I know that this idea is not a new one, and that there are people that have done their own conversions (Stol's Zenith 801) but this company claims to have the STC's for this and that they will perform the upgrade (for ~$45K) plus install a STOL WING KIT of some sort on YOUR 172. (I'm thinkin good deal on a bird with a timed out engine ) Or I think you can buy the kit yourself for $25K?

(I searched the forum for this one but couldn't find what I was looking for)

Go to the site and read about it here http://www.quietaviation.com/







http://www.quietaviation.com/

A couple paragraphs from the site that caught my attention:

This brings a new and exciting dimension to these precious Cessnas’. They can now operate for 35c on their previous $1.00. They will have the 1) economy and reliability of automotive engineering operating on 87 octane unleaded fuel with ethanol additives, Avgas, or their mixes, 2) the authority to operate continuously at 180hp, 3) the benefits of several custom propellers, a constant speed, 3-blade propeller, 4) an operation that is smooth and very quiet, 5) the permission to do Owner Maintenance, and 6) the privilege to use the plane for flight training.

These kit installations are to be made only by authorized Service Centers. Because of the relatively cheap cost of an engine, overhauls are not approved and a $6,000 replacement can be done in 4 hours by a couple of mechanics to preserve the Quality Control of the GM engine. This engine and its’ accessories also will receive an FAA Type Certificate (TC) for the installation.

QA anticipates an introductory price for the fly-away conversion of $45,000 with everything forward of the firewall (engine, prop, battery, cowl etc.) returned as a rebate. In the layup, the 172 will be fitted with in STOL STC, a spinner, and a carbon fiber cowl. These V8 kits should be available by mid-summer 2011 or sooner. The initial conversions are expected to be made at the Orlando/Apopka facility and STC positions may be accepted.

This seems like a wonderful idea. Cheap auto gas, parts availability, ENTIRE ENGINE REPLACEMENT $6K!!!!!!! Why has it not caught on? This would be awesome to have a C170/C180 set up this way or a Maule??? (SWEEEEET) Cost per hour of 35 cents on the dollar!

The reliability of a GM crate motor seems like a no brainer.

Thoughts?

Also, What is involved in going from certified aircraft to experimental?

I believe you will find that even a light aluminum V8 will weigh significantly more than an O-300/-320/-360 when you compare REAL FWF weights.

Making a 172 even more nose-heavy than it already is? Wow.

There a re several auto conversions that are "promising", and worth pursuing. The reason so many have failed is that an airplane engine was designed to go bumbling along at 75-100% of its rated power all day. The auto engine was designed to accelerate to speed, then reduce power way down to 25-40% all day long. So STOL's V8 works great because it's not putting out 350-400HP for very long. But he is carrying around the weight of 400HP.

Again, auto engines (or their new technologies) have a lot of promise, but it's not a super simple task of matching their output parameters and cooling requirements to the needs of an airplane.

EZFlap wrote:I believe you will find that even a light aluminum V8 will weigh significantly more than an O-300/-320/-360 when you compare REAL FWF weights.

Making a 172 even more nose-heavy than it already is? Wow.

There a re several auto conversions that are "promising", and worth pursuing. The reason so many have failed is that an airplane engine was designed to go bumbling along at 75-100% of its rated power all day. The auto engine was designed to accelerate to speed, then reduce power way down to 25-40% all day long. So STOL's V8 works great because it's not putting out 350-400HP for very long. But he is carrying around the weight of 400HP.

Again, auto engines (or their new technologies) have a lot of promise, but it's not a super simple task of matching their output parameters and cooling requirements to the needs of an airplane.

Several things are not entirely true.....


1- The LS-1 motor has been tested under some VERY severe conditions and using wide open throttle for a few thousand hours too..

2- I removed a 0-360 Lycoming with a constant speed two blade prop off a certified plane... This motor was COMPLETE, including every item needed to make it fly. It was a 180 horsepower motor and it weighed 458 lbs.

My V-8 puts out twice that power and it weighs 437 lbs, COMPLETE. YMMV...

O-360 parallel valve or angle valve? V8 with gear or belt reduction? Carb or fuel injection V8

Skydive206 wrote:O-360 parallel valve or angle valve? V8 with gear or belt reduction? Carb or fuel injection V8

The Lycoming had a carb, the entire exhaust system, mags, harness, baffles, alternator, starter, flywheel, vacuum pump, engine mount, prop, prop governor, spinner, oil cooler ... etc. Literally EVERYTHING needed to make a plane fly...

Mine set up is picured at haaspowerair.com... it is complete too, so we are measuring apples to apples...

Does it really produce that much power full time? Can it even produce that much power part time reliably? Lots of folks have tried...(remember Dave Blanick, who was slightly successful). Ive seen a lot of round-the-corner 'breakthough' announcements, and fail to materialize anywhere but in the back issue of aviation mags.

Many others have tried to make the Al blocks and heads last at full rated power. It's hard. This would be interesting if they would show some results from real testing.

...And obtaining a STC from a Chevy block? That will prove to be an interesting trick (and very, very expensive, even if it were theoretically possible). What do folks with more experience at the Supplemental game think? And why target the 172?

As a 172 owner with a very high time engine, I was pretty excited the first time I saw that website. Unfortunately, that was about five years ago, and it hasn't changed since then. I'd say their great idea didn't take off.

I have thought of the 350 cid / 350 hp continuous turbo V8 for the U206. Cooling drag would not have been the issue it is with radiators and airplanes because I didnt want fast airspeeds and only wanted fast climbing / low fuel burn / 91ul / no shock cooling for my skydiving airplanes. Orenda/ Thunder Aeromotive / who ever it is now, 600hp V8 had a lot of backing over the years but I do not know why it doesnt. Theilerts V8 diesel got the STC but was 200lbs overweight and was told it couldnt lose it. I have seen only a couple of photos of the plane in real action.

As Ben says it i s not hard to match weight and reliability of the air cooled motors useing the new aluminum auto engines. The things that require special attention are cooling and the redrive system.
The redive system on the QA plane is from the airboat industry and that one is bullet proof, but it also weighs 121 lbs and turns the wrong way for standard propellors . The distance from the crank centerline to the prop centerline is too small and that causes the motor to stick through the top of the cowl. Geared Drives seems to have a good redive system wth a good c/c spaceing and a redrive weight of 59 pounds and the prop turns the right way. Belt drive systems also work well and be quite light and strong as Ben and I can both verify. One thing you have to be careful of is selecting the correct ratio for the redrive. There are a number of redrives with 1:43 or 1:6 to 1 reduction ratio's and claiming the motors are 350 hp for climb out. Well an LS1 at 5200rpm(350hp) divide by 1.6 = 3250 prop rpm so i suspect in real life the hp and rpm might be less.
I have only seen pictures of that QA plane taxiing and no flight specs.
My current fun project is putting the Gm LS3 in my c175
Ken

If something sounds too good to be true, then you almost certainly aren't being told the full story. I have been surprised before, but that's the exception to the rule.

These days, seems to be that "breakthroughs" usually happen in the nitty-gritty end of science, not with practical everyday stuff like engines - which have been around longer than aviation itself, all the time becoming more developed.

As a casual observer it seems that that there are not many free lunches left anymore, especially when it comes to old technology which is nearing it's asymptote of efficiency (like ICE's). When you break it down to the absolute basics, it's about fuel in and power out, in a casing strong enough to reliably resist the stresses for a given length of time. This has variables like cost, weight, and constraints (in terms of aquisition, installation and operation). It's hard to change anything which makes a big difference in that equation using the same old technology.

I had a look at the Adept Airmotive V6 a few years ago when I was in Durban, looked very promising and I see they have some flying now... I was super impressed with the design and quality of their prototype and looks like they may have the funds to follow through with it... Pity Rotax gave up on their V6

Gear box, Aarggg!