In his own words - BWB and the OMABP

[[email protected]]

My thanks to for the three URL's which cover the
subject on which Bill took me to task.

http://tinyurl.com/2kblp
http://tinyurl.com/3fcuj
http://tinyurl.com/245zz

For those avidly following this thread, it started with BWB asking for
information on when the latest Kitplanes magazine will hit the stands
as it includes an article in which Bill's wife took some pictures. He
remarked in the post: "You might recall that I was the test pilot on
that project about 8 years ago and started posting stuff here on the
flights I was making in it each day."

Well, I kind of did remember Bill posting about his time as a test
pilot, but my recollection was that after a couple of interesting
posts about how much fun it was, he began saying some pretty nasty
things about the OMABP and told us he wasn't flying it anymore.

So I asked him in the Kitplanes thread if this was in fact the same
airplane he wrote about. I said: "Is this the same airplane that you
trashed here in this group because of PSRU failures?"

Innocent enough I thought as I really did think I remembered him bad
mouthing the airplane. So I thought that perhaps something had
changed and maybe it was good news. But to be totally honest, I was
fairly certain that the remark was going be be enough to light Bill's
tail and send him ballistic, whether I liked it or not. Understanding
that, I asked my question anyway.

Bill responded pretty much as per usual these days, i.e. creatively
trashing the person he's unhappy with (me), but also questioning if he
actually did badmouth the PSRU, because today, he thinks it's a fine
piece of machinery, excellently designed and very reliable, and he
apparently did not remember saying bad things about it.

He ended up challenging me to find that past article he wrote because
he didn't think he could have written anything so blasphemous. He
said:

>So, Corkman, where did I post that anything other than a belt in the
>PSRU ever failed? Go find it and repost it here or you're just
>another RAHian dork trying to discredit the fine work of a great team
>of guys...the guys of the OMABP.

I accepted the challenge, although I did not personally know how to
find the old posts, I thought someone in the group might. I was
correct.

Bill, I am truly sorry to be the messenger, but you did ask, you did
say it and it's shown below in it's entirety.

********Begin message********

I sent you a message by email too Tom, but here's what's happening.
I'm out of the project and on to another one with an RV-6 with an
O-320 160 hp engine. I should be test flying it within a couple
months. I was associated with the OMABP for fun only. I didn't ever
have any interest in promoting auto conversions or selling this idea
for Jess Meyers. I flew it for the first 100 hours and we had a lot
of problems I never exposed. I just sort of wrote a lot of fun things
about the positive portions of the test flying. It got to the point
where I wanted many things changed and I had asked many questions that
were not answered to my satisfaction. The Old Men had no intentions
of changing anything the test pilot wanted. So, in my own mind I felt
that the risk to fly it was excessive and my feelings were clear to
Jess Meyers. When the airplane changed ownership from Glen Smith to
Jess Meyers, I stepped out of the cockpit for good.

If you want my personal feelings about the design this is it. I think
the engine is great. I think GM builds nearly a million of them each
year and if there were any real problems, they would have fixed them
long ago. The engine is not MY problem. It's the rest of it. I
don't trust the PSRU and I don't trust some of the other external
components. I'm worried about the bearings, I'm worried about the
flywheel, I'm worried about the prop, I'm worried about the coolant
system and I'm worried about the electrical wiring since it burned up
once. There were many things I wanted done before I would fly it
anymore and those things simply were not done. I made a big list and
many of those items were ignored. I felt that my life was worth more
than the thrill I got from test flying it and I made it known that I
had serious questions about the safety of the flight-test program.
When Jess bought the airplane, there were no words spoken, that was
just the end. Jess had no intention of modifying anything I wanted
modified and I had no intention of ever flying it unless these things
were done.

I'm not categorically saying that the airplane is dangerous although I
personally feel that it is. In fact I feel that it is terribly
dangerous. What I am saying is that I have questions that have not
been answered concerning the loads and design limitations of various
things which I felt were critical. This thing needs a mechanical
engineer, a structural engineer, a CAD-CAM guy and an aeronautical
engineer to put it on a dyno, measure it, model it, figure out where
the harmonics are, the reverse torsional vibrations are (RPM) and so
on. The OMABP is a garage operation. In my opinion, to do it right
you'd need about 20 million dollars to run a few to destruction and
take millions of data points. This and only this can prove the design
to be safe over a long haul.

If I were spending 3 years of my life to build an RV I would buy the
Lycoming from Van for $18K instead of the Vortec from Jess at $11K or
whatever they quote now. The other hardware for that airplane is
going to cost you $25 to $30K plus three years of your life. I
wouldn't scrimp on the engine to save $6 to $8K. No way.

I've watched this newsgroup for over 2 years now and many have come
and gone touting auto conversions. I think Bruce Frank and the boys
have something worth really looking at. But the OMABP project was
just a bunch of fun loving guys having fun tinkering with a toy that
someone else was paying for. People bitch about the Lycosaurs being
old technology. Well, so is the wheel and I use the wheel everyday.
It isn't that the engines are old, it's that the technology is old.
What improvements have there really been in GA in the last 40 years?
NONE. The problem was solved when they built the Bonanza in the late
forties for the average Joe-Shmo to have his own airplane. That
doesn't mean Bonanzas are no good, just because the technology is old.
There's lots of technology that's old which we use everyday. When the
problem is solved, it's solved, the physics doesn't change like the
style of a car each year.

Anyway. I'm a crazy ******* and I like to do some flight test at
times just to tingle my spine, but I opt for a Lycoming in an RV for
many reasons and safety is the foremost. I could go on all day about
what is wrong with Lycomings. But, I could go on all day long about
what I worry about with that Vortec too. At least the Lycoming has a
few million hours on it and the failure modes are pretty well
understood. I don't understand where that Vortec may fail next at
all.

I hope this clears it up a bit for many of you who followed my posts.
In a couple months I'll be back in the cockpit of an RV-6 with an
O-320 160 hp on it doing some more testing. I'll write it up and post
it here and I hope you all will enjoy it.

BWB

*************End of Quote*************

After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
Kitplanes post?

But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
must be relieved. I think I am.

Corky Scott

[pacplyer]

wrote <snip>

> Well, I kind of did remember Bill posting about his time as a test
> pilot, but my recollection was that after a couple of interesting
> posts about how much fun it was, he began saying some pretty nasty
> things about the OMABP and told us he wasn't flying it anymore.
>
> So I asked him in the Kitplanes thread if this was in fact the same
> airplane he wrote about. I said: "Is this the same airplane that you
> trashed here in this group because of PSRU failures?"
><snip>

Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness. (which is suprising for BWB! ;-) Just
kidding Bill.) Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt? Telling the public truthfull details
about a project after you're gone and you have time to reflect on it
is not being nasty. It's being a hero to some potential widow; and
letting the rest of us consumers know better what's posssibly in store
for us after we read the slick marketing brochures. Your misguided
loyalty to a hunk of metal is odd Corky. Water-cooled, rubber belted
engine's worry me. My hat's off to BWB, for calling a spade what he
thinks a spade is at the time, even if it hurts people's feelings who
are too close to the project. This might not successfully dissuade me
from buying the engine, but after reading Bill's post I don't think
I'd fly it over water or at night.
>
> After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
> airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
> Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
> why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
> Kitplanes post?
>
> But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
> must be relieved. I think I am.
>
> Corky Scott

This kind of built-in safety conflict vs. profitability with those who
make safety decisions while standing on the ground and counting their
money is a very familiar saga for professional pilots (paid or not.)
What seems significant Corky is the passage of seven years without
high failure or fatalities. Bill's attitudes as a test pilot then,
were quite understandable and prudent considering a low budget test
program like that. Now that time's been built up on the engine and
more is known about the choices they made, I'm sure Bill is proud of
having been part of it. As opposed to certain helicopter programs
where the test pilots signed off on practically anything that
management shoved down their throats. The test pilot's attitudes in
those cases resulted in a lot of missing man formations. The above
are my opinions only.

pacplyer

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >,
says...
>
>After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
>airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
>Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
>why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
>Kitplanes post?
>
>But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
>must be relieved. I think I am.
>
>Corky Scott

Well Corky there in lies the beauty of the internet it has no memory lapse
or forgetfullness. Proof positive that one must watch what they say 'round these
parts "lest the past come up and smite thee". I'd have to say you proved
your point. That's why zoom doesn't hang out here, people have long memories.

I guess this goes to show that when it comes to memories we're all human and the
net is not :-)

See ya

Chuck S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >,
says...
>
>After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
>airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
>Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
>why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
>Kitplanes post?
>
>But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
>must be relieved. I think I am.
>
>Corky Scott

Well Corky there in lies the beauty of the internet it has no memory lapse
or forgetfullness. Proof positive that one must watch what they say 'round these
parts "lest the past come up and smite thee". I'd have to say you proved
your point. That's why zoom doesn't hang out here, people have long memories.

I guess this goes to show that when it comes to memories we're all human and the
net is not :-)

See ya

Chuck S

[Marcus]

wrote in message >...
> My thanks to for the three URL's which cover the
> subject on which Bill took me to task.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2kblp
> http://tinyurl.com/3fcuj
> http://tinyurl.com/245zz

[snip]

Clearly Bigballs Bill never heard of the Ken Layne maxim, "This is the
internet, we can fact-check your ass!"

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, pacplyer says...
>
wrote <snip>
>>Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
>honesty and reasonableness. (which is suprising for BWB! ;-) Just
>kidding Bill.)

Your right it takes a gutsy guy to test fly "anything". I don't think Corky was
questioning what BWB said at the time because what BWB said sounded very
legitimate. And from the sound of BWB remarks now ,what was wrong evidently was
fixed. Sounds like it's a good unit now and that's what R and D is all about. No
dog in this race but just my .02 cents worth .

See ya

Chuck (I broke lots of reduction drives )S

[Morgans]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote > I guess this
goes to show that when it comes to memories we're all human and the
> net is not :-)
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S

And sometimes it stutters, too! And sometimes it stutters, too!

:-)
--
Jim in NC



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 6/26/2004

[bryan chaisone]

Bigballs Bill? He used to be Bill "The Grump" Phillips. To me he is
just Bigmouth Bill. A friggin A-hole and a half. He has no
memmories. He doesn't know or remembers who is on his side. He will
turn on you in a pinch. It is all about BWB and no one else. When
you question him, he will threaten to hunt you down and bite your head
off. He thinks he is an ex-Navy Seal or Green Baret, I can't remember
which. Half of his stories are wishful thinking anyway. He used to
post pictures of himself flying an R22 and a MD500, landing at various
places. He insinuated that he owned them. I used to be really
impressed. I went to Vegas and rented a R22 out of Silver State
Helicopters and reallized it was the same R22 that he flew and landed
on the bank of Lake Meade. I reallized that then that he didn't own
that helo nor the MD500, but I didn't question him. Then there was
the time when he told stories about the Raven (CIA FAC pilots) flying
out of Vietnam and not being able to fly into Cambodia or Laos.
Couldn't fly into Laos? I happened to know for a fact that the Ravens
were based out of Wat Tai Airport in Vientiane Laos. I also pointed
out the fact that more tonnage of US bombs were dropped on Laos than
both WWI and WWII combined. There's a lot of things going on in his
head, he can't get it all straight, most of it is bits and pieces of
what he's read or watched in a movie. Sometimes he thinks he has
lived them, a lot of it is wishful thinking. I used to like him for
who he was. Now I don't like him for who he is. Naw, I think I still
like him. I think its his old age. He's not taking it well, aging
that is. He forgets a lot now. He can't take a joke like he used to
be able to. Us younger ones have to make allowances for our
elderlies. Sometimes older folks get grouchy.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

(Marcus) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
> > My thanks to for the three URL's which cover the
> > subject on which Bill took me to task.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2kblp
> > http://tinyurl.com/3fcuj
> > http://tinyurl.com/245zz
>
> [snip]
>
> Clearly Bigballs Bill never heard of the Ken Layne maxim, "This is the
> internet, we can fact-check your ass!"

[[email protected]]

On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

>Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
>honesty and reasonableness.

I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.

> Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
>other than the one bad belt?

Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.

I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
machine.

That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
as he requested.

Corky Scott

[Don Lewis n FTW]

>
> That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
> him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
> comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
> harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
> for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
> as he requested.
>
> Corky Scott


Well said..................
Don Lewis n FTW

[C J Campbell]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message >
> I guess this goes to show that when it comes to memories we're all human
and the
> net is not :-)

BWB is human?!? Does this mean that I have to disband the church that I
founded or do I merely have to now give BWB half the collection take?

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:
>
>
>>Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
>>honesty and reasonableness.
>
>
> I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
> the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
> problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.
>
>
>>Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
>>other than the one bad belt?
>
>
> Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
> really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
> BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
> Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
> anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.
>
> I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
> just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
> knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
> become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
> machine.
>
> That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
> him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
> comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
> harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
> for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
> as he requested.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>

If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.

I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
that I can't remember now.

The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
one.


Matt

[Bruce A. Frank]

Matt,

The GMC 4.3L V-6 engine has been dependable with some minor after market
mods. As built by most it produces about 230 to 240 hp (and one I know
of that is producing 300 hp). The draw back is the weight. It is stock
with cast iron heads (versus the Ford's aluminum heads) and the after
market aluminum heads cost close to $2000 once the machine work is
finished.

The CG of both the Ford and Chevy V-6s, even with the PSRU is closer to
the firewall than the CG of the equivalent power Lycoming. The real
concern of mounting heavier engines is the moment on the mounting points
on the firewall. Overall CG of the plane can be adjusted, usually, with
placement of the battery.

In general, the Chevy, coming along after the development of the Ford
conversion and therefore benefiting from that prior art, manifest fewer
idiosyncrasies. The engine as built by Jess Myers (Belted Air Power) and
Johnny at Northwest Aero have proven to be very good choices for
auto-conversions.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
> >>honesty and reasonableness.
> >
> >
> > I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
> > the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
> > problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.
> >
> >
> >>Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
> >>other than the one bad belt?
> >
> >
> > Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
> > really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
> > BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
> > Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
> > anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.
> >
> > I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
> > just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
> > knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
> > become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
> > machine.
> >
> > That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
> > him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
> > comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
> > harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
> > for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
> > as he requested.
> >
> > Corky Scott
> >
> >
>
> If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
> I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
> a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
> of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
> in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
> didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
> would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.
>
> I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
> reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
> had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
> cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
> I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
> they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
> drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
> cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
> the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
> arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
> pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
> the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
> that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
> other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
> from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
> oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
> that I can't remember now.
>
> The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
> one.
>
> Matt

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Barnyard BOb -]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:52:12 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
>one.
>
>
>Matt
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THINK you'd be OK?????

Lordy, lordy, lordy.
Never a shortage of nominees for a Darwin Award.

Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
Is BWB correct or what?


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Bruce A. Frank]

There is a good article in the latest issue of "Kitplanes" ("Certified
vs. Homebuilt") about the Chevy conversion package.

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> The GMC 4.3L V-6 engine has been dependable with some minor after market
> mods. As built by most it produces about 230 to 240 hp (and one I know
> of that is producing 300 hp). The draw back is the weight. It is stock
> with cast iron heads (versus the Ford's aluminum heads) and the after
> market aluminum heads cost close to $2000 once the machine work is
> finished.
>
> The CG of both the Ford and Chevy V-6s, even with the PSRU is closer to
> the firewall than the CG of the equivalent power Lycoming. The real
> concern of mounting heavier engines is the moment on the mounting points
> on the firewall. Overall CG of the plane can be adjusted, usually, with
> placement of the battery.
>
> In general, the Chevy, coming along after the development of the Ford
> conversion and therefore benefiting from that prior art, manifest fewer
> idiosyncrasies. The engine as built by Jess Myers (Belted Air Power) and
> Johnny at Northwest Aero have proven to be very good choices for
> auto-conversions.
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
> > >>honesty and reasonableness.
> > >
> > >
> > > I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
> > > the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
> > > problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
> > >>other than the one bad belt?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
> > > really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
> > > BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
> > > Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
> > > anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.
> > >
> > > I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
> > > just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
> > > knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
> > > become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
> > > machine.
> > >
> > > That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
> > > him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
> > > comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
> > > harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
> > > for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
> > > as he requested.
> > >
> > > Corky Scott
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
> > I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
> > a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
> > of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
> > in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
> > didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
> > would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.
> >
> > I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
> > reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
> > had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
> > cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
> > I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
> > they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
> > drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
> > cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
> > the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
> > arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
> > pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
> > the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
> > that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
> > other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
> > from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
> > oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
> > that I can't remember now.
> >
> > The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
> > one.
> >
> > Matt
>

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Barnyard BOb -]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:07:56 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:

>There is a good article in the latest issue of "Kitplanes" ("Certified
>vs. Homebuilt") about the Chevy conversion package.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When it comes to "Kitplanes".....
check out their past coverage of the Mini-500 helicopter.
It could not have published better press.

It the nature of these kinds of magazines for Wannabies
to pump up and inflate whatever comes along or be silent.
It's how they make their living.

They are not "Consumers Reports" - where there is no advertising.


Barnyard BOb - Caveat Emptor

[Matt Whiting]

Barnyard BOb - wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:52:12 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
>>one.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> THINK you'd be OK?????

Think, as in I'd want to do a little more research on the reliability of
the Chevy V-6 as set up for flight by Belted Air Power. Initial
results look promising, but I like a little more than what I've seen so
far. However, my personal experience with the 4.3 is pretty good. It's
only significant failure still left it operational, albeit down probably
40 HP. Had this same thing happened in an airplane, the plane would
have still flown to a nearby airport.


> Lordy, lordy, lordy.
> Never a shortage of nominees for a Darwin Award.
>
> Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
> Is BWB correct or what?

You old-timers get pretty cranky when your Depends need changing.


Matt

[Badwater Bill]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:30:58 -0400,
wrote:

>My thanks to for the three URL's which cover the
>subject on which Bill took me to task.

I just got in from a trip so I haven't read the other responses to
this thread but I do have a question for you Corkman. Have you lost
your mind?

Here is your quote from a post last week:

__________________________________________________ _____
Is this the same airplane that you trashed here in this group because
of PSRU failures?

Corky Scott
__________________________________________________ ____

Now, since you are obviously too stupid to understand what you even
wrote, I'd like to point out to the rest of the people here who can
read that there were NEVER any failures of the PSRU. If you read what
I said years ago, I said that I was WORRIED about the PSRU, the
bearings and some other things concerning the cooling system. For
Christ's sake, how can even an idiot like you Corky, extrapolate to
"PSRU FAILURES" from what I wrote in that post?

This is typical RAH ****. This is exactly why I hate dealing with a
moron like you. An asshole like you sits in the sidelines, misquotes
what I said, what I did, then cross examines me on it. When I call
you on it, you post what I did say and you are too stupid to even be
able to read it. Jesus, man, are you okay? I think you need a
doctor.

And, guess what, Corkman, the PSRU never did fail. Neither did any of
the other things I was worried about. In fact the old men kept on
making modifications and changes and a lot of the stuff that was on my
list at that time was incorporated into that airplane. And...just
because I was worried about many things I didn't understand as a pilot
at that time, doesn't mean that I was right in being so. It never
failed that I know about. In fact the PSRU turned out to be just
about the most bullet proof part of the thing. There were much bigger
issues like burning 100 octane fuel that caused more problems than the
damn PSRU ever caused.

Then there was some moronic idiot who put jet fuel in it in Utah and
caused Jess to trash the engine. But that wasn't Jess's fault or a
design fault. But, that is the only emergency I ever heard about in
that airplane and it had absolutely nothing to do with Jess, Tom, Bill
Harold, the design or the workmanship.

Nope, the old men of the OMABP did a fine job over the years. I
wouldn't worry a bit about flying that thing cross country IFR at this
point.

Are you so simple minded that you actually extrapolated "PSRU
failures" from that old post? What a moron.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

>That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
>him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
>comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
>harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
>for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
>as he requested.
>
>Corky Scott
>


I asked you to find my quote about the PSRU failing. Since it never
did fail, you can't find my quote on that issue. There were a batch
of crappy belts produced by some manufacture at the time and that was
the only problem I was ever aware of concerning that PSRU. Jess found
out what batch numbers those were and avoided them or alerted anyone
he ever sold one to about the belt. In fact I seem to recal that he
sent them exchange belts free of charge he was so worried about it at
the time. But, there was NEVER a PSRU failure. And some of these
experimentals using Jess's PSRU have crashed over the years. But none
of the crashes were do to any PSRU failure.

Saying a PSRU that Belted Air Power built, failed is a serious
allegation. I would never say that unless I knew all the details and
was certain of it. That's why I challenged this idiot to produce my
post (which he obviously couldn't do).

Jess and I aren't kissin' cousins either. We've had our go-arounds.
But, I'm not going to trash Belted Air Power over something that never
happened. As far as I know there are thousands of hours on many
PSRU's that Jess has built and sold to homebuilders out there and I
have NEVER HEARD OF A PSRU FAILURE on one of those drives.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

I've been driving my Chevy Vortec engine around for 7 years in my
Silverado. Yes, it's a V-8, but it's the same thing, just a couple
more cylinders. I've got 80,000 miles on it now and I just drove it
back from Yosemite National Park today. Over the weekend I put
another 775 miles on it according to my new Garmin 296 in it's
"Automobile" mode. That engine has never missed a tick.

I have to refer back to something Bill Harrold said about 8 years ago
when Paul Lamar was in here swinging about auto conversions. Bill
said, "Well, guys like Lamar are touting massive failures but I drive
to Los Angeles all the time and I don't see Chevy S-10 trucks
polluting the sides of the roadways. And don't tell me that the wind
loads on these trucks isn't so high that many people drive them with
the peddal to the metal either."

Bill Harold's words are true. That run from Vegas to L.A. can be
brutal. I know of many occasions that I've run my Vortec engine in my
truck from Baker to Victorville with the throttle all the way open,
i.e. a manifold pressure near 28 inches for long periods of time.
Now, that's demanding full torque. If there were a problem, GM would
have found it after manufacturing literally millions of these vortec
engines.


>>
>
>If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
> I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
>a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
>of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
>in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
>didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
>would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.

What you ought to do is come here and take a FREE ride in that
airplane with Jess. Almost everyone who has done that buys one and
builds it. Hell, it's just a bolt on at this point.

>
>I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
>reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
>had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
>cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
> I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
>they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
>drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
>cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
>the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
>arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
>pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
>the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
>that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
>other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
>from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
>oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
>that I can't remember now.
>
>The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
>one.
>
>
>Matt

I may take that thing to Arlington on Wednesday. If you are around,
you might see us there.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:22:33 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:07:56 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:
>
>>There is a good article in the latest issue of "Kitplanes" ("Certified
>>vs. Homebuilt") about the Chevy conversion package.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>When it comes to "Kitplanes".....
>check out their past coverage of the Mini-500 helicopter.
>It could not have published better press.
>
>It the nature of these kinds of magazines for Wannabies
>to pump up and inflate whatever comes along or be silent.
>It's how they make their living.
>
>They are not "Consumers Reports" - where there is no advertising.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - Caveat Emptor

That's right. Ken Armstrong touted the Mini-500 in an issue that hit
the stands the month they went out of business. That Mini-500 was a
ball of worms but the Kitplanes article didn't point a bit of it out
in their last article on it.

The only way to really figure out what the hell is going on is to look
at the history of whatever it is you are concerned about. Don't rely
on Kitplanes or Custom Planes, or Sport Planes. They are in business
to make a profit and sell advertisement. What you do it get a list of
builders who are flying whatever it is you are interested in building.
Call every single one on that list and see how long they have been
flying, how hard it was to build, how hard it is to maintain, what
idiosyncracies it may have as far as the fuel it uses, or oil or other
things.

Tell the builder your level of experience both as a pilot and a
builder and ask them what they think your problems might be.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm no kissin' cousin of
Jess's either. He and I have gone around and around about many
things. I have no secret allegiance to him or anyone else at the
OMABP either. In fact I have nothing to do with them mostly. I don't
endorse it and I don't NOT endorse it. I'm neutral. But, at the time
I was involved, I had many unanswered questions so I got out of the
project. I thought the risk for my level of knowledge and the number
of unproven parts in that thing just proved too much risk for me to
continue being the test pilot on that project, especially since I was
doing it for FREE to boot.

Over the years, many of my concerns have been proven wrong. The PSRU
has proven to be a damn good unit. It's in many airplanes, it's flown
thousands of hours in them and to my knowledge there's never been a
failure. Also, many of my original concerns are now moot because they
did continue to modify that package over the years and address a great
number of the very things I was uncertain about.

So, my advice to any of you who might like to go this way is to just
get on the phone or the Internet and contact those who have done it
and see how satisfied, or unsatisfied they are. Don't depend upon
some goofy magazine article. All these magazine articles are is a
tiny little snapshot of the whole. I'm sure that Jess, Tom and I
could write up 1000 pages on the things that have happened and have
been modified on that package over the years. That's way too much for
a magazine to publish, and it doesn't tell you what you want to know
anyway.

What you want to know is, "Is it going to kill me?"

When I was a kid just learning to fly back in the early 1960's I used
to wonder if a wing might fall off. I asked my flight instructers and
some builders questions like that. What they told me is that I have
to believe in HISTORY. If there is no history of this Aeronica
Champ's wing falling off, then chances are the one you are flying
won't fall off.

Same thing with these auto engine conversions. At this point in the
game there is a lot of data on the Fords and the Chevy's. The history
looks good to me. I'd have to sort of go along with the
autoconversion freaks and say that they did it. I agree with Juaquin
(Whaa-keen) in his Kitplanes article although he didn't present all
the data. Bill Harold, Tom and Jess pretty much did what they set out
to do and that was to use a Chevy engine in place of a Lycosaur to
make that little airplane perform as well without the expensive
certified engine. Not only have they done it, but many others to whom
Jess has sold that package to over the years have done it too. So,
you have a big data base to look at now in order for you to make your
mind up.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:21 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:52:12 -0400, Matt Whiting
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
>>>one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> THINK you'd be OK?????
>
>Think, as in I'd want to do a little more research on the reliability of
> the Chevy V-6 as set up for flight by Belted Air Power. Initial
>results look promising, but I like a little more than what I've seen so
>far. However, my personal experience with the 4.3 is pretty good. It's
>only significant failure still left it operational, albeit down probably
>40 HP. Had this same thing happened in an airplane, the plane would
>have still flown to a nearby airport.
>
>
>> Lordy, lordy, lordy.
>> Never a shortage of nominees for a Darwin Award.
>>
>> Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
>> Is BWB correct or what?
>
>You old-timers get pretty cranky when your Depends need changing.
>
>
>Matt


As I said above. Call Jess, come to Vegas and fly it. Get a list of
all the people who are flying them and do some research. Figure out
what their problems are.
BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 09:39:55 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message >
>> I guess this goes to show that when it comes to memories we're all human
>and the
>> net is not :-)
>
>BWB is human?!? Does this mean that I have to disband the church that I
>founded or do I merely have to now give BWB half the collection take?
>


You guys can't read. I asked that idiot to point out where I'd made
the statement that the PSRU's failed. Since they never have, I never
made the statement. My concerns were over bearings in the PSRU, but
my concerns were invalid. The bearings are fine. Corky proved
nothing.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On 3 Jul 2004 06:37:45 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
wrote:

>Bigballs Bill? He used to be Bill "The Grump" Phillips. To me he is
>just Bigmouth Bill. A friggin A-hole and a half. He has no
>memmories. He doesn't know or remembers who is on his side. He will
>turn on you in a pinch. It is all about BWB and no one else. When
>you question him, he will threaten to hunt you down and bite your head
>off. He thinks he is an ex-Navy Seal or Green Baret, I can't remember
>which. Half of his stories are wishful thinking anyway. He used to
>post pictures of himself flying an R22 and a MD500, landing at various
>places. He insinuated that he owned them. I used to be really
>impressed. I went to Vegas and rented a R22 out of Silver State
>Helicopters and reallized it was the same R22 that he flew and landed
>on the bank of Lake Meade. I reallized that then that he didn't own
>that helo nor the MD500, but I didn't question him. Then there was
>the time when he told stories about the Raven (CIA FAC pilots) flying
>out of Vietnam and not being able to fly into Cambodia or Laos.
>Couldn't fly into Laos? I happened to know for a fact that the Ravens
>were based out of Wat Tai Airport in Vientiane Laos. I also pointed
>out the fact that more tonnage of US bombs were dropped on Laos than
>both WWI and WWII combined. There's a lot of things going on in his
>head, he can't get it all straight, most of it is bits and pieces of
>what he's read or watched in a movie. Sometimes he thinks he has
>lived them, a lot of it is wishful thinking. I used to like him for
>who he was. Now I don't like him for who he is. Naw, I think I still
>like him. I think its his old age. He's not taking it well, aging
>that is. He forgets a lot now. He can't take a joke like he used to
>be able to. Us younger ones have to make allowances for our
>elderlies. Sometimes older folks get grouchy.
>
>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

You know Bryan, you just about hit me on the head. I'll give you guys
a clue. Just like any other fiction writer, about 80% of it is truth
and about 20% of it is embellishment. If you keep that in mind,
you'll have a better time. Just because I post pictures of myself
standing next to helicopters and airplanes that I fly, that doesn't
mean I own them. If you look closely at all of my posts, I never said
I owned any of these helicopters. The only helicopter I ever owned
was a Mini-500. The government owned the rest, or Silver State, or
Kevin Morris, Chris Hukill and other buddies.

It's you guys who extrapolate to me owning all this stuff and flying
missions into Cambodia. Hell, I've never even been to the South East.
I'm a story writer Bryan. That's all. I rarely get serious about
anything, especially here on this **** for brains ng.

Why don't you just kick back and enjoy the story for what it's worth?
That's all there is to it.

It's not that I'm getting old and can't remember. It's that I'm bull
****ting you and can't remember!

Sure, I've done some real stuff. I did test fly that RV-6A for the
first 100 hours. And, I did test fly Carl Strom's RV-6 with a
Lycoming in it and crash it in the desert. Kind of interesting out of
all the hours I flew Jess's auto conversion I never crashed, but I
crashed the one with the Lycoming in it.

Anyway, some of the stuff I write is true, most is embellished. If
you keep that in mind, you'll be better off. I won't try to embellish
something that has anything to do with safety however. Safety if
paramount to me. But, as far as the stories about Air America and the
crap like that, DON'T believe a word of it.

I get a kick out of some of you here though. It seems that someone
always picks on me about something I really did do. It's always the
wrong thing they pick. Like the years I spent on the EPA projects. I
never mentioned that in detail until recently. I was waiting for
years for someone to call me on that and guess what? All of that was
true and they got creamed when they finally did call me on it.

So, you just never know, do you. I've done enough of it, that I can
hold my own in this "Bar-Room" kind of bull **** session. Some of it
it extremely factual. But it's like any other profession. If you
have been a real professional at times in your life, you can fill in
the gaps with some intersting bull **** too.

The big problem with the average reader here in RAH is that they have
done almost nothing. They can't fly, they can't build, and they are
too lazy to try.

Anybody like me with a few thousand hours in helicopters, airplanes,
balloons, gliders, gyros, hang gliders, etc. and who has rebuilt
airplanes since high school, can just about walk over any of the self
proclaimed know it alls who really comprise the majority of this ng.
It's not even a challenge.

Look at a guy like Pac. He's in the same position. He really does
have the ratings and the flying time. It's no challenge to him when
some Cessna 150 pilot with 30 hours confronts him over something.

Anyway, just sitting in here and telling the facts all the time is
boring. I'm a story teller in real life. I love a good novel and a
good story. And, I have read a lot, so I can write about SE Asia and
Laos if I chose to. I can write about it well enough to fool even you
who lived there.

But, I'm telling you up front Bryan, I'm a story teller first, a pilot
and a builder second. Don't lose track of that and you won't be
trying to research my posts for the past 10 years like Corky did
trying to trip me up.

BWB

[Matt Whiting]

Badwater Bill wrote:

> And, guess what, Corkman, the PSRU never did fail. Neither did any of
> the other things I was worried about. In fact the old men kept on
> making modifications and changes and a lot of the stuff that was on my
> list at that time was incorporated into that airplane. And...just
> because I was worried about many things I didn't understand as a pilot
> at that time, doesn't mean that I was right in being so. It never
> failed that I know about. In fact the PSRU turned out to be just
> about the most bullet proof part of the thing. There were much bigger
> issues like burning 100 octane fuel that caused more problems than the
> damn PSRU ever caused.

I'm not an engine guru, so what is the issue with 100LL fuel? My
recollection when the auto industry converted from leaded fuel to
unleaded, that it was the lack of lead that caused burned valves and
required different valves and valve seats. I do understand that higher
octane means a slower flame front. My guess is that the higher octane
in 100LL is keeping the combustion event ongoing long enough that the
exhaust valve opens while the fire is still pretty hot. Is this what
causes the valve problems? It can't be lack of lead as 100LL still has
lots, even with the "low lead" description.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Badwater Bill wrote:


> I may take that thing to Arlington on Wednesday. If you are around,
> you might see us there.
>
> BWB

I'm on the east coast so I likely won't run across you any time soon and
my RV project will almost certainly be a retirement project with three
kids to put through college and the first just two years from starting.
Hopefully, but then the auto powered RVs will be very well established
and the only question left will be Subaru or Chevy. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Badwater Bill wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:21 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:52:12 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>THINK you'd be OK?????
>>
>>Think, as in I'd want to do a little more research on the reliability of
>> the Chevy V-6 as set up for flight by Belted Air Power. Initial
>>results look promising, but I like a little more than what I've seen so
>>far. However, my personal experience with the 4.3 is pretty good. It's
>>only significant failure still left it operational, albeit down probably
>>40 HP. Had this same thing happened in an airplane, the plane would
>>have still flown to a nearby airport.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Lordy, lordy, lordy.
>>>Never a shortage of nominees for a Darwin Award.
>>>
>>>Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
>>>Is BWB correct or what?
>>
>>You old-timers get pretty cranky when your Depends need changing.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> As I said above. Call Jess, come to Vegas and fly it. Get a list of
> all the people who are flying them and do some research. Figure out
> what their problems are.
> BWB
>

That is exactly what I will do when I get ready to build.

Matt

[Badwater Bill]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:19:43 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Badwater Bill wrote:
>
>
>> I may take that thing to Arlington on Wednesday. If you are around,
>> you might see us there.
>>
>> BWB
>
>I'm on the east coast so I likely won't run across you any time soon and
>my RV project will almost certainly be a retirement project with three
>kids to put through college and the first just two years from starting.
> Hopefully, but then the auto powered RVs will be very well established
>and the only question left will be Subaru or Chevy. :-)
>
>
>Matt


To tell you all the truth, in 1997 I didn't believe these guys would
be able to pull it off (but I didn't know anything about it either and
was there to learn). I flew the thing as a test pilot because I like
flying strange and different stuff. I did get concerned about all the
topics that Corkscrew posted in a rehash of my post when I quit the
project. But, over the years, they did fix a lot of stuff and I was
proven wrong. The thing does work and it seems to work well.

I just got off the phone with Tom Jones 10 minutes ago and they read
some of the stuff I just posted this evening. Tom told me that Jess
has bent over backward to replace things that may have not even been
defective when he thought he might have had a problem.

All of the PSRU is all computer cut and/or machined with lasers etc.
Jess found that some gear that was out of spec a few years ago and
went nuts about it. It turned out that all of the ones he'd sent out
were out of this country too. He paid for their returns from all over
the world only to find that he really didn't have a problem. But, he
replaced them all anyway with gears that were within spec. And, the
gear manufacturer who screwed him up didn't pay a nickel of it.

He's been very safety conscious about that product and that's my
primary concern about any of these homebuilder manufacturers.

The belts were a different issue. I actually failed one on the ground
once, when I was doing some really radical tests on it. The whole
team went ballistic about it and looked into that whole series of
belts. It was in 1997 I think. Jess doesn't even use that same type
of belt anymore but he did find that there was a defective batch. He
replaced everyone of them in the field at his expense although there
was never a failure.

Tom just told me that to our knowledge, there has NEVER been any
failure of the PSRU that Belted Air Power builds and sells. NEVER.

That's why it ****es me off to see some **** head like Corky Scott
tell you people that I posted there were PSRU failures. That's not
just bull **** and a bold face lie, it's libel. I think he's got his
head up his ass as usual. Just another sideliner with his head up his
ass making big claims about things he knows nothing about.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

PSRU ever caused.
>
>I'm not an engine guru, so what is the issue with 100LL fuel? My
>recollection when the auto industry converted from leaded fuel to
>unleaded, that it was the lack of lead that caused burned valves and
>required different valves and valve seats. I do understand that higher
>octane means a slower flame front. My guess is that the higher octane
>in 100LL is keeping the combustion event ongoing long enough that the
>exhaust valve opens while the fire is still pretty hot. Is this what
>causes the valve problems? It can't be lack of lead as 100LL still has
>lots, even with the "low lead" description.
>
>
>Matt

You are dead on Matt. They Old Men were worried because the fuel
burns slower and burning fuel goes out of the exhaust valve. They
were worried that the valve would burn, so they did some things so
that wouldn't happen. It's in Jack's article in Kitplanes this month
(look on page 46).

I'm not an engine mechanic but what that article says is because of
this worry. They made sure they used a cam with a different profile
because GM provides that engine with six possibilities. You just don't
know what you are going to get.

They used hardened seats and stainless steel valves with chrome plated
stems, plus hard tips with bronze guides so nothing would stick and
freeze up on them using the 100 LL. Tom thinks that was all an over
kill but I have no idea. So, you'll just have to make your own
conclusions.

BWB

[Morgans]

> >
> >I'm not an engine guru, so what is the issue with 100LL fuel?

> They used hardened seats and stainless steel valves with chrome plated
> stems, plus hard tips with bronze guides so nothing would stick and
> freeze up on them using the 100 LL. Tom thinks that was all an over
> kill but I have no idea. So, you'll just have to make your own
> conclusions.
>
The other issue is that in conversions that use oxygen sensors, they wipe
out the sensor, in a fairly short period of time.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date: 7/2/2004

[Bruce A. Frank]

Gee, Bill, I actually remember your inadvertent post about a belt
failure. (intended as a private post).

I was also aware of a statement from someone that belt failures were
because of the type of belt being used in the beginning and the fact
that there was not enough airflow around the PSRU. The inadequately
cooled belt would soften and the cog teeth would strip. I believe the
belt at that time was a urethane construction which couldn't take the
heat as well as belts of other construction.

Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:19:43 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
> >Badwater Bill wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I may take that thing to Arlington on Wednesday. If you are around,
> >> you might see us there.
> >>
> >> BWB
> >
> >I'm on the east coast so I likely won't run across you any time soon and
> >my RV project will almost certainly be a retirement project with three
> >kids to put through college and the first just two years from starting.
> > Hopefully, but then the auto powered RVs will be very well established
> >and the only question left will be Subaru or Chevy. :-)
> >
> >
> >Matt
>
> To tell you all the truth, in 1997 I didn't believe these guys would
> be able to pull it off (but I didn't know anything about it either and
> was there to learn). I flew the thing as a test pilot because I like
> flying strange and different stuff. I did get concerned about all the
> topics that Corkscrew posted in a rehash of my post when I quit the
> project. But, over the years, they did fix a lot of stuff and I was
> proven wrong. The thing does work and it seems to work well.
>
> I just got off the phone with Tom Jones 10 minutes ago and they read
> some of the stuff I just posted this evening. Tom told me that Jess
> has bent over backward to replace things that may have not even been
> defective when he thought he might have had a problem.
>
> All of the PSRU is all computer cut and/or machined with lasers etc.
> Jess found that some gear that was out of spec a few years ago and
> went nuts about it. It turned out that all of the ones he'd sent out
> were out of this country too. He paid for their returns from all over
> the world only to find that he really didn't have a problem. But, he
> replaced them all anyway with gears that were within spec. And, the
> gear manufacturer who screwed him up didn't pay a nickel of it.
>
> He's been very safety conscious about that product and that's my
> primary concern about any of these homebuilder manufacturers.
>
> The belts were a different issue. I actually failed one on the ground
> once, when I was doing some really radical tests on it. The whole
> team went ballistic about it and looked into that whole series of
> belts. It was in 1997 I think. Jess doesn't even use that same type
> of belt anymore but he did find that there was a defective batch. He
> replaced everyone of them in the field at his expense although there
> was never a failure.
>
> Tom just told me that to our knowledge, there has NEVER been any
> failure of the PSRU that Belted Air Power builds and sells. NEVER.
>
> That's why it ****es me off to see some **** head like Corky Scott
> tell you people that I posted there were PSRU failures. That's not
> just bull **** and a bold face lie, it's libel. I think he's got his
> head up his ass as usual. Just another sideliner with his head up his
> ass making big claims about things he knows nothing about.
>
> BWB

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[bryan chaisone]

No disrespect for you or Big B, Bob. I have read many of your posts
and have much respect for you, but this is .homebuilt. Most readers
and posters here ARE WANNABIES and proud of that fact. We do WANNABE
better pilots and builders. We do WANNABE more experienced. Both you
and Big B were once where most of us are here now.

CLUELESS? Everyone on this earth is CLUELESS. No one here knows that
one day they might offend the wrong person and have that person
actually do track them down and bite their heads off, (only without
prior showing any signs or warnings).

Not everybody on this earth will beat on their chest and threaten
people ahead of time when they are offended. They just might one day
see that person at some event and beat the sh*t out of them without
warning or explanation. Better yet, they might just track that person
down and do the same just because they know that that person deserves
it.

Calling people names is just not wise. You never know how a person
will react, especially people you have only met on the net.
Personally calling people names really turns me off. I loose all
respect and admiration for the smartest and most experienced people
just because they are arrogant and ignorant. The smartest people, and
those that think they are smart are clueless themselves. If they were
smart, they wouldn't resort to calling names or resort to threat. If
they were smart they'd just go ahead and do what they said they'd do
and not give any warning.

I'm just surprised by the things that come out of the mouths of people
who are as old or supposedly as smart as Big B. Aren't you supposed
to know better when you're that old?

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message
>
> Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
> Is BWB correct or what?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Kevin Horton]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:19:14 +0000, Badwater Bill wrote:

>
>>That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have him
>>against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
>>comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
>>harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it for
>>all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done as he
>>requested.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>>
>>
>
> I asked you to find my quote about the PSRU failing. Since it never did
> fail, you can't find my quote on that issue. There were a batch of crappy
> belts produced by some manufacture at the time and that was the only
> problem I was ever aware of concerning that PSRU. Jess found out what
> batch numbers those were and avoided them or alerted anyone he ever sold
> one to about the belt. In fact I seem to recal that he sent them exchange
> belts free of charge he was so worried about it at the time. But, there
> was NEVER a PSRU failure. And some of these experimentals using Jess's
> PSRU have crashed over the years. But none of the crashes were do to any
> PSRU failure.
>

If the prop stops turning, does it matter that it was only a belt failure
and not a failure of some other part of the PSRU? The belt is an
integral part of the PSRU, not some optional add-on. I think Corky did
exactly what you asked him too.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:19:14 GMT, (Badwater
Bill) wrote:

>I asked you to find my quote about the PSRU failing. Since it never
>did fail, you can't find my quote on that issue.

Bill, the PSRU is a component system. There are many different types
but the one we are discussing uses a cog belt for the reduction
portion. If the belt fails, does the PSRU still transmit power? If
not, then why is that not called a PSRU failure? Are you going to
claim that any failure, to be legitimately called a failure, must
consist of the entire PSRU disintegrating?

A busted belt is just as total a failure as a melted bearing.

Thanks for bringing everyone up to date on the recent details and
Jess's efforts at quality control, all good information.

You may not get this, but I hope others who are reading this thread
can understand how I might be confused with your current support of
the OMABP after that post describing the problems back in '97. Since
then until your question about the Kitplanes magazine article on them,
you've said nothing more on the subject.

That's why I asked the question.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb -]

On 6 Jul 2004 00:09:18 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
wrote:

>No disrespect for you or Big B, Bob. I have read many of your posts
>and have much respect for you, but this is .homebuilt. Most readers
>and posters here ARE WANNABIES and proud of that fact. We do WANNABE
>better pilots and builders. We do WANNABE more experienced. Both you
>and Big B were once where most of us are here now.
>
>CLUELESS? Everyone on this earth is CLUELESS. No one here knows that
>one day they might offend the wrong person and have that person
>actually do track them down and bite their heads off, (only without
>prior showing any signs or warnings).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me clarify.

There are STUDENTS....
and then there are the wannabies, the clueless, etcetera.

STUDENTS_ learn_ and_ progress.
The rest of the crop are mostly stuck in transmit mode.

The posts tell the story....
At least to some of us that are paying attention.


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

[pacplyer]

(bryan chaisone) wrote
>
> Calling people names is just not wise. You never know how a person
> will react, especially people you have only met on the net.
> Personally calling people names really turns me off. I loose all
> respect and admiration for the smartest and most experienced people
> just because they are arrogant and ignorant. The smartest people, and
> those that think they are smart are clueless themselves. If they were
> smart, they wouldn't resort to calling names or resort to threat. If
> they were smart they'd just go ahead and do what they said they'd do
> and not give any warning.
> snip
> Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>

Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. In aviation, which I've been in all of my life,
you accord respect to those who have been practicing the prior art
successfully for more man-years than you have, because it is not wise
to do otherwise. Professional pilots have the benefit of living in a
real world classroom for ten to twenty years (sometimes less) before
they become PIC. Single pilot ops at 500 hrs are the most dangerous
kind in aviation but you guys seem to think after the government's
done mistraining you, that you can't be killed since you're a polite
person in society and the FAA's looking out for you. You see locker
room language and extensions of middle fingers on the screen, whereas,
I see emotion that's trying to tell me something important from a man
with more experience in that area than I have. Over 80% of human
communication is through facial expressions. The only way to covey
facial expression on this type of medium is through "smileys" or to
expand your vocabulary (including the use of profanity to convey
emotion.) We all would like to avoid mud-fights, but in this case I
think Corky was challenging BWB's honesty (solely because Bill was
featured in Kitplanes,) and Bill had a right to defend it. Now I
don't want to see this type of theater from you Bryan, because you
aren't an experienced builder/instructor yet. You probably still have
a lot to learn.

Guys like BWB and BYB are IMHO valuable resources to draw on for the
NG. I don't get along with them half the time myself, but I try to
overlook their faults (especially BOb's) and realize that
personalities like these, that don't care what others think of them,
are usually the most honest posters when it comes to content. They
post to amuse themselves and impart some reality to the group.
Whereas the average polite poster frequently: 1: has no idea what he's
talking about. 2: Worries so much about how he will be perceived that
even if he did know what he was talking about, would never dare to
voraciously correct something he's an expert on for fear of unfair
reprisal in the real world. Now you referenced someone kicking the
**** out of BWB in the real world. If someone can't win an argument
on the net and they take things to underhanded road-rage levels in the
real world, (stabbing holes in airplanes or hacking computers) they
shouldn't be surprised if it escalates into their back yard on some
dark night.

But we're just not going to use the same PC yardstick for old-school
guys like these who are hanging around here for free, trying to give
you a different perspective on flying and building. If it's too
salty, why don't you head on over to: rec.domestic.teaparty and I'm
sure they will moderate out any offensive historical truths about
trading tea for opium, so your polite tea-sipping won't be disturbed.
Sorry Bryan, but I'm not just going to sit here and watch you
lecture the instructor on his choice of language. If you don't like
it, don't take his class.

We like you Bryan buddy, but changing people is usually not possible.

pacplyer - out

[bryan chaisone]

As I have apologized to you in my response to your private email to
me, I apologize to you here publicly. What I said was said in the
heat of passion, I humbly apologize.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message >...
> On 3 Jul 2004 06:37:45 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
> wrote:
>
> >Bigballs Bill? He used to be Bill "The Grump" Phillips. To me he is
> >just Bigmouth Bill. A friggin A-hole and a half. He has no
> >memmories. He doesn't know or remembers who is on his side. He will
> >turn on you in a pinch. It is all about BWB and no one else. When
> >you question him, he will threaten to hunt you down and bite your head
> >off. He thinks he is an ex-Navy Seal or Green Baret, I can't remember
> >which. Half of his stories are wishful thinking anyway. He used to
> >post pictures of himself flying an R22 and a MD500, landing at various
> >places. He insinuated that he owned them. I used to be really
> >impressed. I went to Vegas and rented a R22 out of Silver State
> >Helicopters and reallized it was the same R22 that he flew and landed
> >on the bank of Lake Meade. I reallized that then that he didn't own
> >that helo nor the MD500, but I didn't question him. Then there was
> >the time when he told stories about the Raven (CIA FAC pilots) flying
> >out of Vietnam and not being able to fly into Cambodia or Laos.
> >Couldn't fly into Laos? I happened to know for a fact that the Ravens
> >were based out of Wat Tai Airport in Vientiane Laos. I also pointed
> >out the fact that more tonnage of US bombs were dropped on Laos than
> >both WWI and WWII combined. There's a lot of things going on in his
> >head, he can't get it all straight, most of it is bits and pieces of
> >what he's read or watched in a movie. Sometimes he thinks he has
> >lived them, a lot of it is wishful thinking. I used to like him for
> >who he was. Now I don't like him for who he is. Naw, I think I still
> >like him. I think its his old age. He's not taking it well, aging
> >that is. He forgets a lot now. He can't take a joke like he used to
> >be able to. Us younger ones have to make allowances for our
> >elderlies. Sometimes older folks get grouchy.
> >
> >Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>
> You know Bryan, you just about hit me on the head. I'll give you guys
> a clue. Just like any other fiction writer, about 80% of it is truth
> and about 20% of it is embellishment. If you keep that in mind,
> you'll have a better time. Just because I post pictures of myself
> standing next to helicopters and airplanes that I fly, that doesn't
> mean I own them. If you look closely at all of my posts, I never said
> I owned any of these helicopters. The only helicopter I ever owned
> was a Mini-500. The government owned the rest, or Silver State, or
> Kevin Morris, Chris Hukill and other buddies.
>
> It's you guys who extrapolate to me owning all this stuff and flying
> missions into Cambodia. Hell, I've never even been to the South East.
> I'm a story writer Bryan. That's all. I rarely get serious about
> anything, especially here on this **** for brains ng.
>
> Why don't you just kick back and enjoy the story for what it's worth?
> That's all there is to it.
>
> It's not that I'm getting old and can't remember. It's that I'm bull
> ****ting you and can't remember!
>
> Sure, I've done some real stuff. I did test fly that RV-6A for the
> first 100 hours. And, I did test fly Carl Strom's RV-6 with a
> Lycoming in it and crash it in the desert. Kind of interesting out of
> all the hours I flew Jess's auto conversion I never crashed, but I
> crashed the one with the Lycoming in it.
>
> Anyway, some of the stuff I write is true, most is embellished. If
> you keep that in mind, you'll be better off. I won't try to embellish
> something that has anything to do with safety however. Safety if
> paramount to me. But, as far as the stories about Air America and the
> crap like that, DON'T believe a word of it.
>
> I get a kick out of some of you here though. It seems that someone
> always picks on me about something I really did do. It's always the
> wrong thing they pick. Like the years I spent on the EPA projects. I
> never mentioned that in detail until recently. I was waiting for
> years for someone to call me on that and guess what? All of that was
> true and they got creamed when they finally did call me on it.
>
> So, you just never know, do you. I've done enough of it, that I can
> hold my own in this "Bar-Room" kind of bull **** session. Some of it
> it extremely factual. But it's like any other profession. If you
> have been a real professional at times in your life, you can fill in
> the gaps with some intersting bull **** too.
>
> The big problem with the average reader here in RAH is that they have
> done almost nothing. They can't fly, they can't build, and they are
> too lazy to try.
>
> Anybody like me with a few thousand hours in helicopters, airplanes,
> balloons, gliders, gyros, hang gliders, etc. and who has rebuilt
> airplanes since high school, can just about walk over any of the self
> proclaimed know it alls who really comprise the majority of this ng.
> It's not even a challenge.
>
> Look at a guy like Pac. He's in the same position. He really does
> have the ratings and the flying time. It's no challenge to him when
> some Cessna 150 pilot with 30 hours confronts him over something.
>
> Anyway, just sitting in here and telling the facts all the time is
> boring. I'm a story teller in real life. I love a good novel and a
> good story. And, I have read a lot, so I can write about SE Asia and
> Laos if I chose to. I can write about it well enough to fool even you
> who lived there.
>
> But, I'm telling you up front Bryan, I'm a story teller first, a pilot
> and a builder second. Don't lose track of that and you won't be
> trying to research my posts for the past 10 years like Corky did
> trying to trip me up.
>
> BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On 6 Jul 2004 12:22:48 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
wrote:

>As I have apologized to you in my response to your private email to
>me, I apologize to you here publicly. What I said was said in the
>heat of passion, I humbly apologize.
>
>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Don't you love it Bryan! I mean the HEAT of PASSION! Hell most of
the old ****s here couldn't get their heart rate up of a naked woman
walked by them. At least you are alive my man!

Don't sweat it. I'd have been ****ed off too if you got me confused
with the general moron of RAH. You had a right to be ****ed. You owe
me no apology at all. I screwed up, plain and simple. I just didn't
recognize you as the Bryan I knew. I think that I thought your name
was spelled Brian and that threw me. And, as you so appropriately
said, I'm getting old and feeble minded. Hell, I even have long
periods nowadays when I don't think of sex. That's really getting
old. Yesterday I had 12 minutes when I didn't think about sex at all.

When I get that Lancair Legacy done in a couple years, you are my
first invitation to come out and take a ride at 300 mph!

Just bought my O-550 today. Whaa-Hoooo That baby is gonna go with
the super charger on it at flight level 250! I just hope I don't die
of old age before I finish it and fly it. But, considering that the
thing is a "Lick and Stick" it ought to go fast. I mean after two
weeks at the factory using their jigs, you bring home a glued together
fuselage and the wings are closed. So, you just lick it and stick it
and the body is almost there. No 20,000 rivets. Eat your heart out
Amp Meter and you other RV builders! Ha!

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Let me clarify.
>
>There are STUDENTS....
>and then there are the wannabies, the clueless, etcetera.
>
>STUDENTS_ learn_ and_ progress.
>The rest of the crop are mostly stuck in transmit mode.
>
>The posts tell the story....
>At least to some of us that are paying attention.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -
>The more people I meet,
>the more I love my dog
>and George Carlin humor.


Although I hate to pat Bourbon on the back, he's right. There are
students who progress and do things. Bryan is one who does. But
Bryan is rare on this group.

Bryan is not a sideliner. He's not someone who watches this game from
the pits. He's an actor. He's a player. He's in the football field,
not cheering on the lines. That gives him a big difference in his
perspective. He's done a lot in his short lifetime. I'm proud of
him and his accomplishments. And, he is something I will never be,
that I admire, he's humble.

But Bryan I have to tell you something. As you get older, you do know
better, you just get tired of taking **** from idiots. You'll see my
young man. You'll see.

Look at this idiot who accuses me of saying that Jess's PSRU's failed.
How simple minded could you be? The guy libeled himself. He opened
himself up to a law suit if he caused me damages. What if I made my
money test-flying homebuilts for developers of things like Jess
developed and this idiot said this in a public forum and cost me a few
future jobs? There would be real damages because of his loose lips
and misinterpretations. I'd have to sue him.

So, instead of suing him, I just belittle him for being stupid here in
the same public forum. If he had his brain screwed on right IMHO,
he'd apologize. But, he's too full of himself for that. The reality
of it is that he screwed up. He owed me an apology and if he cost me
money, he'd owe me that money that he cost me. That's what the law
suit system is all about...recovery.

However, since he didn't cost me anything, I won't sue him. Because I
won't sue him, he's got a "Get out of Jail Free" card and he can
continue to shoot off his ignorant mouth. The only recourse I have is
to play with him a bit and point out how really profoundly stupid he
is by doing what he did.

I think as you get older you learn to call people's bluff like this
more and when you do, you get your pound of flesh for them screwing
with you. It's a lot simpler than using the legal system, and it's a
lot less damaging. Yeah, the guy might kick my ass someday, so what?
I've had my ass kicked before. But, I might surprise him and it could
go the other way too. I doubt that anything like that would ever
happen, hell, the guy is a librarian. Does that sound like a street
fighter?

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

>
>But we're just not going to use the same PC yardstick for old-school
>guys like these who are hanging around here for free, trying to give
>you a different perspective on flying and building. If it's too
>salty, why don't you head on over to: rec.domestic.teaparty and I'm
>sure they will moderate out any offensive historical truths about
>trading tea for opium, so your polite tea-sipping won't be disturbed.
> Sorry Bryan, but I'm not just going to sit here and watch you
>lecture the instructor on his choice of language. If you don't like
>it, don't take his class.
>
>We like you Bryan buddy, but changing people is usually not possible.
>
>pacplyer - out



BBWWAWAAHHHAHHAHAAAAA

Pac, you crack me up. Only another brother with a lot of flying-time
can see through the bull ****. Isn't it interesting how clear all
this is to us, but how few will understand anything you had to say
above. And Bourbon? Hell, he sees all this too. He's been yanking a
stick since we were ****ting in our diapers. It's infinitely clear to
him too even though he's a cranky old **** and he ****es me off most
of the time too.

In Bryan's case, he'll understand your message. But, most won't. He's
done quit a bit that's transparent to the ng. He's one of us, he's
just a younger version, so he puts his head on a chopping block so we
can pick on him. Also, he's oriental, and as you know since you are
married to an oriental, they have manners far beyond anything that we
will ever have six lifetimes from now. I think most of what Bryan is
saying is related to his Asian culture of being mannerly. He came
from a culture where if you weren't mannerly they simply cut your head
off.

Have a nice day.

BWB

[John Ammeter]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:07:41 GMT,
(Badwater Bill) wrote:

>On 6 Jul 2004 12:22:48 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
>wrote:
>
>>As I have apologized to you in my response to your private email to
>>me, I apologize to you here publicly. What I said was said in the
>>heat of passion, I humbly apologize.
>>
>>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>
>Don't you love it Bryan! I mean the HEAT of PASSION! Hell most of
>the old ****s here couldn't get their heart rate up of a naked woman
>walked by them. At least you are alive my man!
>
>Don't sweat it. I'd have been ****ed off too if you got me confused
>with the general moron of RAH. You had a right to be ****ed. You owe
>me no apology at all. I screwed up, plain and simple. I just didn't
>recognize you as the Bryan I knew. I think that I thought your name
>was spelled Brian and that threw me. And, as you so appropriately
>said, I'm getting old and feeble minded. Hell, I even have long
>periods nowadays when I don't think of sex. That's really getting
>old. Yesterday I had 12 minutes when I didn't think about sex at all.
>
>When I get that Lancair Legacy done in a couple years, you are my
>first invitation to come out and take a ride at 300 mph!
>
>Just bought my O-550 today. Whaa-Hoooo That baby is gonna go with
>the super charger on it at flight level 250! I just hope I don't die
>of old age before I finish it and fly it. But, considering that the
>thing is a "Lick and Stick" it ought to go fast. I mean after two
>weeks at the factory using their jigs, you bring home a glued together
>fuselage and the wings are closed. So, you just lick it and stick it
>and the body is almost there. No 20,000 rivets. Eat your heart out
>Amp Meter and you other RV builders! Ha!
>
>BWB
>

At least, I KNOW every damned rivet and I KNEW that it
wouldn't fall apart at altitude. Do you have the same
confidence that the composite "glue" will do the same??

How cold is it at altitude? What happens when you get a
lightening strike on that fuselage? With the resistance of
the composite fuselage you'll get a tremendous voltage drop
across it when the lightening strikes. And Power equals
voltage drop times current. How do you think you'll like
dissipating a megawatthour of energy in that small area??

I'll stick to metal airplanes... Lightening hits them and
simply flows through with little or no voltage drop...

John

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:07:41 +0000, Badwater Bill wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2004 12:22:48 -0700, (bryan chaisone) wrote:
>
>>As I have apologized to you in my response to your private email to me, I
>>apologize to you here publicly. What I said was said in the heat of
>>passion, I humbly apologize.
>>
>>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>
> Don't you love it Bryan! I mean the HEAT of PASSION! Hell most of the
> old ****s here couldn't get their heart rate up of a naked woman walked by
> them. At least you are alive my man!
>
And to top it all off, he had the guts to admit he was getting passionate
about you, BWB. Not many guys would dare to admit that. At least not
here where many folks know what you look like :)

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Badwater Bill]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:32:28 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:

>Gee, Bill, I actually remember your inadvertent post about a belt
>failure. (intended as a private post).
>
>I was also aware of a statement from someone that belt failures were
>because of the type of belt being used in the beginning and the fact
>that there was not enough airflow around the PSRU. The inadequately
>cooled belt would soften and the cog teeth would strip. I believe the
>belt at that time was a urethane construction which couldn't take the
>heat as well as belts of other construction.

You're right. I remember thinking that there might be a cooling issue
that caused me to trash that belt on the ground test. And, since we
had a batch of weak belts maybe that had something to do with the belt
failure I had. A defective belt, plus some excessive heating might
have caused a problem. But an experimental test on the ground on a
research project is simply another data point. It's not a PSRU
failure or a safety issue. I remember the test and I was torquing
that belt from zero to full throttle, back and forth in hot
conditions, on the ground with no air flow over the PSRU and/or the
belt. That was hardly a "Flying" scenario. It was designed to ferret
out any weaknesses we had before we went on. And, guess what it did?
It found a faulty belt problem on the ground before it killed me as
the test pilot.

When we did fly the thing, I remember that Jess and Tom put temp
probes all over that thing . In the air ,the cooling was way more
than what was needed. If I recall correctly I think the belt ran at
almost ambient temperature while flying. At high altitudes in the
winter we actually worried that the belt might be too brittle because
of the cooling. But, we never had a failure. And after I was off the
project, Jess flew the snot out of it and he never had a failure
either.

BWB

[RobertR237]

>>
>>When I get that Lancair Legacy done in a couple years, you are my
>>first invitation to come out and take a ride at 300 mph!
>>
>>Just bought my O-550 today. Whaa-Hoooo That baby is gonna go with
>>the super charger on it at flight level 250! I just hope I don't die
>>of old age before I finish it and fly it. But, considering that the
>>thing is a "Lick and Stick" it ought to go fast. I mean after two
>>weeks at the factory using their jigs, you bring home a glued together
>>fuselage and the wings are closed. So, you just lick it and stick it
>>and the body is almost there. No 20,000 rivets. Eat your heart out
>>Amp Meter and you other RV builders! Ha!
>>
>>BWB
>>
>
>At least, I KNOW every damned rivet and I KNEW that it
>wouldn't fall apart at altitude. Do you have the same
>confidence that the composite "glue" will do the same??
>

Hell, I don't know about BWB but I would have every bit as much confidence that
the composite will hold together just as well and just as long as your rivets.

>How cold is it at altitude? What happens when you get a
>lightening strike on that fuselage? With the resistance of
>the composite fuselage you'll get a tremendous voltage drop
>across it when the lightening strikes. And Power equals
>voltage drop times current. How do you think you'll like
>dissipating a megawatthour of energy in that small area??
>
>I'll stick to metal airplanes... Lightening hits them and
>simply flows through with little or no voltage drop...
>
>John
>

Wow, in the total scheme of things, how many planes are hit by lightning? If
you are that leary of flying and lightning, I would suggest you stay on the
ground.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Badwater Bill]

>>
>
>At least, I KNOW every damned rivet and I KNEW that it
>wouldn't fall apart at altitude. Do you have the same
>confidence that the composite "glue" will do the same??
>
>How cold is it at altitude? What happens when you get a
>lightening strike on that fuselage? With the resistance of
>the composite fuselage you'll get a tremendous voltage drop
>across it when the lightening strikes. And Power equals
>voltage drop times current. How do you think you'll like
>dissipating a megawatthour of energy in that small area??
>
>I'll stick to metal airplanes... Lightening hits them and
>simply flows through with little or no voltage drop...
>
>John


I was in a good mood until I read this. Now I'm suicidal!

All bull**** aside John, you bring up some great concerns as usual. I
have no idea how it will behave under those conditions. I might just
"POP" into another dimension or something. I may hurdle to my death.
All I can say is "What the ****...over!" I've probably lived too long
already...almost like a cat with 9 lives...I've been sooo close, sooo
many times!

I want to tell you all something. If I buy the farm in a Lancair
Legacy that I built, then I want all of you to rejoice at my life and
know that I lived it to the fullest as I came to a screaming halt into
the Earth at Mach 0.7 due to a structural failure. I want you to
post this post if I punch in doing what I love to do...going fast,
taking chances, flying and living life.

I don't have a death wish. But, on the other hand, I have no
intention of hiding my head under my bed when there are 300 mph
airplanes to be built and flown...and finally after 50 years of being
a poor Black Jewish Christian Hebrew ******* child from Boulder City,
I personally have the means to produce such a machine for my own
personal (and Boom Boom's) use.

Best Wishes to all,

BWB

P.S. I will make sure that I put compete EFIS in it so I can roll it
continuously without tumbling any gyroscopes. I just pulled a gyro
today that I trashed from looping the machine I fly.

No more! Not with the Legacy. It will be all EFIS.

[Badwater Bill]

>Wow, in the total scheme of things, how many planes are hit by lightning? If
>you are that leary of flying and lightning, I would suggest you stay on the
>ground.
>
>
>Bob Reed

I hate to say this about my close friend John. But, he does stay on
the ground. He hasn't flown in the 8 years I've known him. I wish he
would build another high performance airplane and get us butt up
again. He's a great guy and a hero in my eyes for many reasons. I
just wish he flew more. I know he dreams about it or he wouldn't be
here.

John, get your ass back into the sky buddy. Time is running out. We
are growing old at an exponential rate. Take advantage of the next 10
years because 10 years from now you might not be able to get a medical
or some other sinister thing like that.

I think we here in RAH all ought to have a lynch-mob mentality and get
Amp Meter up in the air again. Let's pick on him collectively!

In fact, John, if you want to come down here, I'll get you on the
insurance of the RV-6 I used to own and you can fly the **** out of
it. I know you are building a house now and don't have time. But in
a year or so when that's done, you are welcome to fly anything I have
access to just so I can get you back up.

Now do it or be square!

BWB

[John Ammeter]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:52:19 GMT,
(Badwater Bill) wrote:

>
>>>
>>
>>At least, I KNOW every damned rivet and I KNEW that it
>>wouldn't fall apart at altitude. Do you have the same
>>confidence that the composite "glue" will do the same??
>>
>>How cold is it at altitude? What happens when you get a
>>lightening strike on that fuselage? With the resistance of
>>the composite fuselage you'll get a tremendous voltage drop
>>across it when the lightening strikes. And Power equals
>>voltage drop times current. How do you think you'll like
>>dissipating a megawatthour of energy in that small area??
>>
>>I'll stick to metal airplanes... Lightening hits them and
>>simply flows through with little or no voltage drop...
>>
>>John
>
>
>I was in a good mood until I read this. Now I'm suicidal!
>
>All bull**** aside John, you bring up some great concerns as usual. I
>have no idea how it will behave under those conditions. I might just
>"POP" into another dimension or something. I may hurdle to my death.
>All I can say is "What the ****...over!" I've probably lived too long
>already...almost like a cat with 9 lives...I've been sooo close, sooo
>many times!
>
>I want to tell you all something. If I buy the farm in a Lancair
>Legacy that I built, then I want all of you to rejoice at my life and
>know that I lived it to the fullest as I came to a screaming halt into
>the Earth at Mach 0.7 due to a structural failure. I want you to
>post this post if I punch in doing what I love to do...going fast,
>taking chances, flying and living life.
>
>I don't have a death wish. But, on the other hand, I have no
>intention of hiding my head under my bed when there are 300 mph
>airplanes to be built and flown...and finally after 50 years of being
>a poor Black Jewish Christian Hebrew ******* child from Boulder City,
>I personally have the means to produce such a machine for my own
>personal (and Boom Boom's) use.
>
>Best Wishes to all,
>
>BWB
>
>P.S. I will make sure that I put compete EFIS in it so I can roll it
>continuously without tumbling any gyroscopes. I just pulled a gyro
>today that I trashed from looping the machine I fly.
>
>No more! Not with the Legacy. It will be all EFIS.
>

Now that I've gotten you to worry a little bit about the
consequences of flying a plastic airplane...

I read somewhere, and, no, I don't remember where... that
you can add a conductive "something" to the aircraft so it
can conduct current without blowing up. You might think
about that...

Or, at least, remember that when you see lightening bolts,
it's time to head home to Mama...

On another subject... they're pouring the foundation for our
new house on Thursday... I'll be there with a bottle of
Champagne to celebrate it.

john

[John Ammeter]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:58:34 GMT,
(Badwater Bill) wrote:

>
>>Wow, in the total scheme of things, how many planes are hit by lightning? If
>>you are that leary of flying and lightning, I would suggest you stay on the
>>ground.
>>
>>
>>Bob Reed
>
>I hate to say this about my close friend John. But, he does stay on
>the ground. He hasn't flown in the 8 years I've known him. I wish he
>would build another high performance airplane and get us butt up
>again. He's a great guy and a hero in my eyes for many reasons. I
>just wish he flew more. I know he dreams about it or he wouldn't be
>here.
>
>John, get your ass back into the sky buddy. Time is running out. We
>are growing old at an exponential rate. Take advantage of the next 10
>years because 10 years from now you might not be able to get a medical
>or some other sinister thing like that.
>
>I think we here in RAH all ought to have a lynch-mob mentality and get
>Amp Meter up in the air again. Let's pick on him collectively!
>
>In fact, John, if you want to come down here, I'll get you on the
>insurance of the RV-6 I used to own and you can fly the **** out of
>it. I know you are building a house now and don't have time. But in
>a year or so when that's done, you are welcome to fly anything I have
>access to just so I can get you back up.
>
>Now do it or be square!
>
>BWB


The house we're building already has a 24 x 36 foot shop.
My plan is to build a low and slow high wing stump jumper as
soon as we move in. I loved the feel of the RV-6. It flew
as if it was a part of me. But, now, I want an airplane
that I can land (and take off..) from our family ranch. I
want a plane that I can spot friends homes and the deer that
are ready to "harvest".

I also want an airplane that is able to fly so slow that I
can 'hover' over the nudist camp...

John

[Anthony]

> I also want an airplane that is able to fly so slow that I
> can 'hover' over the nudist camp...
>
> John

That sounds like a Feisler Storch.

Tony

[bryan chaisone]

Yah, I know you're right about all that. I got offended and over reacted (again).

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> (bryan chaisone) wrote
> >
> > Calling people names is just not wise. You never know how a person
> > will react, especially people you have only met on the net.
> > Personally calling people names really turns me off. I loose all
> > respect and admiration for the smartest and most experienced people
> > just because they are arrogant and ignorant. The smartest people, and
> > those that think they are smart are clueless themselves. If they were
> > smart, they wouldn't resort to calling names or resort to threat. If
> > they were smart they'd just go ahead and do what they said they'd do
> > and not give any warning.
> > snip
> > Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
> >
>
> Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. In aviation, which I've been in all of my life,
> you accord respect to those who have been practicing the prior art
> successfully for more man-years than you have, because it is not wise
> to do otherwise. Professional pilots have the benefit of living in a
> real world classroom for ten to twenty years (sometimes less) before
> they become PIC. Single pilot ops at 500 hrs are the most dangerous
> kind in aviation but you guys seem to think after the government's
> done mistraining you, that you can't be killed since you're a polite
> person in society and the FAA's looking out for you. You see locker
> room language and extensions of middle fingers on the screen, whereas,
> I see emotion that's trying to tell me something important from a man
> with more experience in that area than I have. Over 80% of human
> communication is through facial expressions. The only way to covey
> facial expression on this type of medium is through "smileys" or to
> expand your vocabulary (including the use of profanity to convey
> emotion.) We all would like to avoid mud-fights, but in this case I
> think Corky was challenging BWB's honesty (solely because Bill was
> featured in Kitplanes,) and Bill had a right to defend it. Now I
> don't want to see this type of theater from you Bryan, because you
> aren't an experienced builder/instructor yet. You probably still have
> a lot to learn.
>
> Guys like BWB and BYB are IMHO valuable resources to draw on for the
> NG. I don't get along with them half the time myself, but I try to
> overlook their faults (especially BOb's) and realize that
> personalities like these, that don't care what others think of them,
> are usually the most honest posters when it comes to content. They
> post to amuse themselves and impart some reality to the group.
> Whereas the average polite poster frequently: 1: has no idea what he's
> talking about. 2: Worries so much about how he will be perceived that
> even if he did know what he was talking about, would never dare to
> voraciously correct something he's an expert on for fear of unfair
> reprisal in the real world. Now you referenced someone kicking the
> **** out of BWB in the real world. If someone can't win an argument
> on the net and they take things to underhanded road-rage levels in the
> real world, (stabbing holes in airplanes or hacking computers) they
> shouldn't be surprised if it escalates into their back yard on some
> dark night.
>
> But we're just not going to use the same PC yardstick for old-school
> guys like these who are hanging around here for free, trying to give
> you a different perspective on flying and building. If it's too
> salty, why don't you head on over to: rec.domestic.teaparty and I'm
> sure they will moderate out any offensive historical truths about
> trading tea for opium, so your polite tea-sipping won't be disturbed.
> Sorry Bryan, but I'm not just going to sit here and watch you
> lecture the instructor on his choice of language. If you don't like
> it, don't take his class.
>
> We like you Bryan buddy, but changing people is usually not possible.
>
> pacplyer - out

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>

snip

>
>Wow, in the total scheme of things, how many planes are hit by lightni
>ng? If
>you are that leary of flying and lightning, I would suggest you stay o
>n the
>ground.
>
>
>Bob Reed
>www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
>KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
>"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
>pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
>(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

Does anybody know of a tube and rag plane getting hit by lightning?
What were the results?

[RobertR237]

>
>Or, at least, remember that when you see lightening bolts,
>it's time to head home to Mama...
>
>

A good idea no matter what kind of small plane you are flying!


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Capt.Doug]

>"RobertR237" wrote in message > Wow, in the total scheme of things, how
>many planes are hit by lightning? If you are that leary of flying and
lightning, >I would suggest you stay on the ground.

Turning a propeller near the freezing level is a sure way to get struck. I
took 3 hits in one year (that I know of). For two of them, I wasn't even in
the clouds. I was deviating around CBs. One hit knocked both generators
off-line. They re-set fine, so it only cost $5000 for a gearbox teardown and
inspection. One hit to another crew put a dime sized hole in one prop blade.
They weren't in the clouds and didn't know they had been struck until the
post-flight walk-around. That cost $27k because you can't replace just one
blade.

The aerodynamics of some of the fast glass planes give me a raging hard-on.
However, I can't bring myself to build one because of the lightning issue.
Talking to the kit manufacturers at Sun-n-Fun hasn't brought satisfaction to
my angst (basically, the salesmen don't know squat about the issue).

I wonder how the helicopter manufacturers protect their composite blades
from being damaged by lightning? (Painful image developing)

D.

[Badwater Bill]

On 6 Jul 2004 20:34:12 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
wrote:

>Yah, I know you're right about all that. I got offended and over reacted (again).
>
>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

It's got to be because you are a MONK! ;--]

BWB

[pacplyer]

(bryan chaisone) wrote in message >...
> Yah, I know you're right about all that. I got offended and over reacted (again).
>
> Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>


Hey Bry,

Yeah, and I over-lectured again, sorry about that. It was meant for
the group as a whole, not really you. You were right though, to get
****ed at BWB for forgetting who you are. What an old fart! This
means he buys the beer at the next hangar party (again.) ;-)

pac

[pacplyer]

(Badwater Bill) wrote
>
> BBWWAWAAHHHAHHAHAAAAA
>
> Pac, you crack me up. Only another brother with a lot of flying-time
> can see through the bull ****. Isn't it interesting how clear all
> this is to us, but how few will understand anything you had to say
> above. And Bourbon? Hell, he sees all this too. He's been yanking a
> stick since we were ****ting in our diapers. It's infinitely clear to
> him too even though he's a cranky old **** and he ****es me off most
> of the time too.
>
> In Bryan's case, he'll understand your message. But, most won't. He's
> done quit a bit that's transparent to the ng. He's one of us, he's
> just a younger version, so he puts his head on a chopping block so we
> can pick on him. Also, he's oriental, and as you know since you are
> married to an oriental, they have manners far beyond anything that we
> will ever have six lifetimes from now. I think most of what Bryan is
> saying is related to his Asian culture of being mannerly. He came
> from a culture where if you weren't mannerly they simply cut your head
> off.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> BWB

Wow, I had a couple of scotches last night and it looks like I turned
into a wind tunnel. Just got this "Dish" system installed in my shop
and house and was rocking out to their Sirius digital music. A man
could build an airplane listening to that great range of music.

Yeah, I'm guessing Bryan's a good pilot. Maybe you could teach him
how to be an instructor in helos and he could teach you a little Zen
"chilling out" type stuff! BWAHAHAHAHAHA Naw, that wouldn't work.
You'd keep buzzing through the Buddhist temple at low altitudes in
your chopper like in that movie "Air America" and make all the monks
crack up and start blowing their vows of silence and meditation. ;-)

We have a couple of guys who have retired in Cambodia. They say that
for a hundred bucks you can go out to a secret spot and fire a
bona fide grenade launcher, burning down a few acres of jungle. They
say it is ****ing incredible. The deal is you can't talk about it,
since the gov there has promised that kind of thing won't go on any
more, in accordance with new anti-terrorism agreements.

Hahahahahaha. Hey big brother, I just made that part up. Man, I'm
such a good fiction writer.

pac

[RobertR237]

>
>>"RobertR237" wrote in message > Wow, in the total scheme of things, how
>>many planes are hit by lightning? If you are that leary of flying and
>lightning, >I would suggest you stay on the ground.
>
>Turning a propeller near the freezing level is a sure way to get struck. I
>took 3 hits in one year (that I know of). For two of them, I wasn't even in
>the clouds. I was deviating around CBs. One hit knocked both generators
>off-line. They re-set fine, so it only cost $5000 for a gearbox teardown and
>inspection. One hit to another crew put a dime sized hole in one prop blade.
>They weren't in the clouds and didn't know they had been struck until the
>post-flight walk-around. That cost $27k because you can't replace just one
>blade.
>
>The aerodynamics of some of the fast glass planes give me a raging hard-on.
>However, I can't bring myself to build one because of the lightning issue.
>Talking to the kit manufacturers at Sun-n-Fun hasn't brought satisfaction to
>my angst (basically, the salesmen don't know squat about the issue).
>
>I wonder how the helicopter manufacturers protect their composite blades
>from being damaged by lightning? (Painful image developing)
>
>D.

There are a whole lot of glass planes out there flying every day, both
production and experimental. The reported strikes have been very few. I
suspect that the odds of getting killed driving to the airport are far greater
than being killed because of a lightning strike in a glass plane.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[bryan chaisone]

(pacplyer) wrote in message
> Yeah, I'm guessing Bryan's a good pilot. Maybe you could teach him
> how to be an instructor in helos and he could teach you a little Zen
> "chilling out" type stuff! BWAHAHAHAHAHA Naw, that wouldn't work.
> You'd keep buzzing through the Buddhist temple at low altitudes in
> your chopper like in that movie "Air America" and make all the monks
> crack up and start blowing their vows of silence and meditation. ;-)
>

Check out Jay's post Re: Downright Scary... on rec.aviation.piloting.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=10eod08dhisbsaa%40corp.supernews.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.aviation.piloting

I hope that guy will "Live and Learn".

> We have a couple of guys who have retired in Cambodia. They say that
> for a hundred bucks you can go out to a secret spot and fire a
> bona fide grenade launcher, burning down a few acres of jungle. They
> say it is ****ing incredible.

I can arrange that in Thailand, Cambodia or Laos. I'll even be the
guide, a translator that you could actually understand. Or, you can
just come by one weekend and I'll take you shooting here near my house
in Virginia or on my property in WV.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[bryan chaisone]

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message

> Don't you love it Bryan! I mean the HEAT of PASSION! Hell most of
> the old ****s here couldn't get their heart rate up of a naked woman
> walked by them. At least you are alive my man!

Let's not get the wrong idea about the PASSION part. ;^)

> You said, I'm getting old and feeble minded.

Sorry again about that.

> Hell, I even have long periods nowadays when I don't think of sex. That's
> really getting old. Yesterday I had 12 minutes when I didn't think about
> sex at all.

Wow twelve minutes! I'd seek profession help if I went that long
without a thought of that.

> When I get that Lancair Legacy done in a couple years, you are my
> first invitation to come out and take a ride at 300 mph!

That's a deal. Next time I'm in Vegas I'd like to come by and help
you with it for a minute or two. If that's alright.

> Just bought my O-550 today. Whaa-Hoooo That baby is gonna go with
> the super charger on it at flight level 250!

Wow, my trike only has has 22hp (claimed), a world of difference from
yours. Well, one of these days... Anyways, it's got a Zenoah G25 and
a laminated wood prop that I bought both new from Tenn-Prop. I also
op'd for an electric starter. You're welcome to fly it when I'm done
with it. Heck, you can be the first test pilot on it. Better you
than me, LOL. I know you'll put it through its paces. If it survives
you, I know I'll be safe in it. BTW I have a chest chute that it on
the hangglider harness. I heard that regular skydiving chutes need to
be repacked every 90 days (or is it within 90 days prior to use). Is
that true for emergency chutes as well? I've had this thing for about
seven years now, still have not been opened (Thank God).

> I just hope I don't die of old age before I finish it and fly it. But,
> considering that the thing is a "Lick and Stick" it ought to go fast. I
> mean after two weeks at the factory using their jigs, you bring home a glued > together fuselage and the wings are closed. So, you just lick it and stick > it and the body is almost there. No 20,000 rivets. Eat your heart out
> Amp Meter and you other RV builders! Ha!

You just might get yours of the ground before my trike. I'm such a
procrastinator.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Capt.Doug]

>"RobertR237" wrote in message > There are a whole lot of glass planes out
>there flying every day, both
> production and experimental. The reported strikes have been very few. I
> suspect that the odds of getting killed driving to the airport are far
greater
> than being killed because of a lightning strike in a glass plane.

True- but I haven't been able to find out any meaningful data about how the
electrical charges are kept from causing structural damage. None of the
salesmen I queried has a clue. Some of the certified models have a full
instrument panel but aren't certified for IFR flight, ostensibly because of
this issue. Until I do find some meaningful data, I have to go on the theory
that I will again be struck by lightning. I don't want to end up like those
glider pilots in the UK, especially since they had chutes and I don't).

D.

[frank]

The IFR certified models have a fine metal mesh layers embedded in selected
areas to provide a path for the electrical charges.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"RobertR237" wrote in message > There are a whole lot of glass planes out
> >there flying every day, both
> > production and experimental. The reported strikes have been very few.
I
> > suspect that the odds of getting killed driving to the airport are far
> greater
> > than being killed because of a lightning strike in a glass plane.
>
> True- but I haven't been able to find out any meaningful data about how
the
> electrical charges are kept from causing structural damage. None of the
> salesmen I queried has a clue. Some of the certified models have a full
> instrument panel but aren't certified for IFR flight, ostensibly because
of
> this issue. Until I do find some meaningful data, I have to go on the
theory
> that I will again be struck by lightning. I don't want to end up like
those
> glider pilots in the UK, especially since they had chutes and I don't).
>
> D.
>
>

[Badwater Bill]

>I can arrange that in Thailand, Cambodia or Laos. I'll even be the
>guide, a translator that you could actually understand. Or, you can
>just come by one weekend and I'll take you shooting here near my house
>in Virginia or on my property in WV.
>
>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone


You guys see how cool this guy is? Bryan, you are tops.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On 7 Jul 2004 10:36:14 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

(bryan chaisone) wrote in message >...
>> Yah, I know you're right about all that. I got offended and over reacted (again).
>>
>> Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>>
>
>
>Hey Bry,
>
>Yeah, and I over-lectured again, sorry about that. It was meant for
>the group as a whole, not really you. You were right though, to get
>****ed at BWB for forgetting who you are. What an old fart! This
>means he buys the beer at the next hangar party (again.) ;-)
>
>pac


You got it Pac, as long as it's YOUR hangar. And if anyone complains
about the Miller Lite, then let the cheap muther ****ers buy whatever
beer they want to drink and share it with the crowd. The second year
at Pink Knee Ville, I was stupid and gave John Johnson Carte Blanche.
It thought I could trust him. What a mistake that was. A few hundred
bucks later for a special cooling system and multiple kegs, and the
Rah muther ****ers still bitched about the TYPE. I couldn't believe
it. Even O'ring was ****ed off for my sake. He went nuts at the fly
in and told me to NEVER buy the beer again for such an inconsiderate,
mooching crowd of assholes.

The next year when I didn't subsidize the party all you heard was Low
Flier whining about how he was losing his ass on the fly in. Well,
for Christ's sake, I didn't think it was a business and he was trying
to make money. But I guess he did make a few bucks when I was buying
all the beer. Then I heard his wife try to calm him down and tell him
they could freeze all the food that was left over and they'd have meat
through the winter. That seemed to calm him down so he wasn't coming
to me trying to mooch more money every hour.

Jesus, what a turn off.

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

>
>The house we're building already has a 24 x 36 foot shop.
>My plan is to build a low and slow high wing stump jumper as
>soon as we move in. I loved the feel of the RV-6. It flew
>as if it was a part of me. But, now, I want an airplane
>that I can land (and take off..) from our family ranch. I
>want a plane that I can spot friends homes and the deer that
>are ready to "harvest".
>
>I also want an airplane that is able to fly so slow that I
>can 'hover' over the nudist camp...
>
>John


This post put a tear in my eye John. I hope you do it.

Bill

[Badwater Bill]

>You just might get yours of the ground before my trike. I'm such a
>procrastinator.
>
>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Well get off your butt and get to work. Of course you will have to
neglect your wife, your two daughter, you job and your drinking (if
you drink). This, plus your excessive expenditures for tools and a
shop will drive you in to Bankruptcy and you will become an outcast by
all of your relatives. You, will however, have lots of friends. Once
you have a shop and tools, you'll have no peace of mind, no free time,
no moments to be a MONK. You will see, grasshopper, how it goes.

Just forget it up front and buy a Cessna so you don't end up leading a
tortured life like the rest of us who really do build airplanes. It's
not worth it Bryan. Save your soul before it's too late.

See my pictures of the new lifting body I installed yesterday in my
shop on the Alt.binaries files somewhere when I post it. See the new
thread below. Then you'll see a truly tortured individual.

BWB

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

>>now, I want an airplane
>>that I can land (and take off..) from our family ranch. I
>>want a plane that I can spot friends homes and the deer that
>>are ready to "harvest".
>>
>>I also want an airplane that is able to fly so slow that I
>>can 'hover' over the nudist camp...
>>
>>John

Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk ,I've spotted deer,taken off on short
unimproved fields and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
Ohio. Lets talk :-) Take off in less than 200" landings the same cruise at 70
-90 mph depending on engine and slow fly at 35 or so with the flaps down. Got
single and 2 place.....End of obvious commercial

See ya

Chuck (no place to land at private lake with possible engine trouble) S

[Morgans]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote
>
> Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk . Take off in less than 200"

End of obvious commercial
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck

Damn, Chuck! A 200 inch takeoff? What have you done to the new models, to
be able to do that? ;-o)
--
Jim in NC (who loves those 40 mph winds, straight down the runway) <g>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004

[Badwater Bill]

>Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk ,I've spotted deer,taken off on short
>unimproved fields and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
>Ohio. Lets talk :-) Take off in less than 200" landings the same cruise at 70
>-90 mph depending on engine and slow fly at 35 or so with the flaps down. Got
>single and 2 place.....End of obvious commercial
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck (no place to land at private lake with possible engine trouble) S


Chuck:

John's a pretty big boy. I'm not so sure the Hawk would fly him. He
needs a Piper Cub minimum. Hell, I'm a runt next to John and I weigh
250.

Do you have a mod for big men on that thing?

BWB

[Richard Lamb]

Put a 582 on this one and widen the cockpit to whatever is
comfortable...

http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Morgans says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote
>>
>> Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk . Take off in less than 200"
>
>End of obvious commercial
>>
>> See ya
>>
>> Chuck
>
>Damn, Chuck! A 200 inch takeoff? What have you done to the new models, to
>be able to do that? ;-o)
>--
>Jim in NC (who loves those 40 mph winds, straight down the runway) <g>

OOPs I meant 200 "FEET " LOL!!! Actually 200 inches is 16.67 feet and I bet in a
30 mph wind with full flaps ... :-)

See ya

Chuck S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Badwater Bill says...

>Chuck:
>
>John's a pretty big boy. I'm not so sure the Hawk would fly him. He
>needs a Piper Cub minimum. Hell, I'm a runt next to John and I weigh
>250.
>
>Do you have a mod for big men on that thing?
>
>BWB
I'm no skinny mini myself and I fly just fine I was 260 #. I have a 2 place
model we can configure for a single seat if they weigh over 320# Actually our
Plus model with a 65 hp engine would do just fine. We have a saying round these
parts "if you can get in you can get off" :-)

see ya

Chuck S

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote
>
>>Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk . Take off in less than 200"
>
>
> End of obvious commercial
>
>>See ya
>>
>>Chuck
>
>
> Damn, Chuck! A 200 inch takeoff? What have you done to the new models, to
> be able to do that? ;-o)

The JATO option, obviously. Do we have to 'splain every detail to you? :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Badwater Bill wrote:

>>Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk ,I've spotted deer,taken off on short
>>unimproved fields and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
>>Ohio. Lets talk :-) Take off in less than 200" landings the same cruise at 70
>>-90 mph depending on engine and slow fly at 35 or so with the flaps down. Got
>>single and 2 place.....End of obvious commercial
>>
>>See ya
>>
>>Chuck (no place to land at private lake with possible engine trouble) S
>
>
>
> Chuck:
>
> John's a pretty big boy. I'm not so sure the Hawk would fly him. He
> needs a Piper Cub minimum. Hell, I'm a runt next to John and I weigh
> 250.
>
> Do you have a mod for big men on that thing?
>
> BWB
>
>

I think I saw Chuck on Junkyard Wars or some such show a while back. If
my recollection is at all correct, Chuck didn't look like a
welterweight himself. No offense, Chuck!

Matt

[John Ammeter]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:05:38 GMT,
(Badwater Bill) wrote:

>
>>Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk ,I've spotted deer,taken off on short
>>unimproved fields and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
>>Ohio. Lets talk :-) Take off in less than 200" landings the same cruise at 70
>>-90 mph depending on engine and slow fly at 35 or so with the flaps down. Got
>>single and 2 place.....End of obvious commercial
>>
>>See ya
>>
>>Chuck (no place to land at private lake with possible engine trouble) S
>
>
>Chuck:
>
>John's a pretty big boy. I'm not so sure the Hawk would fly him. He
>needs a Piper Cub minimum. Hell, I'm a runt next to John and I weigh
>250.
>
>Do you have a mod for big men on that thing?
>
>BWB
>

Bill,

You've been gaining weight if you're at 250 now... Last
time I saw you, you were around 230...

Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
fall down..

John

[Rich S.]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
> desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
> to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
> plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
> fall down..

Aw, c'mon John. I know this isn't a "G" rated group, but fer gawsh sakes,
let's keep it PG 13 at least.

Rich "The picture haunts my mind" S.

[John Ammeter]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:55:38 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>> Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
>> desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
>> to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
>> plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
>> fall down..
>
>Aw, c'mon John. I know this isn't a "G" rated group, but fer gawsh sakes,
>let's keep it PG 13 at least.
>
>Rich "The picture haunts my mind" S.
>

Gosh, Rich.... I shouldn't have posted that... I know how
excited you get and, at your age, that can be dangerous...

John

[Jerry Springer]

John Ammeter wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:55:38 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
>>>desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
>>>to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
>>>plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
>>>fall down..
>>
>>Aw, c'mon John. I know this isn't a "G" rated group, but fer gawsh sakes,
>>let's keep it PG 13 at least.
>>
>>Rich "The picture haunts my mind" S.
>>
>
>
> Gosh, Rich.... I shouldn't have posted that... I know how
> excited you get and, at your age, that can be dangerous...
>
> John

Hay John I see your old RV-6 came to a bad end in Idaho. :-(

Jerry (didn't see you at Arlington) Springer

[John Ammeter]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:05:32 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>John Ammeter wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:55:38 -0700, "Rich S."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
>>>>desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
>>>>to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
>>>>plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
>>>>fall down..
>>>
>>>Aw, c'mon John. I know this isn't a "G" rated group, but fer gawsh sakes,
>>>let's keep it PG 13 at least.
>>>
>>>Rich "The picture haunts my mind" S.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Gosh, Rich.... I shouldn't have posted that... I know how
>> excited you get and, at your age, that can be dangerous...
>>
>> John
>
>Hay John I see your old RV-6 came to a bad end in Idaho. :-(
>
>Jerry (didn't see you at Arlington) Springer

I didn't hear about that... Can you tell me more? What
happened to it? When?

John

[Jerry Springer]

John Ammeter wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:55:38 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
>>>desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
>>>to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
>>>plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
>>>fall down..
>>
>>Aw, c'mon John. I know this isn't a "G" rated group, but fer gawsh sakes,
>>let's keep it PG 13 at least.
>>
>>Rich "The picture haunts my mind" S.
>>
>
>
> Gosh, Rich.... I shouldn't have posted that... I know how
> excited you get and, at your age, that can be dangerous...
>
> John

Are you trying to say you do not have "dicky do" any more?
Where your stomach does not stick out farther than your dicky do.

[Jerry Springer]

John Ammeter wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:05:32 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>John Ammeter wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:55:38 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
>>>>>desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
>>>>>to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
>>>>>plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
>>>>>fall down..
>>>>
>>>>Aw, c'mon John. I know this isn't a "G" rated group, but fer gawsh sakes,
>>>>let's keep it PG 13 at least.
>>>>
>>>>Rich "The picture haunts my mind" S.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Gosh, Rich.... I shouldn't have posted that... I know how
>>>excited you get and, at your age, that can be dangerous...
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>Hay John I see your old RV-6 came to a bad end in Idaho. :-(
>>
>>Jerry (didn't see you at Arlington) Springer
>
>
> I didn't hear about that... Can you tell me more? What
> happened to it? When?
>
> John

Try this link John
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0709_N.txt

If that does not work it is listed in the FAA prilim accident reports.

[Morgans]

"John Ammeter" > wrote
>
> Bill,
>
> You've been gaining weight if you're at 250 now... Last
> time I saw you, you were around 230...
>
> Actually, now that I'm retired and not sitting behind a
> desk, I've lost about 15 to 20 pounds. Probably around 285
> to 290 now. Sue even commented that my belly is smaller...
> plus my pants are so loose that if I loosen my belt they
> fall down..
>
> John

I knew a guy that had a good party gag. He had "a bit" of a belly, and any
time he wanted, he could suck his gut in, and, down went....

"Oh, the humanity!"
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004

[Barnyard BOb -]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:10:43 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>>>Hay John I see your old RV-6 came to a bad end in Idaho. :-(
>>>
>>>Jerry (didn't see you at Arlington) Springer
>>
>>
>> I didn't hear about that... Can you tell me more? What
>> happened to it? When?
>>
>> John
>
>Try this link John
>http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0709_N.txt
>
>If that does not work it is listed in the FAA prilim accident reports.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DAMN.

It's kind of like losing a family member, if you
feel like did about my old Fly Baby's demise.

Condolences, Ant Eater.


Unka' BOb -

[Jerry Springer]

Barnyard BOb - wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:10:43 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Hay John I see your old RV-6 came to a bad end in Idaho. :-(
>>>>
>>>>Jerry (didn't see you at Arlington) Springer
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't hear about that... Can you tell me more? What
>>>happened to it? When?
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>Try this link John
>>http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0709_N.txt
>>
>>If that does not work it is listed in the FAA prilim accident reports.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> DAMN.
>
> It's kind of like losing a family member, if you
> feel like did about my old Fly Baby's demise.
>
> Condolences, Ant Eater.
>
>
> Unka' BOb -
>
>
>
>
Hopefully the damage is not beyond repair, the report just says it is
substantial. Maybe it well rise to fly another day.

Bob I saw a couple really nice RV-3s at Arlington.

Jerry

[John Ammeter]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:30:55 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:10:43 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:
>
>>>>Hay John I see your old RV-6 came to a bad end in Idaho. :-(
>>>>
>>>>Jerry (didn't see you at Arlington) Springer
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't hear about that... Can you tell me more? What
>>> happened to it? When?
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>Try this link John
>>http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0709_N.txt
>>
>>If that does not work it is listed in the FAA prilim accident reports.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>DAMN.
>
>It's kind of like losing a family member, if you
>feel like did about my old Fly Baby's demise.
>
>Condolences, Ant Eater.
>
>
>Unka' BOb -
>
>
>

Yes.... I called the Cascade Airport last night and talked
to someone there. It appears the pilot went off the runway
to the left, applied power to regain control and rolled
inverted landing upside down. Only minor injuries, thank
God, but the airplane has damaged left wingtip, shattered
prop, shattered canopy and damaged vertical Stab. The
airplane was piloted by a friend of the owner.

John

[Rich S.]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes.... I called the Cascade Airport last night and talked
> to someone there. It appears the pilot went off the runway
> to the left, applied power to regain control and rolled
> inverted landing upside down. Only minor injuries, thank
> God, but the airplane has damaged left wingtip, shattered
> prop, shattered canopy and damaged vertical Stab. The
> airplane was piloted by a friend of the owner.

Obviously the fault of the builder. Bend over and grab your ankles, John.

Rich "Anybody know a good lawyer?" S.

[John Ammeter]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:36:41 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes.... I called the Cascade Airport last night and talked
>> to someone there. It appears the pilot went off the runway
>> to the left, applied power to regain control and rolled
>> inverted landing upside down. Only minor injuries, thank
>> God, but the airplane has damaged left wingtip, shattered
>> prop, shattered canopy and damaged vertical Stab. The
>> airplane was piloted by a friend of the owner.
>
>Obviously the fault of the builder. Bend over and grab your ankles, John.
>
>Rich "Anybody know a good lawyer?" S.
>


NOT FUNNY....

John

[Rich S.]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
> NOT FUNNY....

Oops. Sorry.

[Mark Smith]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote
> >
> > Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk . Take off in less than 200"
>
> End of obvious commercial
> >
> > See ya
> >
> > Chuck
>
> Damn, Chuck! A 200 inch takeoff? What have you done to the new models, to
> be able to do that? ;-o)

200 inches sounds more like one of my special planes,,,,,,
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

[Capt.Doug]

>"frank" wrote in message > The IFR certified models have a fine metal mesh
>layers embedded in selected
> areas to provide a path for the electrical charges.

How many strikes can the mesh layer take before you throw away the plastic
airplane?

D.

[Del Rawlins]

In > Anthony wrote:
>
>> I also want an airplane that is able to fly so slow that I
>> can 'hover' over the nudist camp...
>>
>> John
>
> That sounds like a Feisler Storch.

They don't have the near-helicopter performance of a Storch, but the
Bearhawk (4 seat) or the Bearhawk Patrol (2 seat tandem) have good STOL
performance, high load carrying capability, and much better top speed.
I was recently given a ride in an O-540 powered Bearhawk and even with
all of the owner's camping gear still in the back the performance was
just amazing.

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

[frank]

My understanding is that the purpose of the mesh is to prevent the strike by
draining the pre strike static accumulation, much like a lightning rod on a
house will prevent the lightning strike. As someone else commented, that got
them certified. Beyond that - I don't know. It has been way too many years
since I worked with high voltage systems.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"frank" wrote in message > The IFR certified models have a fine metal
mesh
> >layers embedded in selected
> > areas to provide a path for the electrical charges.
>
> How many strikes can the mesh layer take before you throw away the plastic
> airplane?
>
> D.
>
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
> ...
and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
> Ohio. Lets talk :-)

Where in Ohio???

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

John Ammeter > wrote in message >...
>
> I read somewhere, and, no, I don't remember where... that
> you can add a conductive "something" to the aircraft so it
> can conduct current without blowing up. You might think
> about that...
>

I'd expect carbon fiber composites to be electrically conductive.

--

FF

[Kevin Horton]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:50:00 -0500, frank wrote:

> My understanding is that the purpose of the mesh is to prevent the
> strike by draining the pre strike static accumulation, much like a
> lightning rod on a house will prevent the lightning strike. As someone
> else commented, that got them certified. Beyond that - I don't know. It
> has been way too many years since I worked with high voltage systems.
>
>
Not quite that simple. If you can make the surface conductive, you make
it similar to an all-metal aircraft. All-metal aircraft get hit with
lightning with great regularity, if they are in the right place at the
wrong time.

A type-certificated composite aircraft seeking IFR approval would have to
undergo the same sort of engineering evaluation as a metal aircraft.
Ground testing with simulated lightning strikes would likely be required.

See the picture of the Glasair III under test near the bottom of this page
for an example of the type of testing I mean:

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/lightning.html

FAA Advisory Circular 20-107A, COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE says:

Lightning Protection.

(1) Some composites are susceptible to lightning damage, and do not
dissipate Pstatic electrical charges or provide electromagnetic shielding.
Therefore it should be demonstrated by analysis support by test evidence
that the structure can dissipate P-static electrical charges, provides
electromagnetic protection where required and provides an acceptable means
of diverting the resulting electrical current (as a result of a lightning
strike) so as not to endanger the aircraft.

(2) Consideration should be given possible deterioration and undetected
damage to the lightning protection system.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Mark Hickey]

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

>ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
>> ...
> and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
>> Ohio. Lets talk :-)
>
>Where in Ohio???

If he tells you, he has to spend half his time looking around for
other traffic instead of down at the - errrr - geography.

Mark Hickey

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Fred the Red Shirt
says...
>
>ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message
>...
>> ...
> and checked out the topless gals at the private lake here in
>> Ohio. Lets talk :-)
>
>Where in Ohio???

A little private lake about 10 miles NE of Geauga county airport. That's all I'm
saying I'm not gonna ruin a good thing:-)

See ya

Chuck S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Mark Smith says...
>
>Morgans wrote:
>>
>> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote
>> >
>> > Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk . Take off in less than 200"
>>
>> End of obvious commercial
>> >
>> > See ya
>> >
>> > Chuck
>>
>> Damn, Chuck! A 200 inch takeoff? What have you done to the new models, to
>> be able to do that? ;-o)
>
>200 inches sounds more like one of my special planes,,,,,,

Hey Mark
I failed to mention that that was Ohio inches where we have less gravity at our
airfields. :-)

see ya
Chuck (planes fly better in lower gravity) S

[Richard Lamb]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> In article >, Mark Smith says...
> >
> >Morgans wrote:
> >>
> >> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote
> >> >
> >> > Well John sounds like you need a CGS Hawk . Take off in less than 200"
> >>
> >> End of obvious commercial
> >> >
> >> > See ya
> >> >
> >> > Chuck
> >>
> >> Damn, Chuck! A 200 inch takeoff? What have you done to the new models, to
> >> be able to do that? ;-o)
> >
> >200 inches sounds more like one of my special planes,,,,,,
>
> Hey Mark
> I failed to mention that that was Ohio inches where we have less gravity at our
> airfields. :-)
>
> see ya
> Chuck (planes fly better in lower gravity) S

Chuck, sounds like there was a Texan in the wood pile some time back...
:)

Richard

[Capt.Doug]

>"Kevin Horton" wrote in message > (1) Some composites are susceptible to
>lightning damage, and do not
> dissipate Pstatic electrical charges or provide electromagnetic shielding.
> Therefore it should be demonstrated by analysis support by test evidence
> that the structure can dissipate P-static electrical charges, provides
> electromagnetic protection where required and provides an acceptable
>means
> of diverting the resulting electrical current (as a result of a lightning
> strike) so as not to endanger the aircraft.
>
> (2) Consideration should be given possible deterioration and undetected
> damage to the lightning protection system.

That spells out the requirements. Other than the thin copper mesh already
mentioned, how are manufacturers meeting these requirements?

D.