Harley engine special

[Brett]

We are having a special or Harley-Davidson engine packages.
We were going to have this at Sun-n-Fun butttt... since we
didn't make it there, we will go ahead with it now.
You can check them out at www.hog-air.com

Brett

[Dale Alexander]

I used to work in a power generation field. We had a picture of a 16" iron
pipe with a Hardley Ableson motor attached. The caption was "If Harleys
built aircraft, would you fly?". Also seen a lot of Hardleys pulled over at
the side of the road during their Redwood Run here in northern California.
But that was the old days. I kinda like their newest stuff that Harley
enginners wanted to build back in the 70"s but their dealer network wouldn't
let them as they feared that the end user would go for the 4
valve-watercooled stuff.

Dale Alexander

"Brett" > wrote in message
om...
> We are having a special or Harley-Davidson engine packages.
> We were going to have this at Sun-n-Fun butttt... since we
> didn't make it there, we will go ahead with it now.
> You can check them out at www.hog-air.com
>
> Brett

[Fred Collins]

Looking at the Hog-Air site reminds me of the guy who drew up a
"Breezy Senior" with a Piper Aztec wing (the engine nacelle notches
skinned over) and a 8V71T Detroit Diesel turning what looked like a
cut down Sea Fury Dowty-Rotol five blader. He was a McDonnell-Douglas
engineer and his numbers actually looked good-of course it still only
had two seats and went 85 knots. The 350 hp, 2300 lb engine cut into
the useful load somewhat.

[Brett]

(Fred Collins) wrote in message >...
> Looking at the Hog-Air site reminds me of the guy who drew up a
> "Breezy Senior" with a Piper Aztec wing (the engine nacelle notches
> skinned over) and a 8V71T Detroit Diesel turning what looked like a
> cut down Sea Fury Dowty-Rotol five blader. He was a McDonnell-Douglas
> engineer and his numbers actually looked good-of course it still only
> had two seats and went 85 knots. The 350 hp, 2300 lb engine cut into
> the useful load somewhat.


I'm sorry but I fail to see the comparison.
I am simply offering a alternative engine for home built aircraft.
That now weighs less than 200lbs and makes 110 hp.

Brett

[Fred Collins]

I don't mean to disrespect your project but the idea of flying behind
a Harley-Davidson engine-I owned a couple of them before yuppies made
them expensive, they were the most cantankerous, oil-leaking things
around. With only two cylinders don't you have torsional vibration
problems out the wazoo?

It seems like a short time ago the homebuilders finally figured out
you could use a modern liquid cooled auto engine, now you're running a
1930s air-cooled big displacement twin..Don't get me wrong, if it's
reliable I wish you all the success in the world, anything has got to
be better than Lycoming for an obsolete product peddled for a king's
ransom. I don't know what seems weirder, the sound of a Hog taxiing
out or the look on Harley management's faces if this actually becomes
popular.

[jls]

"Fred Collins" > wrote in message
om...
> I don't mean to disrespect your project but the idea of flying behind
> a Harley-Davidson engine-I owned a couple of them before yuppies made
> them expensive, they were the most cantankerous, oil-leaking things
> around. With only two cylinders don't you have torsional vibration
> problems out the wazoo?
>

The Harley Evolution engine is quite dependable and doesn't leak oil. It
runs 10 or so degrees cooler than the shovelhead engine. Having owned and
ridden a brand new '89 H-D Softtail Heritage, and now owning a shovelhead
from the 70's and a panhead from the 60's I can vouch for the durable,
dependable Evo engines.

BTW, I have no interest in converting H-D engines to aircraft use and don't
know anyone who is doing it. I have visited a H-D to aircraft conversion
website once, probably 6 months ago. I'm strictly a Continental and
Lycoming kind of a guy.

[Richard Lamb]

I don't care how well the engine performs in the bike,
putting it in an airplane is just plane(?) dumb.

I amd NOT going to bolt a prop on THAT crank.

It wasn't designed for anything like prop loads.

And, I doubt any assembled crankshaft COULD survive such service.


But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?



Richard

[jls]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't care how well the engine performs in the bike,
> putting it in an airplane is just plane(?) dumb.
>
> I amd NOT going to bolt a prop on THAT crank.
>
> It wasn't designed for anything like prop loads.
>
> And, I doubt any assembled crankshaft COULD survive such service.
>
>
> But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
>
>
>
> Richard

Well, I went and looked at the site, Dick, and the engine looks to have a
redrive, in which case your argument is all wet. Mrs. Lincoln advises you
put your thinking cap on if you have one.

[Richard Lamb]

jls wrote:
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't care how well the engine performs in the bike,
> > putting it in an airplane is just plane(?) dumb.
> >
> > I amd NOT going to bolt a prop on THAT crank.
> >
> > It wasn't designed for anything like prop loads.
> >
> > And, I doubt any assembled crankshaft COULD survive such service.
> >
> >
> > But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard
>
> Well, I went and looked at the site, Dick, and the engine looks to have a
> redrive, in which case your argument is all wet. Mrs. Lincoln advises you
> put your thinking cap on if you have one.


Oh, pardon me for not chasing every link on the net.

It's still a pinned crankshaft.

But, hey, I'm just some nut that don't know nothing.

Best of luck.

Richard

[Richard Lamb]

(a post from the past - brought to you in person
since I couldn't figure out how to reference a single
message from the archives...)

refering to a skin vibration issue on an amphibian project.
(12/18/2001)

================================================== =========

The structure is built but has serious vibration problems?

If it's not something out of balance, then it's probably
(oh no!) resonant harmonics.

Something I learned here...

"brute force works fine, but you have to use enough of it".


All things have a natural vibration frequency.
When tapped, that's the note they "ring" at.
The natural resonant frequency of that thing.

Tapping on a tuning fork makes a single clear note.

Tapping on a bridge, say a column of soldiers marching
across in step, can destroy the bridge.

Two very different examples of harmonic resonance.

No way to offer specific corrections. But something to
think about?

You can't _see_ vibration. (unless it gets bad enough
that you can, but that's way too late)

But you can feel it. Fingertips and backs of the knuckles.

Generally, I'd immediately suspect long slender structures.
Especially highly stressed long slender things (like engine
pylons?)

Start her up and get her buzzing just a litle bit, and just
feel her up. Touch all her parts, and in different places.
See if you can find what's making her shake, and where she's
really excited.

(whew!)
Anyway...

That's where you'll want to stiffen it up...

[Jim-Ed Browne]

The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
MM-era bug smashers, nowhere else. I saw a composite biplane built to
very detailed skin perfection in one of the crappy "popular science"
magazines-it was built by some guy who works for Rutan- and I actually
started laughing out loud when I saw that stupid 1920's era
construction overgrown lawnmower engine under the cowling.

The Harley engine is obsolete and overpriced, but nowhere nearly as
much as anything nominally out of Williamsport. (I say nominally
because they don't even make anything anymore-they outsource
everything, often to the same companies that make aftermarket H-D and
Chevy parts.)

[Rich S.]

"Jim-Ed Browne" > wrote in message
om...
> The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
> MM-era bug smashers, nowhere else. I saw a composite biplane built to
> very detailed skin perfection in one of the crappy "popular science"
> magazines-it was built by some guy who works for Rutan- and I actually
> started laughing out loud when I saw that stupid 1920's era
> construction overgrown lawnmower engine under the cowling.
>
> The Harley engine is obsolete and overpriced, but nowhere nearly as
> much as anything nominally out of Williamsport. (I say nominally
> because they don't even make anything anymore-they outsource
> everything, often to the same companies that make aftermarket H-D and
> Chevy parts.)

I missed the part where you gave us the link for the engine that is so much
better, that you've designed, built, and tested is being sold.

Rich "Inquiring mind" S.

[jls]

"Jim-Ed Browne" > wrote in message
om...
> The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
> MM-era bug smashers, nowhere else. I saw a composite biplane built to
> very detailed skin perfection in one of the crappy "popular science"
> magazines-it was built by some guy who works for Rutan- and I actually
> started laughing out loud when I saw that stupid 1920's era
> construction overgrown lawnmower engine under the cowling.
>
> The Harley engine is obsolete and overpriced, but nowhere nearly as
> much as anything nominally out of Williamsport. (I say nominally
> because they don't even make anything anymore-they outsource
> everything, often to the same companies that make aftermarket H-D and
> Chevy parts.)

All of which reminds me. I just installed 6 beautiful Millenium cylinders
by Superior in an O-300 and the pistons were made in Brazil. They were so
stamped in blue letters on their tops. The valves were made in Italy.
I'll let you know how they perform. We're getting ready to fly. I
noticed the exhaust valve guides are completely encased in the aluminum
castings, which Superior says will make them run cooler.

Now don't you go defaming Lycoming and Continental. They don't put you in
the trees like the airsoobs, vw's, gm's and fords do, except that little 65
HP Lycoming, which is better suited as a boat anchor. My own personal
experiences, of course. But I guess I'd fly behind an A-Model engine in a
low and slow Pietenpol. I have a little Continental I rebuilt in a
Taylorcraft and when I bring her in from flying she don't even drip oil.
That engine was tricked to believe it was space age, with special valves,
guides and seats but the stock 6.3 to 1 compression ratio.

I would fly behind one of those Suzuki Sprint 3-cylinders. That's a gem of
an engine in my book. It would need a good redrive, nacherly.

I had a vw nearly put me in a lake. I bounced it on the beach and had 10'
of runway behind us when we stopped, deadsticked all the way to Shiflet
Field and seized up.

[jls]

"Richie-Pooh S." > wrote in message
...
[...]
> I missed the part where you [WHO?] gave us the link for the engine that is
so much
> better, that you've designed, built, and tested is being sold.
>
> Rich "Inquiring mind" S.
>
Try this: http://www.hog-air.com/motor-pics.htm

Lordy, lordy, I don't care for that nosegear strut. It don't seem right
not to be a taildragger.

[Richard Lamb]

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:
>
> The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
> MM-era bug smashers, nowhere else. I saw a composite biplane built to
> very detailed skin perfection in one of the crappy "popular science"
> magazines-it was built by some guy who works for Rutan- and I actually
> started laughing out loud when I saw that stupid 1920's era
> construction overgrown lawnmower engine under the cowling.
>

Sorry JimBob,

Claiming that engines that evolved to turn propellers are obsolete
is clearly incorrect, and will be as long as they are the predominant
engines flying.

[Dave Hyde]

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

> The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
> MM-era bug smashers...

Better yet, pack 'em up and send 'em to me.

> I actually started laughing out loud when I saw that
> stupid 1920's era construction overgrown lawnmower
> engine under the cowling.

I saw the same article. What do you have under the
cowl of the airplane *you* designed, built, and flew?

Dave 'a mile in my shoes' Hyde

[Barnyard BOb -]

Richard Lamb > wrote:

>Jim-Ed Browne wrote:
>>
>> The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
>> MM-era bug smashers, nowhere else. I saw a composite biplane built to
>> very detailed skin perfection in one of the crappy "popular science"
>> magazines-it was built by some guy who works for Rutan- and I actually
>> started laughing out loud when I saw that stupid 1920's era
>> construction overgrown lawnmower engine under the cowling.
>>
>
>Sorry JimBob,
>
>Claiming that engines that evolved to turn propellers are obsolete
>is clearly incorrect, and will be as long as they are the predominant
>engines flying.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


JimBob is a troll...
and not a very bright one.


Barnyard BOb -

[Jim-Ed Browne]

These stupid comments were exactly what the old boat guys said when
the slow turning purpose built boat engines were replaced by
automotive engines and inboard/outdrive rather than big huge prop
shafts coming out the bottom of the hull through lignum vitae blocks.
The modern pleasure boating industry would not be in existence if they
still had huge slow turning engines and vulnerable huge bronze screws.
Kiekhaefer and OMC put the 'ancien regime' out to the salvage pier in
short order.

Enough volume does not exist to build a piston engine today
specifically for general aviation use and even if there were it still
would be silly. A good "aircraft" engine would also be a good "boat"
engine...etc.

In the long run it's academic-real airplanes have turbine engines-but
"Lycoming for Life" is such a crock of s*** it makes me want to puke.
The fact is there is a Lycoming religion out there and if I built a
power package and had a hundred of 'em flying for ten years, the
Lyc-kissers would say they'd look at when I had two hundred flying for
twenty years...then, three hundred and thirty, etc. There's no winning
-it's like defending Luther to the College of Cardinals. Lycomings
have suffered inflight catastrophic failure, so have Continental, P&W,
you name it. Either you get confident you can deadstick the damn thing
or stick to transport category multi. Elsewise, you're playing
Williamsport Roulette every time the throttle comes forward on takeoff
no matter whose engine is forward of the firewall.

Just my worthless opinion...;-)

[Brett]

This motor is the new counter balanced Twin Cam so it is smooth
running. It's not like the old Harleys. I wouldn't even try to use one
of those. There is a lot of new tech design in this motor. I also
thought air cooled would be great for aircraft.

I also realize that some people would climb to the top of a mountain
to say something bad about someone. But wouldn't sit down to say
something good. That doesn't bother me. I know they are just upset
because they couldn't do it themselves.

So I guess only time will tell. If it doesn't work THEN... say I told
you so. If it does work well then it works and I don't have to say
anything. And so far every thing is great.

Some of you might need to read some of these.
http://www.hog-air.com/Quotes.htm

What ever happened to the EAA as in experimental. I thought that was
half the fun, doing something different or new. I guess for some of
you it should be the CCA or (Cookie cutter aircraft) and what ever you
do don't get off the dotted line.

To some of you out there if you don't like it that's fine. But instead
of just cutting it down so you can look down on it. Build something
better so you can honestly raise yourself above it.

Some of you might need to read some of these.
http://www.hog-air.com/Quotes.htm

Sorry to be so long.

Brett Ray

[Barnyard BOb -]

(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

> In the long run it's academic-real airplanes have turbine engines-but
>"Lycoming for Life" is such a crock of s*** it makes me want to puke.
>The fact is there is a Lycoming religion out there and if I built a
>power package and had a hundred of 'em flying for ten years, the
>Lyc-kissers would say they'd look at when I had two hundred flying for
>twenty years...then, three hundred and thirty, etc.
>
> Just my worthless opinion...;-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Be not so hard on yourself.
Your opinion is far from worthless.

Your perspective demonstrates and personifies what
many before you have bellowed before vanishing
from sight. Your rant serves as a fine model and
example of what kind of perspective the typical
aviation greenhorn spouts to other newbies in a
freewheeling newsgroup like this.

Should you choose to shut your mouth and open
your mind and ears to the wisdom of those that have
gone before you... you may see why things are as they
are, and where they are going. In the meantime, it is
expected that you will continue to foam at the mouth, beat
your breast and gums until you render yourself senseless....
and disappear back in to digital darkness from whence you came.



Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Ben Haas]

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...
> (Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:
>
> > In the long run it's academic-real airplanes have turbine engines-but
> >"Lycoming for Life" is such a crock of s*** it makes me want to puke.
> >The fact is there is a Lycoming religion out there and if I built a
> >power package and had a hundred of 'em flying for ten years, the
> >Lyc-kissers would say they'd look at when I had two hundred flying for
> >twenty years...then, three hundred and thirty, etc.
> >
> > Just my worthless opinion...;-)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Be not so hard on yourself.
> Your opinion is far from worthless.
>
> Your perspective demonstrates and personifies what
> many before you have bellowed before vanishing
> from sight. Your rant serves as a fine model and
> example of what kind of perspective the typical
> aviation greenhorn spouts to other newbies in a
> freewheeling newsgroup like this.
>
> Should you choose to shut your mouth and open
> your mind and ears to the wisdom of those that have
> gone before you... you may see why things are as they
> are, and where they are going. In the meantime, it is
> expected that you will continue to foam at the mouth, beat
> your breast and gums until you render yourself senseless....
> and disappear back in to digital darkness from whence you came.
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

One thing about this ol fart BOb, he is predictable for sure.... Just
lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is ****". He probably won't
outgrow it either so just ignore his thoughts.

Ben Haas N801BH.

[nauga]

Ben Haas wrote

> Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
> ****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
> ignore his thoughts.

I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
and development behind their airplane applications, and
those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
because Lycomings are old."

So far statistics appear to be on his side.

Dave 'Singer' Hyde

Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
EAA Tech Counselor

[Jim-Ed Browne]

"Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight"

And hasn't learned a goddamned thing. I know a lot of old opinionated
sumbitches like him-if he had his way cars would still have points
ignition and drum brakes and airplanes would still be covered with
Grade A cotton and nitrate dope. I had an uncle that thought there was
a Communist conspiracy to take lead out of everything, especially
paint, so the gummint could spy on us through the walls with "scalar
heat cameras".

Some change is good and necessary. The direct drive horizontally
opposed engine was a big advance in technology in its day for its
market class-airplanes like the J-3 Cub-that were looked on then just
as ultralights are now by the people with "real airplanes" like
Stagger Beeches. The radials are now gone and it's time for the
Lycoming to follow, in fact it was time in the 80s, but personal
aviation is mostly old guys and middle-age ones with "Daddy Had A Big
One, And I Wasn't Allowed To Touch It, So I Want One Too" mentality.
Leica and McIntosh have marketed to this mentality for decades.

I learned a lot from "the old guys" as a kid so I'm passing on one
thing that they themselves had a hell of a time teaching me. I finally
realized they were right. "There's no fool like an old fool". People
who sit around and ****mouth any attempt to do something new-whether
it's the direction they would have gone or not-just because it's new
are fools, and the older they are the more foolish. They should have
figured out by now change is going to come, ready or not.

As for Hog-Air- I think it's cool he's doing something fresh and
something I'd of never thought of. I hope it works. Personally, I
don't like H-D Motorcycles, wouldn't ride one if it was a gift, and
think the future of air power has to be something that burns Jet A,
but I hope his product proves successful and provides builders with a
reliable cheaper option, both for their own safe aviation and the
satisfaction of seeing another nail pounded in the coffin at 652
Oliver Street.

[George A. Graham]

On 16 May 2004, Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

> As for Hog-Air- I think it's cool he's doing something fresh and
> something I'd of never thought of. I hope it works.

Jim-Ed, I am a fan of yours!

Are you considering a political career ? You have my vote!

Thanks for expressing you modern thoughts.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[Richard Lamb]

nauga wrote:
>
> Ben Haas wrote
>
> > Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
> > ****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
> > ignore his thoughts.
>
> I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
> he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
> but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
> and development behind their airplane applications, and
> those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
> because Lycomings are old."
>
> So far statistics appear to be on his side.
>
> Dave 'Singer' Hyde
>
> Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
> EAA Tech Counselor


that's always been my read as well.

No argument with his arguments either.

Even if I do sometimes fly a converted car motor...

Richard

[Barnyard BOb -]

>Ben Haas wrote
>
>> Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
>> ****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
>> ignore his thoughts.
>
>I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
>he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
>but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
>and development behind their airplane applications, and
>those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
>because Lycomings are old."
>
>So far statistics appear to be on his side.
>
>Dave 'Singer' Hyde

>Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
>EAA Tech Counselor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you, Dave.
You have explained my position fairly accurately.

FWIW....
One need not be a rocket scientist to
realize that enuff "****" will go wrong....
when everything is right. However, doods like Ben,
continue to stedfastly remain simplistic and ignorant.

For those that are new here --
Mr. Haas, the self proclaimed auto engine expert....
has proclaimed with great fanfare that he can produce
a jillion RELIABLE horsepower from nearly zero cubic inches
of auto piston engine or something just as fruity/bizarre.
That might have been about two years ago.
Little wonder that he lashes out with hostilities and unkind
words like "****", given his own failures and frustrations to date.


Barnyard - evolution, not revolution - BOb

[Ben Haas]

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...
> >Ben Haas wrote
> >
> >> Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
> >> ****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
> >> ignore his thoughts.
> >
> >I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
> >he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
> >but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
> >and development behind their airplane applications, and
> >those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
> >because Lycomings are old."
> >
> >So far statistics appear to be on his side.
> >
> >Dave 'Singer' Hyde
>
> >Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
> >EAA Tech Counselor
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Thank you, Dave.
> You have explained my position fairly accurately.
>
> FWIW....
> One need not be a rocket scientist to
> realize that enuff "****" will go wrong....
> when everything is right. However, doods like Ben,
> continue to stedfastly remain simplistic and ignorant.
>
> For those that are new here --
> Mr. Haas, the self proclaimed auto engine expert....
> has proclaimed with great fanfare that he can produce
> a jillion RELIABLE horsepower from nearly zero cubic inches
> of auto piston engine or something just as fruity/bizarre.
> That might have been about two years ago.
> Little wonder that he lashes out with hostilities and unkind
> words like "****", given his own failures and frustrations to date.
>
>
> Barnyard - evolution, not revolution - BOb

Well Barnyard BLOb. Your very first posting on this topic contained
all your inner feelings, just look back and any sane guy can see that.
As for my project, I am flying it every day so you might want to look
at some sites on the web to see one really can design and fly an auto
engine in a plane. Brett and I have both built our own planes, we
didn't buy a homebuilt already flying like you. Both of us did
extensive research and developed a working powerplant that's not based
on a 60 year old Lycoming/Cont design. I am surely not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and I don't play one on TV either. You are welcome
to come on out and visit any time to see for yourself a well designed
and flying Auto conversion. My gut feeling is that your mindset is not
gonna change though. Remember, this group is the REC. AVIATION
HOMEBUILT newsgroup, not the certified rec. aviation plane group. We
talk about cutting edge stuff in here. Here are a few links to some
sites,,

http://kolbpilot.com/ch701/Ben_Haas.htm

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/update.html

Hey BOb. If ya really own a plane why don't ya share some pics of it
to all of us in here.

Your truly. Ben Haas. N801BH.

[Ernest Christley]

Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>Ben Haas wrote
>>
>>
>>>Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
>>>****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
>>>ignore his thoughts.
>>
>>I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
>>he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
>>but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
>>and development behind their airplane applications, and
>>those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
>>because Lycomings are old."
>>
>>So far statistics appear to be on his side.
>>
>>Dave 'Singer' Hyde

>>Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
>>EAA Tech Counselor
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Thank you, Dave.
> You have explained my position fairly accurately.
>
> FWIW....
> One need not be a rocket scientist to
> realize that enuff "****" will go wrong....
> when everything is right. However, doods like Ben,
> continue to stedfastly remain simplistic and ignorant.
>

But, Bob, Ben is the one who has done the research, designed and built a
working auto-conversion, while you continue to point out its difficulty
while offering no information on how or why it won't work. Do you have
anything to offer, other than that you have been holding a stick for 50
years? We've all heard that one once or twice.

Logically, remaining simplistic and ignorant would apply to the one in
the same intellectual position as where they started. Can you tell us
anything about engines other than that you like Lycomings and
Continentals, because you've been flying behind them for 50years (again,
anyone who cares has heard that one by now.)?

> Barnyard - evolution, not revolution - BOb


--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Jim-Ed Browne]

> But, Bob, Ben is the one who has done the research, designed and built a
> working auto-conversion, while you continue to point out its difficulty
> while offering no information on how or why it won't work. Do you have
> anything to offer, other than that you have been holding a stick for 50
> years? We've all heard that one once or twice.
>
> Logically, remaining simplistic and ignorant would apply to the one in
> the same intellectual position as where they started. Can you tell us
> anything about engines other than that you like Lycomings and
> Continentals, because you've been flying behind them for 50years (again,
> anyone who cares has heard that one by now.)?


He can't say it won't work because too many are flying. But he, and
people like him, say there's some secret boogeyman (usually it's
torsional resonance) just waiting to kill anyone who dares defy
Lycoming by not bowing down at their temple and paying up. Fly 500
hours without incident and he'll say at 600 the crank will
disintegrate or the drive will blow up and throw the prop.

Or that car engines really only put out 20 horsepower continuous
because that's the average you use in a small car on a flat highway. I
guess all those boats using Chevy and Ford V8s are a figment of
someone's imagination.

I think if you want the safety and assuredness of testing that a
certified engine has, then fly behind one-in a nice certified airframe
that you can buy cheaper than building a homebuilt. A structural
inflight failure will get you killed far more reliably than an engine
failure. If you are opposed to experimenting, you shouldn't be in
experimental aviation.

[DJFawcett26]

>But he, and
>people like him, say there's some secret boogeyman (usually it's
>torsional resonance) just waiting to kill anyone who dares defy
>Lycoming by not bowing down at their temple and paying up.

I have heard this very line before, unfortunately there is quite a bit of truth
to the boogeyman - LOL. Ask the guys that have been there and done that, and
have paid dearly (financially) in the process. They learned the hard way. Jim
Rahm come to mind very quickly. He poured everything into fighting the
"boogeyman".

I am certainly not saying, don't experiment. Experimentation is the path to
progress. But don't pretend problems don't exist, because they do. And
certainly don't believe that flying with off the shelf stock parts (i.e. Chevy
and Ford V8s) is safe, because it isn't. And last but not least, don't believe
that boat engine operations and aircraft engine operations are the same,
because they aren't, the dynamics are far, far apart.

With all the above being said, I wish you all the luck in the world with the
automotive stuff. But just don't blindly walk down the path, because the path
can end very abruptly.

[nauga]

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

> He can't say it won't work because too many are flying. But he, and
> people like him, say there's some secret boogeyman (usually it's
> torsional resonance) just waiting to kill anyone who dares defy
> Lycoming by not bowing down at their temple and paying up.

I don't think the boogeyman is all that secret.
I think people that fully understand the mission are
well aware of the problem areas. I just don't see many
of them working to solve it in an upfront and productive
manner.

I'm (still) not BOb, but what scares me about
auto conversions (and a lot of engine and airframe
work in general) is the lack of engineering and
valid testing that I've observed, and the tendency
to "cut to fit and fly to failure, fix it and call
it a success." That's one of the main reasons I'm
flying an RV-4 and a Lycoming.

Bash Lycomings all you want, but they are simple, well
engineered, work well, are reliable when maintained, and,
although it doesn't seem to be the case sometime, do have
a well-established quality control chain even after delivery.

Experiment where you choose, but be honest in your assessments,
and for Pete's sake, do some valid testing and understand the
results. As someone said right here not too long ago,
"The plural of anecdote is not data."

Dave 'carpe datum' Hyde

[James Lloyd]

I am far from an expert,but from my past experience with cont. engs.,it
would seem to me that if someone could mill one out of solid alu. stock,
cyls. included,it would be a great eng.I would love to do it but I do
not have the machines or know how.

[Ben Haas]

(DJFawcett26) wrote in message >...
> >But he, and
> >people like him, say there's some secret boogeyman (usually it's
> >torsional resonance) just waiting to kill anyone who dares defy
> >Lycoming by not bowing down at their temple and paying up.
>
> I have heard this very line before, unfortunately there is quite a bit of truth
> to the boogeyman - LOL. Ask the guys that have been there and done that, and
> have paid dearly (financially) in the process. They learned the hard way. Jim
> Rahm come to mind very quickly. He poured everything into fighting the
> "boogeyman".
>
> I am certainly not saying, don't experiment. Experimentation is the path to
> progress. But don't pretend problems don't exist, because they do. And
> certainly don't believe that flying with off the shelf stock parts (i.e. Chevy
> and Ford V8s) is safe, because it isn't. And last but not least, don't believe
> that boat engine operations and aircraft engine operations are the same,
> because they aren't, the dynamics are far, far apart.
>
> With all the above being said, I wish you all the luck in the world with the
> automotive stuff. But just don't blindly walk down the path, because the path
> can end very abruptly.

Can you expand on this boat/airplane comparison a little more.

[Barnyard BOb -]

(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

<majority of immature, fictional and bull-headed rant snipped>

> I think if you want the safety and assuredness of testing that a
>certified engine has, then fly behind one-in a nice certified airframe
>that you can buy cheaper than building a homebuilt. A structural
>inflight failure will get you killed far more reliably than an engine
>failure. If you are opposed to experimenting, you shouldn't be in
>experimental aviation.

It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.

Ever wonder why?



Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot since the early 60's

[Jim-Ed Browne]

>
> > I think if you want the safety and assuredness of testing that a
> >certified engine has, then fly behind one-in a nice certified airframe
> >that you can buy cheaper than building a homebuilt. A structural
> >inflight failure will get you killed far more reliably than an engine
> >failure. If you are opposed to experimenting, you shouldn't be in
> >experimental aviation.
>
> It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
> hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.
>
> Ever wonder why?

Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
then experimental sport aviation possible.

I stand by my view, that BoB is basically an old buzzard with a big
mouth, so to speak (or type.) A lot of people shouldn't work on or
attempt to build anything that flies, or anything else. For people
with a desire to advance the art, study what has and hasn't worked-and
why-and then set out to build a better mousetrap, they in my opinion
are the reason why Congress has seen fit to allow FAA to keep
Experimental Amateur Built activity as it is. Sure, people get
killed-usually not famous, occasionally a John Denver-and people bitch
saying "there ought to be a law". Type certification, right or wrong,
is there for a reason and Experimental aviation outside the Amateur
Built category is regulated pretty heavily. Ask the CJAA guys if you
dispute this. As Dave Blanton said to me when I would go off on how we
needed to get a libertarian-minded government, homebuilding existed
partly because old and wise people in government itself (at that time)
knew over-regulation would cause a backlash and stop progress. As long
as Poberezny's EAA behaved like adults-and they did-the FAA would let
them play in their own sandbox.

In case y'all hadn't noticed, the amateur-built tail is wagging the
General Aviation dog now. The popularity of certain designs with 3000
flying or in progress is making many people think people are building
to get around type certification instead of because they like building
and want to learn. A lot of these airplanes are being built by "serial
builders", some of whom are A&Ps who quit work to play in their
garage.

With most aircraft being built strictly to plans with certified
engines and often by people who are not amateurs, no one experimenting
in any fashion anymore, the case for not making them get a type
certificate is getting weaker. This is like ham radio, which used to
be how electronics people learned their trade-building transmitters.
Now there's no more electronics industry, hams buy everything off the
shelf, and Amateur Radio is going to lose their spectrum, starting
with HF as the broadband-over-powerline crowd craps the band up.

Don't bitch at me-I'm just the messenger. If you **** on people for
wanting to make progress, and no one does, and the FAA kicks you out
of your sandbox because you have no leverage (post your Ayn Rand
arguments of right to alt.politics.libertarian, I deal in reality), I
don't want to hear it.

[Ernest Christley]

Barnyard BOb - wrote:
> (Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:
>
> <majority of immature, fictional and bull-headed rant snipped>
>
>>I think if you want the safety and assuredness of testing that a
>>certified engine has, then fly behind one-in a nice certified airframe
>>that you can buy cheaper than building a homebuilt. A structural
>>inflight failure will get you killed far more reliably than an engine
>>failure. If you are opposed to experimenting, you shouldn't be in
>>experimental aviation.
>
>
> It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
> hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.
>
> Ever wonder why?
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot since the early 60's
>
>
>
>

No. I just assumed the old codgers liked their lawn mower engines and
are too senile to think for themselves any more. Just like you, Bob.

(No, I don't really think Lycomings are lawn mower engines, but I do
think Bob is senile.)

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[[email protected]]

On 19 May 2004 11:50:42 -0700, (Jim-Ed Browne)
wrote:

> Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
>successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
>started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
>younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
>anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
>Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
>methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
>then experimental sport aviation possible.

Well it's not really a mystery: he attempted to bond polyfiber fabric
to a plywood wing using the wrong method. It lasted for a while, then
pulled free on that fatal flight and ballooned causing destructive
flutter. The wing was found some distance from the fuselage
suggesting seperatin prior to impact. Inspection of the wing revealed
the seperated fabric. Analysis of the wing showed what materials were
used to attach it.

Both Blanton and Wittman suffered engine failures during their
development of their respective engines and had return to terra firma
deadstick. Blanton suffered more than a few.

Blanton also, at one time, advocated lifting a salvage engine out of
the junkyard and plunking it into an airframe without rebuilding it.
To his credit, he quit suggesting that after a few years.

But one thing Blanton never did stop doing was to claim excessive
horsepower for his conversion of the Ford 3.8L V6. He claimed he was
getting up to 250 horsepower on his dynomometer. He wasn't, but he
could not be told he was not adding his figures up correctly. He
insisted that the horsepower claim was correct and his claim made him
a controversial figure in his later life and may have done great harm
to the auto conversion concept. He was so vocal and so wrong that
people thought all conversion advocates were equally crazed. He also
wasn't following through on paid orders towards the end and what he
was shipping wasn't great quality.

I know of one guy who did a LOT of modification to his 3.8 to get
around 225 hp or so, but he had special pistons and rods and was
willing to rev it to 5300 rpm to do so. Most people using the 3.8 use
a more conservative rev limit - 4800. At that rpm, most of the
engines put out from 175 to 195 hp depending on what pistons are used
and how much time is spent on the intake manifold and exhaust system.

There is a lot to converting an auto engine, it isn't for just
anybody. You really should understand engines and how to cool them.
You can of course just buy a firewall forward system but those can
cost almost as much as a Lycontinental of equal power. People have
often said: Yeh, but it costs a lot less to overhaul, which would be
true, if you ever flew it enough to reach the TBO. At my age (56),
and considering the cost of flying which limits my time in the air, I
doubt I'd ever fly enough to get there in my lifetime. But it would
be nice to try.

Corky Scott

[Ernest Christley]

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

> Don't bitch at me-I'm just the messenger. If you **** on people for
> wanting to make progress, and no one does, and the FAA kicks you out
> of your sandbox because you have no leverage (post your Ayn Rand
> arguments of right to alt.politics.libertarian, I deal in reality), I
> don't want to hear it.

I'm behind you, Jim. Society is just another system. The smart amoung
us learn to hack it. We can either keep the non-flying public oohing
and aahing, or we can close up shop and go home.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Snowbird]

Ernest Christley > wrote in message >...
> No. I just assumed the old codgers liked their lawn mower engines and
> are too senile to think for themselves any more. Just like you, Bob.

> (No, I don't really think Lycomings are lawn mower engines, but I do
> think Bob is senile.)

May I achieve Bob's years with his degree of senility. Not an
advanced degree I assure you

Bob status:
curmudgeonly Y (on occasion)
senility N

Cheers,
Sydney

[Barnyard BOb -]

(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

>> It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
>> hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.
>>
>> Ever wonder why?
>
> Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
>successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
>started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
>younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
>anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
>Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
>methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
>then experimental sport aviation possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You continue to demonstrate a terminal case of dumb ass.
You wouldn't know "safe and methodical" if it bit you in the butt.
Read the current posts and comments about Blanton and Wittman.
Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
himself. Where do you fit in? Do you possess the genius of these
two men? If so, you have a 50/50 chance of being a fatality.

When all the smoke clears, only a few of the very best auto
conversions will get within spitting distance of the performance
and reliably offered by Lycoming and Continental on an every
day basis. Home brewed auto conversions have been long on
promise and short on delivery since the Ford Model A engine.
Little has occurred since to warrant greater success for the masses.
Especially, today, when aviation insurances companies are loath to
insure auto conversion power in aircraft. Nothing like negative stats
to put the insurance industry in a tailspin. [Pardon the pun.]

As has been already stated, I am not against auto conversions.....
just jerks like you that promote them so ignorantly, wrong headedly
and cavalierly.


Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot before you were born?

[jls]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> himself.

Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and finish
it, it was a popular thing to do.

I'd wager you won't see his years. I doubt with your bile you'll even see
80.

[Ben Haas]

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...
> (Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:
>
> >> It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
> >> hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.
> >>
> >> Ever wonder why?
> >
> > Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
> >successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
> >started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
> >younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
> >anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
> >Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
> >methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
> >then experimental sport aviation possible.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You continue to demonstrate a terminal case of dumb ass.
> You wouldn't know "safe and methodical" if it bit you in the butt.
> Read the current posts and comments about Blanton and Wittman.
> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> himself. Where do you fit in? Do you possess the genius of these
> two men? If so, you have a 50/50 chance of being a fatality.
>
> When all the smoke clears, only a few of the very best auto
> conversions will get within spitting distance of the performance
> and reliably offered by Lycoming and Continental on an every
> day basis. Home brewed auto conversions have been long on
> promise and short on delivery since the Ford Model A engine.
> Little has occurred since to warrant greater success for the masses.
> Especially, today, when aviation insurances companies are loath to
> insure auto conversion power in aircraft. Nothing like negative stats
> to put the insurance industry in a tailspin. [Pardon the pun.]
>
> As has been already stated, I am not against auto conversions.....
> just jerks like you that promote them so ignorantly, wrong headedly
> and cavalierly.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot before you were born?

Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
homebuilt you bought, read { you did not build yourself} and
supposably fly. Are ya gonna prove you are for real or just a keyboard
pilot. It's an easy thing to do, simply send Jay a few pics to his
alexis park inn site and he will post them. That is if you know how to
use a digital camera. All of us building EXPERIMENTAL planes will
leave you alone to yourself and your handful of supporters. I, for one
am betting there is no plane in your hanger, Please prove me wrong.. I
have to admit you are very well spoken and seem educated, it's just
you are in the wrong newsgroup whinning about HOMEBUILT planes powered
by alternative engines. I got an idea, why don't you take all your
skills and start a rec. aviation. Lycoming group. Ok BLOb, it's your
move...

Yours truly. Ben Haas

[Ben Haas]

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...
> Richard Lamb > wrote:
>
> >Jim-Ed Browne wrote:
> >>
> >> The LyCon flat air cooled engines belong in museums and restored
> >> MM-era bug smashers, nowhere else. I saw a composite biplane built to
> >> very detailed skin perfection in one of the crappy "popular science"
> >> magazines-it was built by some guy who works for Rutan- and I actually
> >> started laughing out loud when I saw that stupid 1920's era
> >> construction overgrown lawnmower engine under the cowling.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry JimBob,
> >
> >Claiming that engines that evolved to turn propellers are obsolete
> >is clearly incorrect, and will be as long as they are the predominant
> >engines flying.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> JimBob is a troll...
> and not a very bright one.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -

We are all still waiting for pics of your plane. You do have one don't ya???????????

Yours truly. Ben Haas

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 20 May 2004 06:36:38 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:

>Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
>homebuilt you bought, read { you did not build yourself} and
>supposably fly. Are ya gonna prove you are for real or just a keyboard
>pilot.

Here's one he built:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/index4.htm#urban-N4610G

Ron Wanttaja

[Barnyard BOb -]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:07:01 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On 20 May 2004 06:36:38 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:
>
>>Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
>>homebuilt you bought, read { you did not build yourself} and
>>supposably fly. Are ya gonna prove you are for real or just a keyboard
>>pilot.
>
>Here's one he built:
>
>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/index4.htm#urban-N4610G
>
>Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the assist, Ron.


Barnyard BOb -

[Barnyard BOb -]

>Ben Hass wrote:
>
>>Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
>>homebuilt you bought, read { you did not build yourself} and
>>supposably fly. Are ya gonna prove you are for real or just a keyboard
>>pilot.
>
>Here's one he built:
>
>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/index4.htm#urban-N4610G
>
>Ron Wanttaja
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOB is it?
You never know when to quit do you, Hass-Hole?
Good luck disparaging my 50 years of aviation history/credentials.

Let it be known, you're the dood with squat for accomplishments.
You've yet to earn a place in line to even lick my flight boots!

Anytime you care to go toe to toe.....
Just list your accomplishments to show the troops where I stand
in this aviation barnyard compared to you. WARNING......
Be prepared to be one embarrassed big mouthed sumbitch!

P.S.
I've had your worthless H-ass filtered out for a long time.
If Ron had not replied to you, and you were not good for
another laugh, your pubescent and hypocritical diarrhea
would have been in vain. You and others of your ilk can
double or triple team me here, but you are just doomed
lightweight accidents going somewhere to happen.

- Plonk -


Barnyard BOb - longtime experimental builder and pilot

[Barnyard BOb -]

" jls" wrote:


>I'd wager you won't see his years. I doubt with your bile you'll even see
>80.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Calling me names and offering me an asinine wager?
You sure showed me up and impressed the group.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.



Barnyard BOb -

[jls]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
> " jls" wrote:
>
>
> >I'd wager you won't see his years. I doubt with your bile you'll even
see
> >80.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Calling me names and offering me an asinine wager?
> You sure showed me up and impressed the group.
>
> Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -

Not meant to be brilliant, just reasonable. If you are building something,
tell what it is. If you bought an RV someone else built, admit to it. If
you have an unfinished RV-3, as has been said of you, gathering dust, admit
to it. Can you build or rebuild an engine? Or have you ever tried it. I
doubt it.

Ron has published a picture of a Flybaby you built. How long ago was that?
And is that all you ever built? Not that I am saying that THAT wasn't
quite a phenomenon.

And don't be a hypocrite. Calling names, personal attacks, and engaging in
diatribes is a forte of yours.

I have personally seen a few auto engine installations, like Soobs and
Suzukis, in aircraft which were well-done and gave lots of trouble-free
hours and are still giving them. The ultralighters at State Line Ultraport
have used quite a few unconventional engines and have made them work, even
here in the mountains where off-field landings are chancy. Don't make
sweeping generalizations if you expect credibility.

And aren't you the guy who said he went to get in his agplane one day and
the safety harness disintegrated and fell apart from UV rays and old age?

[Barnyard BOb -]

>> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
>> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
>> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
>
>Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
>covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and finish
>it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GEEZUS!!!!

Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....

"AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
IMPROPER INSTALLATION."

Also...
Steve Wittman Accident

http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman’s O&O Special last April.
To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
of with the approved Poly-Brush. The O&O Special flew for 10 years.
The NTSB believes that on the April trip back to Oshkosh, the fabric
in front of the right aileron finally debonded and ballooned up, which
caused the aileron and then both wings to flutter. The wings separated
from the aircraft. The article stresses the importance of using
components approved by the manufacturer when covering an aircraft.

MY POINT for you guys too dense to understand --
One is never too young, too old or too famous
to 'screw the pooch'.

screw+the+pooch...
buy the farm...not just a screw up...
the most major screw up...
like auger in...
ask a pilot

JFK JR, screwed the pooch!

screw+the+pooch....
to **** up


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb -]

>> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
>> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
>> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
>
>Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
>covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and finish
>it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GEEZUS!!!!

Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....

"AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
IMPROPER INSTALLATION."

Also...
Steve Wittman Accident

http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman’s O&O Special last April.
To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
of with the approved Poly-Brush. The O&O Special flew for 10 years.
The NTSB believes that on the April trip back to Oshkosh, the fabric
in front of the right aileron finally debonded and ballooned up, which
caused the aileron and then both wings to flutter. The wings separated
from the aircraft. The article stresses the importance of using
components approved by the manufacturer when covering an aircraft.

MY POINT for you guys too dense to understand --
One is never too young, too old or too famous to
*NOT* 'screw the pooch'. <---<<< correction <<<

screw+the+pooch...
buy the farm...not just a screw up...
the most major screw up...
like auger in...
ask a pilot

JFK JR, screwed the pooch!

screw+the+pooch....
to **** up


Barnyard BOb --

[jls]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> >
> >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
> >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
finish
> >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> GEEZUS!!!!
>
Yeah, Geezus, I have read all the reports. He was flying back to Oshkosh
in the O&O Special, a kind of super Tailwind if his own design, behind an
O-470 at in excess of 200 mph. Get all your details together, if at all
possible.

[jls]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> >
> >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
> >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
finish
> >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> GEEZUS!!!!
>
> Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
>
> "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
>
> Also...
> Steve Wittman Accident
>
> http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> of with the approved Poly-Brush.

Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all that
good with facts, are you?

[Richard Riley]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:46:27 -0400, " jls" >
wrote:
:>
:> http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
:> The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
:> on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
:> To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
:> painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
:> dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
:> of with the approved Poly-Brush.
:
:Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all that
:good with facts, are you?
:

He was quoting from the link right above it. Which is why he included
the link, right above it.

Claiming that the crash of the O&O was caused by it's Lycoming engine
is disingenuous and untrue.

[jls]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:46:27 -0400, " jls" >
> wrote:
> :>
> :> http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> :> The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> :> on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> :> To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> :> painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> :> dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> :> of with the approved Poly-Brush.
> :
> :Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all that
> :good with facts, are you?
> :
>
> He was quoting from the link right above it. Which is why he included
> the link, right above it.
>
> Claiming that the crash of the O&O was caused by it's Lycoming engine
> is disingenuous and untrue.

Aren't you the shallow-pated one now? An O-470 is a Continental. I was
making reference to the speed and power and a huge prop on a fabric-covered
airplane, not to engine failure. Jaysus, Joseph, and Mary! Is there
anyone on your side of this discussion who can read?

[Barnyard BOb -]

O
>> " jls" wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I'd wager you won't see his years. I doubt with your bile you'll even
>see
>> >80.
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Calling me names and offering me an asinine wager?
>> You sure showed me up and impressed the group.
>>
>> Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -
>
>Not meant to be brilliant, just reasonable.

Your attempt at an insincere half assed wager designed
as a put down is more than just unreasonable.

But, to humor and inform you and others....
The genetics of my family have members living between 82 and 94.
So, DO NOT get in a hurry to wager your mobile home or whatever.

> If you are building something,
>tell what it is. If you bought an RV someone else built, admit to it. If
>you have an unfinished RV-3, as has been said of you, gathering dust, admit
>to it. Can you build or rebuild an engine? Or have you ever tried it. I
>doubt it.

Do you really think anybody gives a rat's ass about your doubts?
What a horse's ass you are. I've been anything but invisible
in RAH over the years. My history is well known to those with
a GENUINE interest. Obviously, you have eliminated yourself
over the years concerning these matters.

>Ron has published a picture of a Flybaby you built. How long ago was that?
>And is that all you ever built? Not that I am saying that THAT wasn't
>quite a phenomenon.

Not my job to spoon feed you.
Read the website.
You might learn something factual for a change.

> Calling names, personal attacks, and engaging in
>diatribes is a forte of yours.

And this grants you some sort of lifetime 'free-for-all' license?
Get real. Get a grip.

>I have personally seen a few auto engine installations, like Soobs and
>Suzukis, in aircraft which were well-done and gave lots of trouble-free
>hours and are still giving them. The ultralighters at State Line Ultraport
>have used quite a few unconventional engines and have made them work, even
>here in the mountains where off-field landings are chancy. Don't make
>sweeping generalizations if you expect credibility.

GROAN.
You mean like the ones you JUST made above?????
At best, you have uncertified anecdotal tales to quote.
Lightweight stuff compared to certified records.

>And aren't you the guy who said he went to get in his agplane one day and
>the safety harness disintegrated and fell apart from UV rays and old age?

You remind me of the press...
dealing in half truths and ****ball innuendos.

P.S.
When it comes to DIATRIBE,
it appears you take no back seat.
In fact, you win.

Adios,


Barnyard BOb -

[ET]

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in
:

>
>
>>> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
>>> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
>>> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
>>
>>Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time
>>he covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue
>>and finish it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> GEEZUS!!!!
>
> Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
>
> "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
>
> Also...
> Steve Wittman Accident
>
> http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman’s O&O Special last April.
> To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> of with the approved Poly-Brush. The O&O Special flew for 10 years.
> The NTSB believes that on the April trip back to Oshkosh, the fabric
> in front of the right aileron finally debonded and ballooned up, which
> caused the aileron and then both wings to flutter. The wings separated
> from the aircraft. The article stresses the importance of using
> components approved by the manufacturer when covering an aircraft.
>
> MY POINT for you guys too dense to understand --
> One is never too young, too old or too famous to
> *NOT* 'screw the pooch'. <---<<< correction <<<
>
> screw+the+pooch...
> buy the farm...not just a screw up...
> the most major screw up...
> like auger in...
> ask a pilot
>
> JFK JR, screwed the pooch!
>
> screw+the+pooch....
> to **** up
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

WOW bet he wished he had a BRS system heh???


--
ET >:) ---- (ducking and running)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Barnyard BOb -]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:19:23 GMT, ET > wrote:

>>
>> MY POINT for you guys too dense to understand --
>> One is never too young, too old or too famous to
>> *NOT* 'screw the pooch'. <---<<< correction <<<
>>
>> screw+the+pooch...
>> buy the farm...not just a screw up...
>> the most major screw up...
>> like auger in...
>> ask a pilot
>>
>> JFK JR, screwed the pooch!
>>
>> screw+the+pooch....
>> to **** up
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>>
>
>WOW bet he wished he had a BRS system heh???
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can't believe the 'lively' exchange this
subject generated on the RV List when a BRS
engineer 'axed' for comments concerning
equipping RV's with the BRS system.

Barnyard BOb --

[Fred the Red Shirt]

" jls" > wrote in message >...
> "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
> > Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> > Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> > himself.
>
> Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
> covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and finish
> it, it was a popular thing to do.
>

IIRC, it wasn't so much his choice of materials as the method he used
to apply them.

The most incredible part of the story is that seperation of the fabric
was noted on the ground at Occala, but he decided to wait to fix it
until after he got to Oshkosh.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:19:23 GMT, ET > wrote:

>WOW bet he wished he had a BRS system heh???

I doubt he'd have had time to deploy it. Destructive flutter can be
blindingly quick and violent, especially flutter that rips wings off.

I'm guessing they would have felt a violent shaking as their initial
"warning", a split second later the wings depart and the fuselage
gyrates to the ground pinning them inside due to the G forces.

Corky Scott

[Ben Haas]

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:07:01 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
> >On 20 May 2004 06:36:38 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:
> >
> >>Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
> >>homebuilt you bought, read { you did not build yourself} and
> >>supposably fly. Are ya gonna prove you are for real or just a keyboard
> >>pilot.
> >
> >Here's one he built:
> >
> >http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/index4.htm#urban-N4610G
> >
> >Ron Wanttaja
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Thanks for the assist, Ron.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -

It does look like a nice plane. I do like the striping on it. How
about a pic or two of the current RV-3

[Richard Lamb]

jls wrote:
>
> "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> > >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> > >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> > >
> > >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
> > >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
> finish
> > >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > GEEZUS!!!!
> >
> > Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
> >
> > "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> > SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> > PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> > THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> > IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
> >
> > Also...
> > Steve Wittman Accident
> >
> > http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> > The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> > on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> > To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> > painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> > dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> > of with the approved Poly-Brush.
>
> Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all that
> good with facts, are you?

Neither are you, for that matter.

Go back to the Polyfiber manual...

[jls]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> jls wrote:
> >
> > "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> > > >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> > > >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> > > >
> > > >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the
time he
> > > >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
> > finish
> > > >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > GEEZUS!!!!
> > >
> > > Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
> > >
> > > "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> > > SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> > > PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> > > THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> > > IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
> > >
> > > Also...
> > > Steve Wittman Accident
> > >
> > > http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> > > The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> > > on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> > > To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> > > painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> > > dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> > > of with the approved Poly-Brush.
> >
> > Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all
that
> > good with facts, are you?
>
> Neither are you, for that matter.
>
> Go back to the Polyfiber manual...

Today I used some Poly-Tak, an aircraft fabric cement, as a structural
adhesive. I don't use Poly-Brush as a structural adhesive, but you're
welcome to for those little flitting 50 mph things you build.

[nauga]

Ben Haas wrote...

> Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
> homebuilt you bought...

I've seen pictures of at least one he built, and I've
seen him fly an RV-3. You I don't know, but I know
Bob. Agree or disagree with him, at least you know
where you stand. I hope to see him in person this
weekend as well, and I'm looking forward to it.

> I, for one am betting there is no plane in your
> hanger...

Cash on the line, how much? I'll take your bet, here
and now.

Dave 'eyewitness' Hyde

[Jim-Ed Browne]

This has deteriorated into a lower deal than even I thought it would.
If BoB wants to fly behind a Lyc, a Continental or even a real real
aircraft engine-that is a PT-6 or a Screamin' 331 Garrett-hey, it's
his money. This is America. But if he's going to hang out and badmouth
those of us who would rather not we'll just killfile him.

I had no idea what killed Steve Wittman, I never said it was the
engine. It wasn't. He was a wealthy man-he would not have been able to
marry a woman 45 years his junior otherwise, I think-and he loved to
build, he could as easily have bought any GA airplane he wanted.

Dave Blanton had over 50 forced landings in his career and didn't
think they were that big a deal. When he started flying they weren't.
Wittman had as many or more. What's telling is that today, a good many
pilots don't survive their first one, and that's considered as normal.
That bothers me a lot. A mentality that is OK for turbine transports
and tactical jets with ejection seats is not OK for light aircraft.

We're not thinking too clearly here. There are two sensible
mentalities here for single-engine flying- the engine can't quit, or
that it can. The former was a proposition accepted by U-2 pilots over
Russia and the astronauts that flew the Apollo LM (and the CSM as
well-no TEI burn meant they'd die in lunar orbit), but they had
powerplants made to the limit of human endeavor at their respective
times. There is no goddamned way in Hell you can say that about
Lycoming and Continental today. They are admittedly made as cheaply as
the FAA will allow.

The other is, "the engine will quit". Sooner or later it will. So we
build an aircraft with some semblance of crashworthiness and also one
we think, in our best judgment, we-not Yeager or Armstrong or Engle-we
can put somewhere when it quits and walk out. We train with this idea,
maybe we get a sailplane rating, maybe we do like Dave says and
execute a few practice power off landings somewhere isolated and then
do it for real-an idea absolutely abhorrent to any time-building young
CFI. At least we think about it good and hard. Lycomings quit,
Continentals quit, even Pratts and Garretts and GE's and Rolls Royces
quit.

[jls]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Barnyard BOb - > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > Barnyard BOb blahblahblahblahblah --
> >
>
> WOW bet he [Steve Wittman] wished he had a BRS system heh???
>
>
> --
> ET >:) ---- (ducking and running)
>
>
Funny you should bring that up. This evening on the 6:30 ABC news, Peter
Jennings' last item was devoted to the ballistic chute. The Cirrus owner
who lost a wing and deployed his chute over Dallas was interviewed, and his
plane shown, "intact" the owner said, in the bushes near a golf course.
Also interviewed was one of the Klapmeiers, a Cirrus designer/engineer. A
high-wing Cessna was shown deploying its chute, as well as a
downward-spiraling ultralight with its wings folded up. Whoever was in the
ultralight would have surely screwed the pooch had the ballistic chute not
opened.

I have a lot of respect for Steve Wittman and feel a little disdain for
someone like the BOob making light of his sad demise. As between Wittman,
for whom the airport, Wittman Field, at Oshkosh is named, and BOob, the
latter will never have poetry written to honor him or go down in history as
a great flier, aircraft innovator. and air racer.

[jls]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> jls wrote:
> >
> > "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> > > >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> > > >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> > > >
> > > >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the
time he
> > > >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
> > finish
> > > >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > GEEZUS!!!!
> > >
> > > Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
> > >
> > > "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> > > SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> > > PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> > > THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> > > IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
> > >
> > > Also...
> > > Steve Wittman Accident
> > >
> > > http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> > > The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> > > on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> > > To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> > > painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> > > dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> > > of with the approved Poly-Brush.
> >
> > Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all
that
> > good with facts, are you?
>
> Neither are you, for that matter.
>
> Go back to the Polyfiber manual...

Lest others are misled by you and the BOob:

http://www.polyfiber.com/techquestions/attachingfabric/

[Rich S.]

" jls" > wrote in message
.. .
> I have a lot of respect for Steve Wittman and feel a little disdain for
> someone like the BOob making light of his sad demise. As between
Wittman,
> for whom the airport, Wittman Field, at Oshkosh is named, and BOob, the
> latter will never have poetry written to honor him or go down in history
as
> a great flier, aircraft innovator. and air racer.
>

Plonk!

[Richard Lamb]

jls wrote:
>
>
> Today I used some Poly-Tak, an aircraft fabric cement, as a structural
> adhesive. I don't use Poly-Brush as a structural adhesive, but you're
> welcome to for those little flitting 50 mph things you build.

That's nice.
And you glued eight yards of fabric to a wood skinned wing?
How did that turn out? Real smooth, huh?
Ah, question? How are you going to iron it out?
If the glue releases at 250 degrees,
but the fabric needs 350 degrees to reach working tightness???



My little 75! mph thingies actually fly. Very well, in fact.

It was designed to be built for $5000 US or so, fly like a 'real'
airplane, handle like a dream, and be constructed from raw material
by novices using only hand tools.

But we don't want to over constrain the design, do we!?

(Oh, BTW, this new plane is all Polyfiber from brush to color.
and it is starting to look real nice. :)

So here is the deal, guy...

If you wish to continue this rant, I'd like to invite you to show
us what _YOU_ have designed, built, and flown.
Ok?

Now, changing subjects abruptly...

Steve Wittman married a woman half his age - not because he was a
wealthy old coot who could afford to keep a kitten -
but because she loved him, and he loved her.

I loved him too.

As for your rant about Big Bad BoB?

Son, you just plain don't know what you are talking about,
and, I fear, are not worth the effort to educate.



-=plonk=-

For exactly the second time in my net history.

Richard Lamb

[Morgans]

"Rich S." wrote in response to some other great insights from " jls"

> Plonk!

?????????????????????????

Are you sure your reaction times are good enough to fly an areoplane?

I did that very thing a couple of months ago! I worry about you! :-)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 5/14/2004

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." wrote in response to some other great insights from " jls"
>
> > Plonk!
>
> ?????????????????????????
>
> Are you sure your reaction times are good enough to fly an areoplane?
>
> I did that very thing a couple of months ago! I worry about you! :-)
> --
> Jim in NC

He changes email, I change computers - the plonks get lost in the melody of
rah. Look at it this way, I get to plonk again and again!

:-}}

Rich "Making music" S.

[Richard Riley]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:12:27 -0400, " jls" >
wrote:

:
:"ET" > wrote in message
...
:> Barnyard BOb - > wrote in
:> :
:>
: > >
:> > Barnyard BOb blahblahblahblahblah --
:> >
:>
:> WOW bet he [Steve Wittman] wished he had a BRS system heh???
:>
:>
:> --
:> ET >:) ---- (ducking and running)
:>
:>
: Funny you should bring that up. This evening on the 6:30 ABC news, Peter
:Jennings' last item was devoted to the ballistic chute. The Cirrus owner
:who lost a wing and deployed his chute over Dallas was interviewed, and his
:plane shown, "intact" the owner said, in the bushes near a golf course.

Wow. Losing an aileron and losing a wing are the same thing? I
didn't know. I'll drop a note to Lionel Morrison, he probably doesn't
know either.

<plonk>

[Ben Haas]

" jls" > wrote in message >...
> "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> > >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> > >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> > >
> > >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the time he
> > >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
> finish
> > >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > GEEZUS!!!!
> >
> > Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
> >
> > "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> > SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> > PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> > THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> > IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
> >
> > Also...
> > Steve Wittman Accident
> >
> > http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> > The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> > on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> > To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> > painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> > dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> > of with the approved Poly-Brush.
>
> Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all that
> good with facts, are you?

Kinda makes one wonder whether he even built that Fly Baby,,doesn't it ???

[jls]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." wrote in response to some other great insights from " jls"
>
> > Plonk!
>
> ?????????????????????????
>
> Are you sure your reaction times are good enough to fly an areoplane?
>
> I did that very thing a couple of months ago! I worry about you! :-)
> --
> Jim in NC

You must be shooting up heroin these days, Morg, you ol' groundpounder, you.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:49:17 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>And you glued eight yards of fabric to a wood skinned wing?
>How did that turn out? Real smooth, huh?
>Ah, question? How are you going to iron it out?
>If the glue releases at 250 degrees,
>but the fabric needs 350 degrees to reach working tightness???

I can answer that question, or at least give an example of something
very similar. The double covering technique, which was developed for
extremely high power and big propped aerobatic airplanes like the
Pitts model 12, involves laying the top layer of fabric on top of the
initial layer and rolling polytach on top of it. You put it on thick
and roll it through the fabric. You can see that it's saturating the
fabric when you do this. The top layer of fabric is usually the same
weight and weave as what you use for tapes, and in effect is one
gigantic tape.

Then you iron the top layer using a 250 degree temp iron. This is
enough to smooth things out and eliminate any bubbles or slight
ripples. Using the rolling on technique, there aren't many
imperfections to correct.

As mentioned above, this process is being used on extreme machines,
but has also been applied to three Beech Staggerwings with a field
approval. You end up with a very very smooth covering and very close
to the the same weight as a covering using traditional tapes and
filler.

Corky Scott

[jls]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message [...]
> Wow. Losing an aileron and losing a wing are the same thing? I
> didn't know. I'll drop a note to Lionel Morrison, he probably doesn't
> know either.

Ooh, three widdle witchies and now Morgie have taken their toys and gone
home crying to momma.

This widdle witchie didn't watch ABC News, which said the owner lost a part
of his wing.
>
> <plonk>

[jls]

"Ben Haas" > wrote in message
om...
> " jls" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
> > > >> Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
> > > >> himself. - Barnyard BOb -
> > > >
> > > >Not so fast, BoOb. Wittman was around 90 when he died. At the
time he
> > > >covered his aircraft with polyester fabric and used dope to glue and
> > finish
> > > >it, it was a popular thing to do. - jls
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > GEEZUS!!!!
> > >
> > > Perhaps you did not see Dave Hyde's post regarding Wittman....
> > >
> > > "AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY
> > > SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED
> > > PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.
> > > THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF
> > > IMPROPER INSTALLATION."
> > >
> > > Also...
> > > Steve Wittman Accident
> > >
> > > http://www.beginat.com/EAA724/newsltrs/96-02.htm
> > > The February Sport Aviation has a summary of the findings of the NTSB
> > > on the cause of the crash of Steve Wittman's O&O Special last April.
> > > To condense and simplify the article greatly, it appeared that Steve
> > > painted the Poly-Fiber covering to the plywood wing with the nitrate
> > > dope he had used for years with natural fiber wing coverings, instead
> > > of with the approved Poly-Brush.
> >
> > Poly-Tak is the glue; poly-brush is a weave filler. You're not all
that
> > good with facts, are you?
>
> Kinda makes one wonder whether he even built that Fly Baby,,doesn't it ???

You can safely assume he didn't, unless there are pictures and supporting
affidavits. An authentic builder, not BB, built the single-place RV-3 he
flies.

[Russell Kent]

Ben Haas wrote:
> Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
> homebuilt you bought...
> I, for one am betting there is no plane in your
> hanger...

The word is spelled "hangar".

Dave "Nauga" Hyde responded:
> Cash on the line, how much? I'll take your bet, here and now.

I'll take some of that action, too. I've seen BOb's RV-3. Well, to be fair
I've seen an RV-3 that BOb flew and *claimed* to own. I've no reason to
doubt the claim, however.

Russell Kent

[Russell Kent]

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:
> We're not thinking too clearly here. There are two sensible
> mentalities here for single-engine flying- the engine can't quit, or
> that it can. The former was a proposition accepted by U-2 pilots over
> Russia

You are misinformed, sir. U2 pilots are thoroughly trained in airborne
restarts as it is a not-uncommon occurrence for the engine to flameout in
the rarefied atmosphere.

Russell Kent

[Barnyard BOb -]

>Ben Haas misspoke...
>
>> Hey BLOb, we are all still waiting for you post some pics of the
>> homebuilt you bought...
>
>I've seen pictures of at least one he built, and I've
>seen him fly an RV-3. You I don't know, but I know
>Bob. Agree or disagree with him, at least you know
>where you stand. I hope to see him in person this
>weekend as well, and I'm looking forward to it.
>
>> I, for one am betting there is no plane in your
>> hanger...
>
>Cash on the line, how much? I'll take your bet, here
>and now.
>
>Dave 'eyewitness' Hyde
=====================================

Heh, heh.

Ben doesn't know his_hass_from a_hole_in the ground.
I'd clean his clock on any bet, but being the softy I am...
I'd let him off the hook when he started bawling at his loss.

Anybody else wanna make an IGNORANT, UNINFORMED
and RISKY wager besides Hass and his brilliant sidekick, jls?

P.S
Hey, HASS-HOLE - what a schmuck you are.
When are you going to learn where *us real pilots* house airplanes?

hang·er n.
A contrivance to which something hangs or by which something is hung,
as: 1. A device around which a garment is draped for hanging from a
hook or rod.


han·gar n.
A shelter especially for housing or repairing aircraft.


>>>>>-> SCHMUCK, also shmuck n. Slang <--<<<<<

A clumsy or stupid person; an oaf.



Barnyard BOb - THE REAL DEAL
N863WL - hangAred in the Show Me State

[Del Rawlins]

>
>
> Barnyard BOb - THE REAL DEAL
> N863WL - hangAred in the Show Me State

Hey BOb, send me an email. I tried to write you but the most recent
address I could find on Google bounced.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Barnyard BOb -]

(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

>This has deteriorated into a lower deal than even I thought it would.

First rule of holes....
QUIT DIGGING.

>If BoB wants to fly behind a Lyc, a Continental or even a real real
>aircraft engine-that is a PT-6 or a Screamin' 331 Garrett-hey, it's
>his money.

Your ignorance and lack of experience/perspective is showing.
I would fly behind a turbine in a heartbeat if it made any sense at
all for my pocketbook and flying missions.

FYI -
My son is a senior gas turbine design engineer - P&W/GE

>But if he's going to hang out and badmouth
>those of us who would rather not we'll just killfile him.

<balance of Jim-Ed Browne idiotic rant snipped>

I've survived flukes like you for a goodly number of years here.
Many of the RAH regulars know me by sight and what I represent.
My life is an open_honest book_and everyone knows what I think of
them and where they stand... including you. I'm as loyal and solid
as the Rock of Gibraltar. Some appreciate me and others don't.
That's life.

As of this message, Jim-Ed Browne is killfiled.

-PLONK-


Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

[Barnyard BOb -]

>> Barnyard BOb - THE REAL DEAL
>> N863WL - hangAred in the Show Me State
>
>Hey BOb, send me an email. I tried to write you but the most recent
>address I could find on Google bounced.
>
>Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah...
Seem ONLY the SPAMMERS can find me with ease. <g>

Besides..
If you follow the dorks that are into 'shooting the messenger'...
nothing about me is for real. If they keep on keeping on,
I may cease to exist in physical form or just as a figment
of my imagination, shortly.


Barnyard BOb - THE REAL DEAL <smirk>

[jls]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> (Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:
>
> >This has deteriorated into a lower deal than even I thought it would.
>
> First rule of holes....
> QUIT DIGGING.
>
> >If BoB wants to fly behind a Lyc, a Continental or even a real real
> >aircraft engine-that is a PT-6 or a Screamin' 331 Garrett-hey, it's
> >his money.
>
> Your ignorance and lack of experience/perspective is showing.
> I would fly behind a turbine in a heartbeat if it made any sense at
> all for my pocketbook and flying missions.
>
> FYI -
> My son is a yapyapyapyapyap ad nauseam.

> As of this message, Jim-Ed Browne is killfiled.
>
> -PLONK-

Which means you're also a sniveling little coward, like a geeky schoolboy
who hits from behind and runs, then hides behind the teacher's skirt-tails.
***********************

>And aren't you the guy who said he went to get in his agplane one day and
>the safety harness disintegrated and fell apart from UV rays and old age?

You remind me of the press...
dealing in half truths and ****ball innuendos.

[In other words, the answer to this question is YES. It's in the archives
if he hasn't erased it, which he has often done in order to escape detection
for dishonesty and hypocrisy.]
************************
"Barnyard BOb - longtime experimental builder and pilot"----- Longtime
windbag is more like it. You can be sure he has no expertise in engines,
has never worked on one, doesn't have a repairman's certificate even for the
homebuilt plane he flies.

[pacplyer]

Man, am I glad I'm not in here somewhere...

pac "reformed malcontent" plyer


" jls" > wrote in message >...
> "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > (Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:
> >[i]
> > >This has deteriorated into a lower deal than even I thought it would.
> >
> > First rule of holes....
> > QUIT DIGGING.
> >
> > >If BoB wants to fly behind a Lyc, a Continental or even a real real
> > >aircraft engine-that is a PT-6 or a Screamin' 331 Garrett-hey, it's
> > >his money.
> >
> > Your ignorance and lack of experience/perspective is showing.
> > I would fly behind a turbine in a heartbeat if it made any sense at
> > all for my pocketbook and flying missions.
> >
> > FYI -
> > My son is a yapyapyapyapyap ad nauseam.
>
> > As of this message, Jim-Ed Browne is killfiled.
> >
> > -PLONK-
>
> Which means you're also a sniveling little coward, like a geeky schoolboy
> who hits from behind and runs, then hides behind the teacher's skirt-tails.
> ***********************
>
> >And aren't you the guy who said he went to get in his agplane one day and
> >the safety harness disintegrated and fell apart from UV rays and old age?
>
> You remind me of the press...
> dealing in half truths and ****ball innuendos.
>
>
> ************************
> "Barnyard BOb - longtime experimental builder and pilot"----- Longtime
> windbag is more like it. You can be sure he has no expertise in engines,
> has never worked on one, doesn't have a repairman's certificate even for the
> homebuilt plane he flies.

[wingsnaprop]

>>>>>>Nothing like negative stats
to put the insurance industry in a tailspin. [Pardon the pun.]<<<<<<<

You Mean "Pardon the Spun."

Is BarnYard Bob a Spin Doctor? .... Is he getting paid by Teledyne?

[Barnyard BOb]

(wingsnaprop) wrote:

>>>>>>>Nothing like negative stats
>to put the insurance industry in a tailspin. [Pardon the pun.]<<<<<<<
>
>You Mean "Pardon the Spun."

No "SPUN" to it.

WHEN/IF auto conversions prove to be equal or better than
the certified stuff, the insurance companies will be the first to
know it...... and the rates to reflect it. As it stands now, aviation
insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
conversion power at any price. If that doesn't tell you something,
nothing will. INCALCULABLE risk is not in their game of profit.

So, go argue with them.
Not me.


>Is BarnYard Bob a Spin Doctor? .... Is he getting paid by Teledyne?

NAH, on both counts.

FYI -
When it can be statistically proven that there is a more
reliable replacement engine than current crops of production
aviation certifieds... I will be the first to shout it to the world.

Until then, those that believe there is something better that
can readily be brewed in their backyards on the cheap are just
delusional gamblers that are clueless of the odds they face.
Statistics bear this out.

One last time...
No need to argue with me.
I'm not connected to the insurance industry, either.


Barnyard BOb - from the Show Me State

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Barnyard BOb wrote:

> ....... As it stands now, aviation
> insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
> conversion power at any price. If that doesn't tell you something,
> nothing will. INCALCULABLE risk is not in their game of profit.

I don't want to jump into the middle of this fracas, but I thought I'd
interject some data points. Both John Slade and Steve Brooks have
recently (Steve, yesterday, and John, about a month ago) flown their
Mazda Rotary powered COZY MKIV's. They were both able to get insurance
on their aircraft with no particular difficulty, and with substantially
no price difference or flight restrictions from what I pay or have for
my Lycoming O-360 powered COZY MKIV.

Just some data.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[George A. Graham]

On Sat, 22 May 2004, Barnyard BOb wrote:

>
> know it...... and the rates to reflect it. As it stands now, aviation
> insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
> conversion power at any price.

Bull****

My insurance is from Avemco, $400 per year, liability only,
Falcon wanted $500.


George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[Barnyard BOb -]

>On Sat, 22 May 2004, Barnyard BOb wrote:
>
>>
>> know it...... and the rates to reflect it. As it stands now, aviation
>> insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
>> conversion power at any price.
>
>Bull****
>
>My insurance is from Avemco, $400 per year, liability only,
>Falcon wanted $500.
>
>
>George Graham
>RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
>Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reread my post, CAREFULLY!
I didn't say... IMPOSSIBLE TO GET LIABILY FOR ONE AND ALL.

I said...... IN GENERAL, so....
Bull**** to you too and your ONE data point.
Besides, $400 is far from a bargain for Avemco's kluged liability
coverage. Ask the other companies what they think of Avemco's
half assed liability policy.

I've had FULL COVERAGE, including hull for a tad over $700 and
that includes a first rate liability package that Avemco does not
offer. I'd explain what that means, but you and your knowitall
"bull****" can go figure it out for yourself... or not.


What about availability of FIRST FLIGHT COVERAGE for auto conversions?
Available at all ? If so, what hoops does one have to jump through?
What about hull coverage for auto conversions?

George, you and I know the devil is in the details and you seldom
volunteer any facts and figures that do not support your carefully
crafted position.

In my parlance......
You are a helluva 'sharpshooter'.

Have a nice day.


Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:15:32 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
wrote:

>WHEN/IF auto conversions prove to be equal or better than
>the certified stuff, the insurance companies will be the first to
>know it...... and the rates to reflect it. As it stands now, aviation
>insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
>conversion power at any price.

A bold statement sir, certainly worthy of BOb at his bubble busting
best.

The problem is auto conversions will likely never be certified, unless
you count the V6 Bombardier which isn't really an auto conversion,
because there really isn't a market for such an effort.

That doesn't mean there's no need for conversions, that's being driven
by the extreme prices for certified aviation engines. As long as the
price for such engines remains high, there will always be people
trying to find a different way.

It's actually a very American trait to use innovation to solve a
problem.

You've been a prominant naysayer for many many years now, basically
since the beginning of the discussion back in the 80's. While you've
been saying no, more and more auto conversions have taken to the air.
How many have to successfully fly for you to be satisfied that the
auto conversion is a viable alternative? What exactly are your
criteria?

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb -]

> Barnyard BOb wrote:
>
>>WHEN/IF auto conversions prove to be equal or better than
>>the certified stuff, the insurance companies will be the first to
>>know it...... and the rates to reflect it. As it stands now, aviation
>>insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
>>conversion power at any price.
>
>A bold statement sir, certainly worthy of BOb at his bubble busting
>best.

Not bold at all, but....
Bubble busting, for sure, if you get denied insurance
solely because of a questionable engine choice.

Sing your praises of auto conversions to the insurance
companies and see where you get. Probably the same
place as EAA got with Avemco!!!!!

Please don't quibble further on this insurance angle.
Check with 5 aviation insurance companies and then get back
here and report what they FULLY & FACTUALLY have to say
concerning FULL COVERAGE for auto conversions.

>That doesn't mean there's no need for conversions, that's being driven
>by the extreme prices for certified aviation engines. As long as the
>price for such engines remains high, there will always be people
>trying to find a different way.

NEED is the worst possible motive.
When need overrules one's ability and finances,
how far behind can disaster be?

>It's actually a very American trait to use innovation to solve a
>problem.

Ignorance and stupidity are very American, with no shortage in sight.

>You've been a prominant naysayer for many many years now, basically
>since the beginning of the discussion back in the 80's. While you've
>been saying no, more and more auto conversions have taken to the air.
>How many have to successfully fly for you to be satisfied that the
>auto conversion is a viable alternative?

Your muddleheaded perspective concerning me continues unabated.
I've never ever been against auto conversions. However....
I am stridently REACTIVE to outrageous and unprovable claims
made by hate mongers of Lycoming, et all. Those that cast
certified engines in a bad light while praising how much better
auto conversions are, will most likely hear from me.

If you don't want me fastidiously defending the honor of certified
engines, simply cease and desist the auto conversion bull****.
Reign in the hate mongers. Your beef is with them, if you want
to hear less of me on this subject.

Without certifiable data, anything said against certified engines,
is suspect. Since you cannot prove your case about how
wonderful auto conversions are compared to certified engines,
give it a rest and just build the damn things. Leave the negative
crap out of the sales pitches here and you will not have to whine
about my whining.

>What exactly are your criteria?

>Corky Scott

Similar to the aviation insurance industry.


Barnyard BOb - figures can lie and liars can figure

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:55:57 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
> wrote:

>If you don't want me fastidiously defending the honor of certified
>engines, simply cease and desist the auto conversion bull****.

Well, vintage BOb. I prefer to say that the auto conversion situation
is ever evolving. Two decades ago there were few to choose from, now
the choices are opening up. Some of the conversions are truly
professional in all ways, others less so. You can pay a lot or a lot
less, depending on your expertise, and resources if you try to do it
yourself. Don't think you've heard too much "bull****" from me, I try
hard to stick to the facts and have admitted when I'd been mistaken in
the past. I think that happened twice. ;-)

For the record, I recognize that the direct drive engines do what they
do just fine. They have inherent limitations which due to the nature
of certification, are insanely expensive to improve upon. That's too
bad, the FAA could help here with less red tape.

But that's why the auto conversions are so exciting, they don't have
the certification limitations so people can and do try anything.
That's why it's called experimental aviation.

>Reign in the hate mongers. Your beef is with them, if you want
>to hear less of me on this subject.

I think it's likely people are just responding in kind. At any rate,
I doubt I have much influence on them.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb]

>>Reign in the hate mongers. Your beef is with them, if you want
>>to hear less of me on this subject.
>
>I think it's likely people are just responding in kind. At any rate,
>I doubt I have much influence on them.
>
>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One more time....
I'm not referring to RESPONSES to my messages.
Tit for tat is deserved, earned or whatever.

I am referring to those auto conversion/Lycoming
bashers and promoters that START the ****ball ball
rolling whether I be alive or dead.

Agreed, your influence is generally nil to control them.
I was just attempting to ANSWER your question --
why I write, what I write, when I write it....
and what it takes for me to back off.

Once again, I am not against auto conversions.....
just the way they get presented here mostly by
insecure lamebrains that cannot pitch their cause without
bashing and taking cheap shots at Lycoming, etcetera.

Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:50:17 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
wrote:

>Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
>kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
>When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
>It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. <g>

Speaking of denigrating the established kid on the block, did you
catch the information that was presented by a couple of Aussie
aircraft mechanics who took a very scientific look at the Lycoming?
They were mystified as to why the Lycoming, much more so than the
Continental, kept wearing out valve guides way before TBO.

They disected the engine piece by piece and finally noticed that the
hydraulic lifter was virtually identical to the hydraulic lifter that
was used in flathead engines. That turns out to be a problem because
in the flathead engine, the hydraulic lifter does not pass any oil
through it to the valve because the valve itself sits inside the
engine block and is bathed with an oil mist. In other words, the
valve guide is not only lubricated, it's cooled internally by the oil
that gets splashed on it, without any help from the lifter.

Lycoming took this design and turned it horizontal to operate it's
overhead valves. Since the lifter wasn't designed to pass oil through
it, Lycoming modified it by drilling a hole through it. But now there
was a problem: If Lycoming drilled the hole big enough to pump some
oil through the lifter and through the pushrod to the valve stem, it
robbed oil from the lifter itself, which used the oil pressure to
control valve lash. So the oil passage through the lifter was tiny,
allowing very small amounts of oil to the valve stem.

The article showed every attempt Lycoming made to modify the lifter so
that it would pump more oil to the valve stem. Continental does not
have this problem as they are using a different design of lifter,
patterned after the virtual auto industry standard which pumps plenty
of oil to the overhead valves.

Since the valve guides are getting so little oil, they run hot at the
valve stems. This causes excessive valve guide wear. The two
mechanics took great pains to document that no matter where you ran
your engine and what temps you thought you were seeing, the actual
temperatures at the valves stems was much higher than it should be.

Lycoming recognized the problem and probably has recognized it for a
long time, and designed a fix for a particular engine used in the
Mooney. I think it's an O-540. This fix involved routing external
oil lines to the cylinderheads to bathe the valve stems. But they
made the fix for the Mooney only, claiming that the baffling was too
tight and that the Mooney installation promoted a hot engine. The
problem with this is that Mooney consulted with Lycoming on the baffle
design, again, according the the two mechanics.

Back when Lycoming first designed it's engines, flathead engines were
the norm. But things have moved on since then and Lycoming appears to
be in a bind about correcting the situation. It looks like it's a
damned if they do and damned if they don't issue. If they fix the
situation by adopting an entirely new lifter that mimicks the auto
industry, they'll have all kinds of recertification costs, plus
possible law suits from pilot/owners who've paid for the top end
overhauls all these years. But if they don't fix the problem, they
will continue to have premature valve guide wear.

Anyway, that's how I remember the article. Did you read it? Sorry,
don't have the URL anymore.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:53:58 -0400,
wrote:

> Sorry,
>don't have the URL anymore.

FOUND IT, Google is your friend:
<http://egaa.home.mindspring.com/engine1.htm>

I just typed in "lycoming valve guide wear".

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:53:58 -0400,
wrote:

> Sorry,
>don't have the URL anymore.

Wasn't Australia either, don't know where that came from. Written by
Bill Marvel, past president of the American Yankee Association and
Bill Scott, and independent engine overhauler.

Corky Scott

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
...
> . . .
> Lycoming recognized the problem and probably has recognized it for a
> long time, and designed a fix for a particular engine used in the
> Mooney. I think it's an O-540. This fix involved routing external
> oil lines to the cylinderheads to bathe the valve stems. But they
> made the fix for the Mooney only, claiming that the baffling was too
> tight and that the Mooney installation promoted a hot engine. The
> problem with this is that Mooney consulted with Lycoming on the baffle
> design, again, according the the two mechanics. . .

Corky.........

I seem to remember when Ford first came out with their OHV V-8 in 1954, they
had a problem with the rocker arm shafts wearing out quickly. This was due
to a lack of oil feed to the valve train and could be solved by the addition
of a "Top-Oiler kit".

Not that this has any to do with auto-conversions or Lycomings. You just
tweaked my memory. :-)

Rich "No short-term, lotsa long-term memories" S.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:35:04 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>Not that this has any to do with auto-conversions or Lycomings. You just
>tweaked my memory. :-)

I owned a '61 Ford Falcon back in the late 60's. Three speed on the
column, was my commute to college vehical. I was instructed by the
experts to use non detergent oil in it. Bad move. The detergents
were put in oil for a reason, to keep all the bad stuff in suspension.
During one of the 15 hour drives down to Atlanta, the straight six
began to clatter very noisily.

I had to pull off somewhere in South Carolina and found an old timer
who had heard of the problem this engine had with the oil passage to
the rocker arms clogging up. He rigged up an external oil line to the
rocker tube, adjusted all the noisy rockers by feel and sound, then
buttoned it up and recommended using detergent oil from now on. Since
the oil line went through the valve cover, he had to unhook the line,
drill a hole in the valve cover, stick the line through the hole,
reattach the line and tighten down the cover. He used a grommet to
seal the hole around the oil line.

The external oil line worked fine for another two years when I sold
it.

Corky Scott

PS, he didn't charge me much for the fix either.

[jls]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:50:17 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
> wrote:
>
> >Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
> >kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
> >When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
> >It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. <g>
>
> Speaking of denigrating the established kid on the block, did you
> catch the information that was presented by a couple of Aussie
> aircraft mechanics who took a very scientific look at the Lycoming?
> They were mystified as to why the Lycoming, much more so than the
> Continental, kept wearing out valve guides way before TBO.
>
> They disected the engine piece by piece and finally noticed that the
> hydraulic lifter was virtually identical to the hydraulic lifter that
> was used in flathead engines. That turns out to be a problem because
> in the flathead engine, the hydraulic lifter does not pass any oil
> through it to the valve because the valve itself sits inside the
> engine block and is bathed with an oil mist. In other words, the
> valve guide is not only lubricated, it's cooled internally by the oil
> that gets splashed on it, without any help from the lifter.
>
> Lycoming took this design and turned it horizontal to operate it's
> overhead valves. Since the lifter wasn't designed to pass oil through
> it, Lycoming modified it by drilling a hole through it. But now there
> was a problem: If Lycoming drilled the hole big enough to pump some
> oil through the lifter and through the pushrod to the valve stem, it
> robbed oil from the lifter itself, which used the oil pressure to
> control valve lash. So the oil passage through the lifter was tiny,
> allowing very small amounts of oil to the valve stem.
>
> The article showed every attempt Lycoming made to modify the lifter so
> that it would pump more oil to the valve stem. Continental does not
> have this problem as they are using a different design of lifter,
> patterned after the virtual auto industry standard which pumps plenty
> of oil to the overhead valves.
>
> Since the valve guides are getting so little oil, they run hot at the
> valve stems. This causes excessive valve guide wear. The two
> mechanics took great pains to document that no matter where you ran
> your engine and what temps you thought you were seeing, the actual
> temperatures at the valves stems was much higher than it should be.
>
> Lycoming recognized the problem and probably has recognized it for a
> long time, and designed a fix for a particular engine used in the
> Mooney. I think it's an O-540. This fix involved routing external
> oil lines to the cylinderheads to bathe the valve stems. But they
> made the fix for the Mooney only, claiming that the baffling was too
> tight and that the Mooney installation promoted a hot engine. The
> problem with this is that Mooney consulted with Lycoming on the baffle
> design, again, according the the two mechanics.
>
> Back when Lycoming first designed it's engines, flathead engines were
> the norm. But things have moved on since then and Lycoming appears to
> be in a bind about correcting the situation. It looks like it's a
> damned if they do and damned if they don't issue. If they fix the
> situation by adopting an entirely new lifter that mimicks the auto
> industry, they'll have all kinds of recertification costs, plus
> possible law suits from pilot/owners who've paid for the top end
> overhauls all these years. But if they don't fix the problem, they
> will continue to have premature valve guide wear.
>
> Anyway, that's how I remember the article. Did you read it? Sorry,
> don't have the URL anymore.
>
> Corky Scott

Are Marvel and Scott Aussies? Here's their article about the Lycoming valve
problem:
http://www.prime-mover.com/Engines/Marvel/tbo3.html

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:51:42 -0400, " jls" >
wrote:

>Are Marvel and Scott Aussies? Here's their article about the Lycoming valve
>problem:

No. I'd read the piece several months ago and apparently focused on
the fact that they printed an article for the Aussie AOPA magazine.

My apologies.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb]

> Barnyard BOb wrote:
>
>>Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
>>kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
>>When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
>>It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. <g>
>
>Speaking of denigrating the established kid on the block, did you
>catch the information that was presented by a couple of Aussie
>aircraft mechanics who took a very scientific look at the Lycoming?
>They were mystified as to why the Lycoming, much more so than the
>Continental, kept wearing out valve guides way before TBO.
>
>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Aussies, NOT.
Once again you go off half cocked.

I first saw this article some years ago at....
http://www.prime-mover.com/Engines/Marvel/tbo3.html


1. Hardly denigrating compared to the normal RAH hatchet job.

2. Very scientific?

Bill Marvel - past president of the American Yankee Association
Bill Scott - an independent overhauler



Barnyard BOb -

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:14:10 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
wrote:

>Aussies, NOT.
>Once again you go off half cocked.

Already apologised, thanks for living up to your title.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb]

>>Aussies, NOT.
>>Once again you go off half cocked.
>
>Already apologised, thanks for living up to your title.
>
>Corky Scott
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bite me, Jack Off.


Barnyard BOb - wouldn't want to dissappoint the peanut gallery

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:48:31 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
wrote:

>
>>>Aussies, NOT.
>>>Once again you go off half cocked.
>>
>>Already apologised, thanks for living up to your title.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Bite me, Jack Off.

So what's your comment on the research done by Bill Marvel and Bill
Scott? Do you think their conclusions have merit? That was actually
the point of my post.

Corky Scott

[Nobody]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:48:31 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
wrote:

>
>>>Aussies, NOT.
>>>Once again you go off half cocked.
>>
>>Already apologised, thanks for living up to your title.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Bite me, Jack Off.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - wouldn't want to dissappoint the peanut gallery

At least he (I'm guessing?) has something to jack off with....

8^)

(Running/ducking....)

[Barnyard BOb -]

Nobody > wrote:

>>>>Aussies, NOT.
>>>>Once again you go off half cocked.
>>>
>>>Already apologised, thanks for living up to your title.
>>>
>>>Corky Scott
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Bite me, Jack Off.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb - wouldn't want to dissappoint the peanut gallery
>
>At least he (I'm guessing?) has something to jack off with....
>
>8^)
>
>(Running/ducking....)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmm.
How funny and yet sad a eunuch you are.

Here you be - an anonymous and sexually curious coward
with zilch for balls, fantasizing against incalculable odds to
the world that an adversary of mine has an admirable phallus.

Seek an appropriate therapist, Nobody. Also....
Remain anonymous and pick at least one of the following....


eu·nuch n.

1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a
functionary in certain Asian courts.

2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been
removed.

3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.



Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

[jls]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:14:10 -0500, Barnyard BOb >
> wrote:
>
> >Aussies, NOT.
> >Once again you go off half cocked.
>
> Already apologised, thanks for living up to your title.
>
> Corky Scott
>

Well, gosh, here I am back after a two-dayer at the airport and Barnyard is
making a fuss over a non-issue. You need not have apologised. The point
is that Lycoming has a problem with some of its valve lifters.