircraft for proficiency and personal; current EE ops limits are about same as AB.

This experience has made us realize why GA aircraft are stuck in the 1950's. Between an apathetic FAA and archaic cert rules & associated cost, amplified by absurd liability risk and associated cost to insure manufacturer, to get a meaningful product to market takes a lot of money. But the rub is, the market is so small its near impossible to rationalize start up expense, so few try. In the engine sector, 2 manufacturers enjoy a monopoly and have for 50 years little incentive to evolve.
 
This experience has made us realize why GA aircraft are stuck in the 1950's. Between an apathetic FAA and archaic cert rules & associated cost, amplified by absurd liability risk and associated cost to insure manufacturer, to get a meaningful product to market takes a lot of money. But the rub is, the market is so small its near impossible to rationalize start up expense, so few try. In the engine sector, 2 manufacturers enjoy a monopoly and have for 50 years little incentive to evolve.

GA aircraft aren't stuck in the '50s. Diamond, Cirrus, Columbia have all introduced new certified airframes. In EA we have things like Lancair IV-Ps, Evolutions, Legends etc. capable of around 400ish mph.

With certified piston engines, Continental has certified several new Jet A burning designs in the last few years, Diamond has the 2 Austro diesels.

We may see AC-Aero and Adept eventually certify their offerings once they establish a track record in EA.

It takes huge money to certify aircraft and engines. There exists a large market in EA for light, inexpensive and reliable engines. Rotax and UL are busy filling that.

The LS weight works against it here, being effectively limited to replace big sixes but it's really a bit too heavy here as well. A couple RV-10s have been flown with LS engines and those needed some tail ballast to my knowledge.

Ideal market would seem to be an STC for 206s and 210s. There are enough of those flying to make it worthwhile perhaps but then the liability comes back in play. EA reduces that exposure but there just isn't a big demand for 500lb. engine packages here.
 
GA aircraft aren't stuck in the '50s. Diamond, Cirrus, Columbia have all introduced new certified airframes. In EA we have things like Lancair IV-Ps, Evolutions, Legends etc. capable of around 400ish mph.

With certified piston engines, Continental has certified several new Jet A burning designs in the last few years, Diamond has the 2 Austro diesels.

We may see AC-Aero and Adept eventually certify their offerings once they establish a track record in EA.

It takes huge money to certify aircraft and engines. There exists a large market in EA for light, inexpensive and reliable engines. Rotax and UL are busy filling that.

The LS weight works against it here, being effectively limited to replace big sixes but it's really a bit too heavy here as well. A couple RV-10s have been flown with LS engines and those needed some tail ballast to my knowledge.

Ideal market would seem to be an STC for 206s and 210s. There are enough of those flying to make it worthwhile perhaps but then the liability comes back in play. EA reduces that exposure but there just isn't a big demand for 500lb. engine packages here.
The LS is an incredibly popular crate engine, but I agree that it's not well-matched to typical experimental aircraft, which are usually 1-4 seats and under 2,000 lbs.

And there are a lot of 80-150HP 4-cylinder options for the lighter and/or slower segment of the market.

So it seems like there's a gap in the auto conversion for a 250-300HP V6, for planes that currently use IO-540-ish sized engines, like the RV-10, Velocity XL, and the like.
 
This experience has made us realize why GA aircraft are stuck in the 1950's. Between an apathetic FAA and archaic cert rules & associated cost, amplified by absurd liability risk and associated cost to insure manufacturer, to get a meaningful product to market takes a lot of money. But the rub is, the market is so small its near impossible to rationalize start up expense, so few try. In the engine sector, 2 manufacturers enjoy a monopoly and have for 50 years little incentive to evolve.

I didn't believe this until I went to work for a small GA OEM. And boy, did you just hit it on the head.

I can't help you with the cert costs (they are simply astonishing), however the liability isn't as bad as you may think. We all hear stories of crazy lawsuits and egregious payouts, but those are really the exception. In reality a lot of cases get settled for a reasonable amount, or successfully defended. I realize this likely won't calm most investors, but there are people out there who understand it.
 
Back
Top