42 ms·

The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment (2020)

485 points by BWStearns 4y ago

Cardinal7167 4y ago
These LS swaps are getting out of hand! Seriously tho, cool idea. I’m also shocked that leaded gas is still the norm. These LS engines (I’m guessing by the shape of the headers and the hint that it’s an aluminum block) are insanely reliable and I would put my life behind one of those before a lot of other engines. I’ve beat my own into the ground several times now.
doetoe 4y ago
> I admit questioning the logic of bolting a V8 to a Cessna during that first takeoff, especially without a parachute. Why wouldn't he just bring a parachute?
silexia 4y ago
The FAA and other government regulations mostly serve to inhibit innovation and life improvements and protect entrenched interests. Government regulations need a mechanism equivalent to bankruptcy...
jaclaz 4y ago
[2020] Seemingly the author is still working at it: https://corsairpower.com/ https://corsairpower.com/ Last update (2022): https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/ https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...
- falcolas 4y ago
  Very cool. And also a little depressing that the state of the art is still back where it was in 2000 when I last looked at this. May they drive a revolution.
google234123 4y ago
It's annoying how antiquated the engines used on these single engine planes. Continental is selling engines designed in the 60s that are just so inefficient.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  I think that is one of the reasons why the upcoming electric small planes are such a huge thing - getting rid of not only combustion engines, but very old and inefficient combustion engines. Could be a real game changer.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    They'll end up with a fraction of the range/payload of the old planes.
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      Yes, of course. But the range (1-2h) might be just enough for a lot of szenarios.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      Maybe that's fine if the point is just to go up on a Saturday for fun and land at the same field you took off from.
    - Toutouxc 4y ago
      I'd literally fly a bicycle with wings for fifteen minutes at a time if that made [fixed-wing] aviation more affordable. I live in one of the better-off eastern-bloc countries and I make significantly more than most people I know, but getting a PPL would almost certainly ruin me financially at this moment. I know that paragliding and hang gliding exist, but those are a bit out of my comfort (and safety) zone.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        There are clubs that own small aircraft that you can fly, I've done some time in these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42 Technically it is a microlight but top speed and handling are much closer to a regular GA craft. I absolutely loved it and if my eyesight was better I'd definitely go for a license.
      - 4y ago
titanomachy 4y ago
He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104 today.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I think his point was the same planes are much older today and so he expected them to be cheaper after inflation. They were also old when he first flew them so the capital expenditure was likely already a small component of the per hour price.
- sowbug 4y ago
  The complaint is that it's the exact same plane, but 30 years older. Inflation sucks, but with most durable goods you get the benefit of improved technology. Imagine paying $1,000 for a PC today -- not bad, except what if it were a 60MHz Pentium with a 40MB hard drive?
  - wstuartcl 4y ago
    imagine the reaction when he finds out what that house that sold for 60k thirty years ago costs now.
  - melling 4y ago
    I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods. Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells? Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
    - mc32 4y ago
      Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars. https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-can-get-and-why-theyre-so-cheap/ https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...
xnx 4y ago
I can see how the cost and regulation of museum-piece general aviation planes makes battery powered personal VTOL craft (despite their other shortcomings) attractive.
mcculley 4y ago
> "Even the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines that they modify for the boat mission, an engineering process I was more than familiar with." This is not true at all, unless one is only talking about small inboard boats.
- bluGill 4y ago
  The larger boards will use mass produced construction and agriculture engines (I work for John Deere, so while I can't speak for the company I can tell marine engines are important enough of a market that we consider their needs when designing a new engine). The largest ships get custom built engines.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    I work in the tugboat industry. A quite standard engine there is the EMD 645. That was never a "mass-produced automotive engine" and it is not custom. Our smallest truckable tug uses John Deere engines. Everything else uses engines that would never fit in any automotive application.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      Most marine engines in that size range are used in either rail, power generating or other stationary applications. The manufacturers aren't idiots. They're gonna get as many sales out of a design as they can. Regardless, the point is they're not bespoke for your industry.
      - mcculley 4y ago
        I am well aware of the other uses of these engines. I argued only with the assertion made about "automotive engines".
- BWStearns 4y ago
  90% sure he means "largest manufacturers of marine engines" rather than "manufacturers of the largest marine engines". If I'm right then the largest mfg probably produces smaller engines since there's so many more small boats.
blhack 4y ago
There is a whole subculture of pilots seemingly trying to run around some of these regulations using "experimental" aircraft like the carbon cub: https://www.youtube.com/@TrentonPalmer/videos https://www.youtube.com/@TrentonPalmer/videos (I'm not saying Trent Palmer is trying to run around any regulations, just that his videos are cool, and seem like a good entry point into experimental bushplanes) I'd also encourage anyone here to check out Mike Patey: https://www.youtube.com/@MikePatey/videos https://www.youtube.com/@MikePatey/videos His current videos are about a really interesting and unique pool he is building at his house, but most of his stuff is about even cooler and even more unique airplanes he builds. He's an incredible engineer/hacker.
- kayfox 4y ago
  I like how you talk about a Carbon Cub and then link one of the more famous Cub Killer (Kitfox) Youtubers. ;)
- mbustamanter 4y ago
  Mike is perhaps one the most impressive plane hackers I've seen. His creativity and transparency (he shows all the process!) are much appreciated. He inspired me to try and make some carbon fiber models for RC planes. By the second half of this year I plan to have built an RC delta wing, and use my programming knowledge to automate its flight path. EDIT: To add to it, and even more remarkable: Mike has apparently got no formal education in engineering. His twin brother also wrote a book about the blessings and curses of ADHD, which both have.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Fascinating. They probably have some pretty good coping techniques, since ADHD medication is generally not allowed if you're going to be flying.
    - edrxty 4y ago
      Eh, maybe. They both strike me as being medicated. There are two routes for those with ADHD who want medication and want to keep flying: A) Get a regular or Special Issuance class 3 medical, ideally before treatment but it's possible while pausing it if you have $$$$. Immediately afterward, go get a BasicMed medical which prevents commercial operation but basically can't be denied. There's fairly limited data on ADHD medication and BasicMed but you can generally do this without fanfare, but if your regular doctor objects, find a temporary second one and just: B) Lie (by omission). This is actually much easier than it sounds. Just go to the Aeronautical Medical Examiner's office, ask for a class 3 and Shut The Fuck Up. This is generally how the airline guys do it. If you're truly paranoid, pay for therapy and medication out of pocket. If even a minor accident occurs the FAA can and may elect to pull your insurance records. Nope, nothing is sacred to the government, not even HIPPA. FWIW, you shouldn't have to do any of this. Mild to moderate ADHD has no impact on your ability to fly safely, ask me how I know :/
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bischofs 4y ago
What the FAA has done to this guy is disgusting, they don't respond to requests and treat him like a little guy despite the impressive engineering here. I'm not a republican but this is a great example of government destroying innovation and progress through bureaucratic nonsense.
- matt_morgan 4y ago
  My heart wants to agree with you but all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes. It's like the textbook case of when regulations work, and I don't think the FAA has a department of special exceptions. We can wishfor it, but it's not easy to handle someone who wants to do something different.
  - stackedinserter 4y ago
    There would be fewer crashes if FAA allowed us to fly modern planes instead of those relics from 60's
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes Many of them do, but that certainly doesn't mean all of them do. It's really hard to see how using decades old engine designs with leaded gas is necessary to prevent crashes, or how updating a proven airframe to newer engine designs that have a lot of operating time in cars needs to be an extremely onerous process to avoid crashes.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Cars and planes have significantly different impacts on the engine. https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-airplane-engines/ https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-... > Car engines are designed to provide quick bursts of relatively high power output for acceleration, and then only modest power output for steady-state cruising. It’s unusual for an auto engine to operate anywhere near its redline rpm or max-rated power output. Airplanes, on the other hand, usually take off and climb near 100 percent power output, followed by steady-state cruise often at 75 percent power. Aircraft engines are designed to sustain this punishment reliably over a typical 2,000-hour service life. Try running your car’s engine at or near redline rpm all the time and see what happens. Of course, we don’t know what will happen, and in an airplane we can’t pull over to the side of the road when it does.
ck2 4y ago
Leaded fuel, leaded fuel fumes and spray. Adapt the engines or ground them. There's no acceptable middle ground. It's like secondhand smoke to the rest of the population. No your "immune system" does not handle lead, it's forever and why it was banned in cars for 25 years https://www.thedrive.com/news/42218/if-leaded-fuel-is-so-bad-why-are-airplanes-still-using-it https://www.thedrive.com/news/42218/if-leaded-fuel-is-so-bad... https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...
- jabl 4y ago
  The big news in the past decade or so in this space is the G100UL fuel which now has a STC for almost(?) all prop planes. Not sure what the next step, regulation-wise, is. An official 100UL spec followed by the sunsetting of 100LL?
  - sand500 4y ago
    The later is already happening as cities ban the sale of leaded fuel in their airport.
- S201 4y ago
  Ah yes, here it is. I was looking for the "but leaded gas is going to kill us all!" comment in this thread. First, the GA fleet worldwide uses 500 tons of lead per year. Compared to 5,000,000 tons when leaded car gas was in use. That's a 99% reduction in lead pollution, so let's not be so dramatic. Second, unleaded avgas is here so even that 99% reduction is about to be 100%. G100UL is fully approved for the GA fleet and is in the process of being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption to be seen next year. If you're going to spout unfounded fears at least be up to the date on the facts. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
  - ahelwer 4y ago
    Okay, is unleaded avgas mandated? Is it dramatically more expensive than leaded? For how long should I look up and see a GA aircraft knowing it's some rich idiot spraying my neighborhood with lead?
kylecazar 4y ago
There must be something so incredibly gratifying about engineering a thing, and then successfully betting your life on the soundness of its design.
- madrush2014 4y ago
  When I did safety critical engineering, I was more concerned about the other person's life than my own. It's actually more scary than gratifying.
sfeng 4y ago
Tiny correction, it's not really true that an experimental can't land at a class bravo airport.
- blantonl 4y ago
  There's really very little reason for a GA single piston aircraft to land at a Class B airport anyway.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I fairly regularly (several times per year) land our A36 at a class B airport: mostly BWI, PIT, and DTW. They are often the most convenient airport to access something downtown (such as a sporting event via public transport or a shorter Uber ride). Even our older 182 could blend in reasonably well speed-wise [though it often meant flying at full cruise power through much of the approach to keep the speed up to 135-140 KTAS].
    - base698 4y ago
      Family has extra members so keep thinking about an A36, currently fly a Mooney. Seems to be better than paying Baron upkeep. Any advice welcome.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Join Beechtalk (free). I love the A36TN. For a traveling over 300nm airplane, I don’t ever want a normally aspirated piston again. The next clear step better than an A36TN is 7-figures and burns Jet-A. I have only a couple hours in an M20, so I can’t fairly compare it directly. A36 club seating is well-liked by the family. (Have owned it 9.5 years; wife has literally never sat up front.) Turbo and TKS well-liked by me. It’s not cheap, but it’s reasonably economical and fairly fast. 185 knots on 16-17 gph. Can climb 1000 fpm through 12-15K (but at 32-33 gph), which is nice for quickly getting above low-level bumps and out of the maelstrom of traffic.
  - selectodude 4y ago
inamberclad 4y ago
This is what we need to make GA an accessible hobby again.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rdl 4y ago
One of the biggest markets for small aviation engines which run on something other than 100LL is small drones — running on JP8, Jet A, or Jet A1 would make military logistics far easier and safer. Even road gas would be a reasonable alternative to 100LL, and both diesel/kerosene and gas are easier to find in the bush. Kerosene/diesel are probably better due to risk of water in the fuel at these places, but diesel engines tend to be heavier than gas. Deltahawk, Thielert, etc are the bigger projects I’ve followed. Getting an actual certified engine is…hard.
- sbierwagen 4y ago
  The updated Predator drone uses a diesel aviation engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_DEL-120 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_DEL-120
w10-1 4y ago
This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed. Many people are complaining about the ancient technology, but newer ones offer very few advantages. An piston GA airplane runs basically at two speeds: flat-out for take-off and cruise. For both the fuel/air mixture is easily optimized to optimal, and the slow engines reduce waste. Benefits from EFI are decent but below 10%. Supercharging helps a lot at higher altitudes, but most planes aren't pressurized or carry oxygen, so even that has limited benefit. The main benefit of the current engines are robustness: I know people who have even flown without oil or with a blown valve. Many experimental builders combine mechanical magnetos with electronic ignitions, partly for fuel efficiency but mainly to lower idle speed on the runway when landing. The real difficulty is not technology but service. There are very few engine rebuilders, and they are happy with the current limited supply of engines keeping prices up. And unless you built your own experimental plane, or you get an experimental where the FAA permits owner inspections, the main cost of flying is service on the plane. Aside 1: many engines have STC's to run car avgas. All require there to be NO ethanol for its impact on the fuel system. The studies I've seen of those engines report bottom rebuild times more like 800-1000 hours rather than 2,000 hours, and of course a higher incidence of valve-related problems. Aside 2: experimental planes are not a subculture. They form the largest number of new planes. The $200K+ alternates only go to the wealthy. And after 50 years of competing companies, only one has been the overwhelming success, in both popularity and numbers: Van's aircraft. They use old-style, simple designs and construction, and (mostly) old-style engines, preferring the Rotax for their RV-12.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  One other very big advantage to a more modern engine design is the ability to potentially run on unleaded fuels.
  - S201 4y ago
    Unleaded avgas is now fully approved for the GA fleet with existing engines and is actively being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption next year. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
madrush2014 4y ago
I worked as a software engineer on the single engine "reboot" at Cessna in the mid '90s. At the time the company would pay for your private pilot's license, up to ATP cert IIRC. I knew a number of people who got their license that way. Cessna had a great ground school and a nice flying club with well-maintained planes. Ultimately, many of the people who got their license ended up not carrying on with flying. It is a very time consuming hobby and not really a practical mode of (even occasional) transportation. I now regret contributing to the single engine program (and the jets) due to the cost to the environment--I can't believe they still use leaded avgas. I read recently that private jets have at least an order of magnitude higher emissions per passenger mile than commercial.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  Jets have a huge fuel consumption per passenger per mile; airliners have it lower because of the scale. GA is different, in some cases it takes less avgas to fly from A to B than driving a car. In my case, flying a Rotax 912 powered plane to my parents' house takes 2 hours and 30 liters of unleaded gas, driving takes 8-9 hours and 40 liters of Diesel, the environment is happier with me flying than driving.
  - madrush2014 4y ago
    It was hard to find emissions data on the Rotax 912, from a Rotax support list [1]: >> I am looking for emissions data for the 912 iSc powerplant. I am in need of data regarding VOC and NO emissions. > I suspect you will have to measure this yourself. I cannot think of a reason why any user outside Rotax would know this, but good luck. even harder to find emissions on an unknown road vehicle. Lead for autos was phased out in the US starting in the 1980s. I stopped using leaded gas my 1972 VW Beetle (designed to run leaded) in the late 80s. I know some piston A/C are running unleaded, but it is glacial progress compared to cars. Having been in the industry, I am well aware of the reasons (certification/safety requirements, politics and lobbyists). I just regret in my ignorance at the time I contributed to the problem. (I would also assume you and your parents live next to airstrips, eliminating the need to get to one.) I think our problem is more systemic. A better question than "Do I fly or drive?" might be "Why don't I live closer to my extended family and friends?" In fact the computer industry uses more energy than the aviation industry [2]--cryptocurrency and AI are just going to add to it. When I design software, I try to keep efficiency and utility in mind--but the human mind is good at rationalizing what it needs to. Who needs software used to repair broken tech? Hopefully more people than need single engine aircraft or jets. -- [1] https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/6538-emissions-data https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/653... [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410
fijiaarone 4y ago
Save a dollar a gallon in gas for north of $100,000 in customization.
- cpncrunch 4y ago
  Is he even saving in gas vs simply paying the $360 for the autogas STC? And privately operated aircraft don't require engine TBOs to be respected. You can go as long as you want over TBO, completely legally. (At least in Canada, and I assume the FAA rules are the same). So, no need for an engine reserve.
nelox 4y ago
Would you put your daughter in an experimental aircraft?
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  Go to Oshkosh some year. You'll see thousands of daughters flying experimental aircraft. "Experimental" is a legal designation, not an evaluation of an aircraft's safety.
therockspush 4y ago
Having trained in some old 172s, I appreciate regulations that require updated weights and balances with a licensed mechanic when the owner does something like upgrading avionics. So I understand the cost of keeping those things airworthy. But in my case, that same plane has a seat rail lock that fails during takeoff. Luckily I had an instructor with me who grabbed the yoke when I had to let go. It's a weird world where you're confident to not rent a plane that will stall because of some aftermarket install, but you're on your own if that old seat fails.
watersb 4y ago
Impressive! My 1966 Cessna 172G could fly for a bit at $20/hour, but old engine and parts and stuff $65 / hour was more realistic.
concordDance 4y ago
The misregulation of general aviation is absolutely infuriating. Planes should cost 2-4 years average sallary, but stupid regulations prevent it.
khalidx 4y ago
[flagged]

485 points by BWStearns 4y ago

These LS swaps are getting out of hand! Seriously tho, cool idea. I’m also shocked that leaded gas is still the norm. These LS engines (I’m guessing by the shape of the headers and the hint that it’s an aluminum block) are insanely reliable and I would put my life behind one of those before a lot of other engines. I’ve beat my own into the ground several times now.

doetoe 4y ago

> I admit questioning the logic of bolting a V8 to a Cessna during that first takeoff, especially without a parachute. Why wouldn't he just bring a parachute?

silexia 4y ago

The FAA and other government regulations mostly serve to inhibit innovation and life improvements and protect entrenched interests. Government regulations need a mechanism equivalent to bankruptcy...

jaclaz 4y ago

[2020] Seemingly the author is still working at it: https://corsairpower.com/ https://corsairpower.com/ Last update (2022): https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/ https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...

falcolas 4y ago
Very cool. And also a little depressing that the state of the art is still back where it was in 2000 when I last looked at this. May they drive a revolution.

google234123 4y ago

It's annoying how antiquated the engines used on these single engine planes. Continental is selling engines designed in the 60s that are just so inefficient.

_ph_ 4y ago
I think that is one of the reasons why the upcoming electric small planes are such a huge thing - getting rid of not only combustion engines, but very old and inefficient combustion engines. Could be a real game changer.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  They'll end up with a fraction of the range/payload of the old planes.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    Yes, of course. But the range (1-2h) might be just enough for a lot of szenarios.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Maybe that's fine if the point is just to go up on a Saturday for fun and land at the same field you took off from.
  - Toutouxc 4y ago
    I'd literally fly a bicycle with wings for fifteen minutes at a time if that made [fixed-wing] aviation more affordable. I live in one of the better-off eastern-bloc countries and I make significantly more than most people I know, but getting a PPL would almost certainly ruin me financially at this moment. I know that paragliding and hang gliding exist, but those are a bit out of my comfort (and safety) zone.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      There are clubs that own small aircraft that you can fly, I've done some time in these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42 Technically it is a microlight but top speed and handling are much closer to a regular GA craft. I absolutely loved it and if my eyesight was better I'd definitely go for a license.
    - 4y ago

titanomachy 4y ago

He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104 today.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
I think his point was the same planes are much older today and so he expected them to be cheaper after inflation. They were also old when he first flew them so the capital expenditure was likely already a small component of the per hour price.
sowbug 4y ago
The complaint is that it's the exact same plane, but 30 years older. Inflation sucks, but with most durable goods you get the benefit of improved technology. Imagine paying $1,000 for a PC today -- not bad, except what if it were a 60MHz Pentium with a 40MB hard drive?
- wstuartcl 4y ago
  imagine the reaction when he finds out what that house that sold for 60k thirty years ago costs now.
- melling 4y ago
  I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods. Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells? Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
  - mc32 4y ago
    Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars. https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-can-get-and-why-theyre-so-cheap/ https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...

xnx 4y ago

I can see how the cost and regulation of museum-piece general aviation planes makes battery powered personal VTOL craft (despite their other shortcomings) attractive.

mcculley 4y ago

> "Even the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines that they modify for the boat mission, an engineering process I was more than familiar with." This is not true at all, unless one is only talking about small inboard boats.

bluGill 4y ago
The larger boards will use mass produced construction and agriculture engines (I work for John Deere, so while I can't speak for the company I can tell marine engines are important enough of a market that we consider their needs when designing a new engine). The largest ships get custom built engines.
- mcculley 4y ago
  I work in the tugboat industry. A quite standard engine there is the EMD 645. That was never a "mass-produced automotive engine" and it is not custom. Our smallest truckable tug uses John Deere engines. Everything else uses engines that would never fit in any automotive application.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Most marine engines in that size range are used in either rail, power generating or other stationary applications. The manufacturers aren't idiots. They're gonna get as many sales out of a design as they can. Regardless, the point is they're not bespoke for your industry.
    - mcculley 4y ago
      I am well aware of the other uses of these engines. I argued only with the assertion made about "automotive engines".
BWStearns 4y ago
90% sure he means "largest manufacturers of marine engines" rather than "manufacturers of the largest marine engines". If I'm right then the largest mfg probably produces smaller engines since there's so many more small boats.

blhack 4y ago

There is a whole subculture of pilots seemingly trying to run around some of these regulations using "experimental" aircraft like the carbon cub: https://www.youtube.com/@TrentonPalmer/videos https://www.youtube.com/@TrentonPalmer/videos (I'm not saying Trent Palmer is trying to run around any regulations, just that his videos are cool, and seem like a good entry point into experimental bushplanes) I'd also encourage anyone here to check out Mike Patey: https://www.youtube.com/@MikePatey/videos https://www.youtube.com/@MikePatey/videos His current videos are about a really interesting and unique pool he is building at his house, but most of his stuff is about even cooler and even more unique airplanes he builds. He's an incredible engineer/hacker.

kayfox 4y ago
I like how you talk about a Carbon Cub and then link one of the more famous Cub Killer (Kitfox) Youtubers. ;)
mbustamanter 4y ago
Mike is perhaps one the most impressive plane hackers I've seen. His creativity and transparency (he shows all the process!) are much appreciated. He inspired me to try and make some carbon fiber models for RC planes. By the second half of this year I plan to have built an RC delta wing, and use my programming knowledge to automate its flight path. EDIT: To add to it, and even more remarkable: Mike has apparently got no formal education in engineering. His twin brother also wrote a book about the blessings and curses of ADHD, which both have.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Fascinating. They probably have some pretty good coping techniques, since ADHD medication is generally not allowed if you're going to be flying.
  - edrxty 4y ago
    Eh, maybe. They both strike me as being medicated. There are two routes for those with ADHD who want medication and want to keep flying: A) Get a regular or Special Issuance class 3 medical, ideally before treatment but it's possible while pausing it if you have $$$$. Immediately afterward, go get a BasicMed medical which prevents commercial operation but basically can't be denied. There's fairly limited data on ADHD medication and BasicMed but you can generally do this without fanfare, but if your regular doctor objects, find a temporary second one and just: B) Lie (by omission). This is actually much easier than it sounds. Just go to the Aeronautical Medical Examiner's office, ask for a class 3 and Shut The Fuck Up. This is generally how the airline guys do it. If you're truly paranoid, pay for therapy and medication out of pocket. If even a minor accident occurs the FAA can and may elect to pull your insurance records. Nope, nothing is sacred to the government, not even HIPPA. FWIW, you shouldn't have to do any of this. Mild to moderate ADHD has no impact on your ability to fly safely, ask me how I know :/

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bischofs 4y ago

What the FAA has done to this guy is disgusting, they don't respond to requests and treat him like a little guy despite the impressive engineering here. I'm not a republican but this is a great example of government destroying innovation and progress through bureaucratic nonsense.

matt_morgan 4y ago
My heart wants to agree with you but all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes. It's like the textbook case of when regulations work, and I don't think the FAA has a department of special exceptions. We can wishfor it, but it's not easy to handle someone who wants to do something different.
- stackedinserter 4y ago
  There would be fewer crashes if FAA allowed us to fly modern planes instead of those relics from 60's
- pdonis 4y ago
  > all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes Many of them do, but that certainly doesn't mean all of them do. It's really hard to see how using decades old engine designs with leaded gas is necessary to prevent crashes, or how updating a proven airframe to newer engine designs that have a lot of operating time in cars needs to be an extremely onerous process to avoid crashes.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Cars and planes have significantly different impacts on the engine. https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-airplane-engines/ https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-... > Car engines are designed to provide quick bursts of relatively high power output for acceleration, and then only modest power output for steady-state cruising. It’s unusual for an auto engine to operate anywhere near its redline rpm or max-rated power output. Airplanes, on the other hand, usually take off and climb near 100 percent power output, followed by steady-state cruise often at 75 percent power. Aircraft engines are designed to sustain this punishment reliably over a typical 2,000-hour service life. Try running your car’s engine at or near redline rpm all the time and see what happens. Of course, we don’t know what will happen, and in an airplane we can’t pull over to the side of the road when it does.

ck2 4y ago

Leaded fuel, leaded fuel fumes and spray. Adapt the engines or ground them. There's no acceptable middle ground. It's like secondhand smoke to the rest of the population. No your "immune system" does not handle lead, it's forever and why it was banned in cars for 25 years https://www.thedrive.com/news/42218/if-leaded-fuel-is-so-bad-why-are-airplanes-still-using-it https://www.thedrive.com/news/42218/if-leaded-fuel-is-so-bad... https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

jabl 4y ago
The big news in the past decade or so in this space is the G100UL fuel which now has a STC for almost(?) all prop planes. Not sure what the next step, regulation-wise, is. An official 100UL spec followed by the sunsetting of 100LL?
- sand500 4y ago
  The later is already happening as cities ban the sale of leaded fuel in their airport.
S201 4y ago
Ah yes, here it is. I was looking for the "but leaded gas is going to kill us all!" comment in this thread. First, the GA fleet worldwide uses 500 tons of lead per year. Compared to 5,000,000 tons when leaded car gas was in use. That's a 99% reduction in lead pollution, so let's not be so dramatic. Second, unleaded avgas is here so even that 99% reduction is about to be 100%. G100UL is fully approved for the GA fleet and is in the process of being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption to be seen next year. If you're going to spout unfounded fears at least be up to the date on the facts. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
- ahelwer 4y ago
  Okay, is unleaded avgas mandated? Is it dramatically more expensive than leaded? For how long should I look up and see a GA aircraft knowing it's some rich idiot spraying my neighborhood with lead?

kylecazar 4y ago

There must be something so incredibly gratifying about engineering a thing, and then successfully betting your life on the soundness of its design.

madrush2014 4y ago
When I did safety critical engineering, I was more concerned about the other person's life than my own. It's actually more scary than gratifying.

sfeng 4y ago

Tiny correction, it's not really true that an experimental can't land at a class bravo airport.

blantonl 4y ago
There's really very little reason for a GA single piston aircraft to land at a Class B airport anyway.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I fairly regularly (several times per year) land our A36 at a class B airport: mostly BWI, PIT, and DTW. They are often the most convenient airport to access something downtown (such as a sporting event via public transport or a shorter Uber ride). Even our older 182 could blend in reasonably well speed-wise [though it often meant flying at full cruise power through much of the approach to keep the speed up to 135-140 KTAS].
  - base698 4y ago
    Family has extra members so keep thinking about an A36, currently fly a Mooney. Seems to be better than paying Baron upkeep. Any advice welcome.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Join Beechtalk (free). I love the A36TN. For a traveling over 300nm airplane, I don’t ever want a normally aspirated piston again. The next clear step better than an A36TN is 7-figures and burns Jet-A. I have only a couple hours in an M20, so I can’t fairly compare it directly. A36 club seating is well-liked by the family. (Have owned it 9.5 years; wife has literally never sat up front.) Turbo and TKS well-liked by me. It’s not cheap, but it’s reasonably economical and fairly fast. 185 knots on 16-17 gph. Can climb 1000 fpm through 12-15K (but at 32-33 gph), which is nice for quickly getting above low-level bumps and out of the maelstrom of traffic.
- selectodude 4y ago

inamberclad 4y ago

This is what we need to make GA an accessible hobby again.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rdl 4y ago

One of the biggest markets for small aviation engines which run on something other than 100LL is small drones — running on JP8, Jet A, or Jet A1 would make military logistics far easier and safer. Even road gas would be a reasonable alternative to 100LL, and both diesel/kerosene and gas are easier to find in the bush. Kerosene/diesel are probably better due to risk of water in the fuel at these places, but diesel engines tend to be heavier than gas. Deltahawk, Thielert, etc are the bigger projects I’ve followed. Getting an actual certified engine is…hard.

sbierwagen 4y ago
The updated Predator drone uses a diesel aviation engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_DEL-120 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_DEL-120

w10-1 4y ago

This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed. Many people are complaining about the ancient technology, but newer ones offer very few advantages. An piston GA airplane runs basically at two speeds: flat-out for take-off and cruise. For both the fuel/air mixture is easily optimized to optimal, and the slow engines reduce waste. Benefits from EFI are decent but below 10%. Supercharging helps a lot at higher altitudes, but most planes aren't pressurized or carry oxygen, so even that has limited benefit. The main benefit of the current engines are robustness: I know people who have even flown without oil or with a blown valve. Many experimental builders combine mechanical magnetos with electronic ignitions, partly for fuel efficiency but mainly to lower idle speed on the runway when landing. The real difficulty is not technology but service. There are very few engine rebuilders, and they are happy with the current limited supply of engines keeping prices up. And unless you built your own experimental plane, or you get an experimental where the FAA permits owner inspections, the main cost of flying is service on the plane. Aside 1: many engines have STC's to run car avgas. All require there to be NO ethanol for its impact on the fuel system. The studies I've seen of those engines report bottom rebuild times more like 800-1000 hours rather than 2,000 hours, and of course a higher incidence of valve-related problems. Aside 2: experimental planes are not a subculture. They form the largest number of new planes. The $200K+ alternates only go to the wealthy. And after 50 years of competing companies, only one has been the overwhelming success, in both popularity and numbers: Van's aircraft. They use old-style, simple designs and construction, and (mostly) old-style engines, preferring the Rotax for their RV-12.

thescriptkiddie 4y ago
One other very big advantage to a more modern engine design is the ability to potentially run on unleaded fuels.
- S201 4y ago
  Unleaded avgas is now fully approved for the GA fleet with existing engines and is actively being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption next year. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php

madrush2014 4y ago

I worked as a software engineer on the single engine "reboot" at Cessna in the mid '90s. At the time the company would pay for your private pilot's license, up to ATP cert IIRC. I knew a number of people who got their license that way. Cessna had a great ground school and a nice flying club with well-maintained planes. Ultimately, many of the people who got their license ended up not carrying on with flying. It is a very time consuming hobby and not really a practical mode of (even occasional) transportation. I now regret contributing to the single engine program (and the jets) due to the cost to the environment--I can't believe they still use leaded avgas. I read recently that private jets have at least an order of magnitude higher emissions per passenger mile than commercial.

AdrianB1 4y ago
Jets have a huge fuel consumption per passenger per mile; airliners have it lower because of the scale. GA is different, in some cases it takes less avgas to fly from A to B than driving a car. In my case, flying a Rotax 912 powered plane to my parents' house takes 2 hours and 30 liters of unleaded gas, driving takes 8-9 hours and 40 liters of Diesel, the environment is happier with me flying than driving.
- madrush2014 4y ago
  It was hard to find emissions data on the Rotax 912, from a Rotax support list [1]: >> I am looking for emissions data for the 912 iSc powerplant. I am in need of data regarding VOC and NO emissions. > I suspect you will have to measure this yourself. I cannot think of a reason why any user outside Rotax would know this, but good luck. even harder to find emissions on an unknown road vehicle. Lead for autos was phased out in the US starting in the 1980s. I stopped using leaded gas my 1972 VW Beetle (designed to run leaded) in the late 80s. I know some piston A/C are running unleaded, but it is glacial progress compared to cars. Having been in the industry, I am well aware of the reasons (certification/safety requirements, politics and lobbyists). I just regret in my ignorance at the time I contributed to the problem. (I would also assume you and your parents live next to airstrips, eliminating the need to get to one.) I think our problem is more systemic. A better question than "Do I fly or drive?" might be "Why don't I live closer to my extended family and friends?" In fact the computer industry uses more energy than the aviation industry [2]--cryptocurrency and AI are just going to add to it. When I design software, I try to keep efficiency and utility in mind--but the human mind is good at rationalizing what it needs to. Who needs software used to repair broken tech? Hopefully more people than need single engine aircraft or jets. -- [1] https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/6538-emissions-data https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/653... [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410

fijiaarone 4y ago

Save a dollar a gallon in gas for north of $100,000 in customization.

cpncrunch 4y ago
Is he even saving in gas vs simply paying the $360 for the autogas STC? And privately operated aircraft don't require engine TBOs to be respected. You can go as long as you want over TBO, completely legally. (At least in Canada, and I assume the FAA rules are the same). So, no need for an engine reserve.

nelox 4y ago

Would you put your daughter in an experimental aircraft?

dreamcompiler 4y ago
Go to Oshkosh some year. You'll see thousands of daughters flying experimental aircraft. "Experimental" is a legal designation, not an evaluation of an aircraft's safety.

therockspush 4y ago

Having trained in some old 172s, I appreciate regulations that require updated weights and balances with a licensed mechanic when the owner does something like upgrading avionics. So I understand the cost of keeping those things airworthy. But in my case, that same plane has a seat rail lock that fails during takeoff. Luckily I had an instructor with me who grabbed the yoke when I had to let go. It's a weird world where you're confident to not rent a plane that will stall because of some aftermarket install, but you're on your own if that old seat fails.

watersb 4y ago

Impressive! My 1966 Cessna 172G could fly for a bit at $20/hour, but old engine and parts and stuff $65 / hour was more realistic.

concordDance 4y ago

The misregulation of general aviation is absolutely infuriating. Planes should cost 2-4 years average sallary, but stupid regulations prevent it.

khalidx 4y ago

[flagged]