The regulations around airplane engines are nuts (for good reason). I would've been wary as well
You can put pretty much any engine you want in an airplane you build yourself, as long as you comply with the (reasonably light) homebuilt regulations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebuilt_aircraft
If he was building an experimental amateur-built (E-AB) category airplane,
then there was likely no regulatory issue.
OTOH, something about this story doesn't entirely make sense: who would get to the point they were ready to drop six figures on buying engines without, y'know, checking the regulations?
While his plan involved extensive modification to the engine and resale, the easiest workaround is to have the customer order the engine and freight it to him for modification. It would be expensive, but I do not see how it would have been impossible. This kind of aircraft would have been expensive in any case.
It sounds like other issues may have been just as big of a factor here as Ford's lack of interest.
Right, what kind of guy is this? The kind who built a full size, accurate working Stonehenge just for fun.
> If he was building an experimental amateur-built (E-AB) category airplane, then there was likely no regulatory issue.
For good reason. I imagine if a few people dies because the engine as sold didn't perform well/stalled under certain aeronautical conditions (upside down, low air pressure, etc) then it wouldn't take long for the lawyer hired by the kit maker to start pointing at the big auto maker at every chance they got, even if it ultimately was something the kit maker did.
What I wonder is how well all the various car engines work upside down :)