Auto Fuel STC

[Jeff]

I have a friend who just bought an old Cessna 175. He wants to get an auto
fuel STC. He told me that someone overheard someone tell someone else about
a friend who.......he thinks there is somewhere on the internet where he can
get this STC for free. He does not have access to the internet and asked me
to do a little research. I did a google search and did not see anything pop
out that was obvious.

Is this guy just crazy or what?

Jeff
letempt (at) fidnet (dot) com

[Robert Little]

I hope you're right. But as far as I know, the STCs for auto fuel from both
Petersen or EAA is a buck per horsepower (unless they have gone up again).
They used to be 50 cents per hp but the high overhead cost of maintaining
the STC paperwork (translates as "greed")drove the prices up. RTL

"Jeff" <my last name @fidnet.com> wrote in message
...
> I have a friend who just bought an old Cessna 175. He wants to get an
auto
> fuel STC. He told me that someone overheard someone tell someone else
about
> a friend who.......he thinks there is somewhere on the internet where he
can
> get this STC for free. He does not have access to the internet and asked
me
> to do a little research. I did a google search and did not see anything
pop
> out that was obvious.
>
> Is this guy just crazy or what?
>
> Jeff
> letempt (at) fidnet (dot) com
>
>

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:30:30 -0500, "Robert Little"
> wrote:

>I hope you're right. But as far as I know, the STCs for auto fuel from both
>Petersen or EAA is a buck per horsepower (unless they have gone up again).
>They used to be 50 cents per hp but the high overhead cost of maintaining
>the STC paperwork (translates as "greed")drove the prices up. RTL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AHA!

Another cost saving benefit of going the homebuilt route.
No auto fuel STC required.

However, this is NOT an excuse to
use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.


Barnyard BOb --

[Capt. Doug]

>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > However, this is NOT an excuse to
> use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.

The C-175 uses a geared Continental O-300. The valves will stick no matter
what kind of gas one chooses to use. Is this one of the types you consider
not suited for auto-gas?

D. ("aircarft"?)

[Jerry Springer]

Capt. Doug wrote:
>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > However, this is NOT an excuse to
>>use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.
>
>
> The C-175 uses a geared Continental O-300. The valves will stick no matter
> what kind of gas one chooses to use. Is this one of the types you consider
> not suited for auto-gas?
>
> D. ("aircarft"?)
>
>
That is an aircraft with an auto engine and we know how BOb feels about
that. :)

[Robert Bates]

How long ago? I recently contacted him about a PA23-180 and he said he
wasn't interested in working on any more STCs for the time being



"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Jeff" <my last name @fidnet.com> wrote:
>
> > I have a friend who just bought an old Cessna 175. He wants to get an
auto
> > fuel STC. He told me that someone overheard someone tell someone else
about
> > a friend who.......he thinks there is somewhere on the internet where he
can
> > get this STC for free. He does not have access to the internet and
asked me
> > to do a little research. I did a google search and did not see anything
pop
> > out that was obvious.
> >
> > Is this guy just crazy or what?
> >
> > Jeff
> > letempt (at) fidnet (dot) com
> >
> >
>
> I did -- but -- I also provided Peterson with the necessary data to STC
> the Lycoming O-435 direct-drive engines. A friend also got a free STC
> for the Stinson L-5 by providing similar data to Peterson.
>
> If the C-175 is not currently STC'd, and you think that you can provide
> pertinent data to obtain an STC, contact them.

[Richard Lamb]

Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> Capt. Doug wrote:
> >>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > However, this is NOT an excuse to
> >>use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.
> >
> >
> > The C-175 uses a geared Continental O-300. The valves will stick no matter
> > what kind of gas one chooses to use. Is this one of the types you consider
> > not suited for auto-gas?
> >
> > D. ("aircarft"?)
> >
> >
> That is an aircraft with an auto engine and we know how BOb feels about
> that. :)

Pardon me for buttin in, but huh?

--
Richard Lamb

http://www.flash.net/~lamb01/

[Jerry Springer]

Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>>Capt. Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > However, this is NOT an excuse to
>>>>use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The C-175 uses a geared Continental O-300. The valves will stick no matter
>>>what kind of gas one chooses to use. Is this one of the types you consider
>>>not suited for auto-gas?
>>>
>>>D. ("aircarft"?)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That is an aircraft with an auto engine and we know how BOb feels about
>>that. :)
>
>
> Pardon me for buttin in, but huh?
>
> --
> Richard Lamb
>
> http://www.flash.net/~lamb01/


Joke Richard, Joke

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > D. ("aircarft"?)
> > >
> > >
> > That is an aircraft with an auto engine and we know how BOb feels about
> > that. :)
>
> Pardon me for buttin in, but huh?
>
> --
> Richard Lamb

Notice the appearance of "car" in the misspelled word.

You can groan now. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:47:32 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>
>
>Capt. Doug wrote:
>>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > However, this is NOT an excuse to
>>>use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.
>>
>>
>> The C-175 uses a geared Continental O-300. The valves will stick no matter
>> what kind of gas one chooses to use. Is this one of the types you consider
>> not suited for auto-gas?
>>
>> D. ("aircarft"?)
>>
>>
>That is an aircraft with an auto engine and we know how BOb feels about
>that. :)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You dang barnyard baiter ! <g>

I built most of my hours towards my commercial ticket flying a
C-175. What a POS. It was owned by the regional director of
Encyclopedia Britannica back in 1959. Certainly a fitting aircraft
for those pesky pimps peddling paper pulp. [For those too young
to remember, they were the equivalent of today's telemarketers.]

FWIW --
A fellow RV-3 owner here at 3GV also flies his dad's C-175.
On the way to Osh, it had a piston fail with less than 800 hours
since major, so he never made Osh. So.... this particular
engine continues to build a reputation only somewhat better
than the average auto engine in a plane. B-D

Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > However, this is NOT an excuse to
>> use auto fuel in aircarft not suited to it.
>
>The C-175 uses a geared Continental O-300. The valves will stick no matter
>what kind of gas one chooses to use. Is this one of the types you consider
>not suited for auto-gas?
>
>D. ("aircarft"?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Consider this engine reasonably unsuitable for everything.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> > > D. ("aircarft"?)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > That is an aircraft with an auto engine and we know how BOb feels about
>> > that. :)
>>
>> Pardon me for buttin in, but huh?
>>
>> --
>> Richard Lamb
>
>Notice the appearance of "car" in the misspelled word.
>
>You can groan now. <g>

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


G-R-R-R-R-O-A-N.



Barnyard BOb --

[Del Rawlins]

On 17 Sep 2003 12:45 AM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:

> I built most of my hours towards my commercial ticket flying a
> C-175. What a POS. It was owned by the regional director of
> Encyclopedia Britannica back in 1959. Certainly a fitting aircraft
> for those pesky pimps peddling paper pulp. [For those too young
> to remember, they were the equivalent of today's telemarketers.]
>
> FWIW --
> A fellow RV-3 owner here at 3GV also flies his dad's C-175.
> On the way to Osh, it had a piston fail with less than 800 hours
> since major, so he never made Osh. So.... this particular
> engine continues to build a reputation only somewhat better
> than the average auto engine in a plane. B-D

A friend of mine down in Homer has one and he likes it just fine. He
used to post here and bought it partly based on advice from Highflier,
who also seems to like them. My friend explained to me his theory on
why people have had trouble with the engine, which seems to make some
sense, but I don't understand all the issues involved well enough to be
comfortable explaining it here.

I'd consider the engine for my Bearhawk but I want a minimum of 200hp
for float operations, and maybe liquid cooling if possible. 8^)

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

[[email protected]]

Robert Bates > wrote:
: How long ago? I recently contacted him about a PA23-180 and he said he
: wasn't interested in working on any more STCs for the time being

He's probably busy laughing his way to the bank. We just put
$1600 into an autogas STC for our Cherokee 180. Doesn't seem worth it,
but there's $1-$1.5/gal difference around here so it'll pay for itself.
I can't complain too loudly, since the addition of fuel pumps, etc was
pretty much an FAA-mandated CYA from a marginal design from Piper to begin
with. So far no ill effects (unless you consider $14/hour fuel burn and
no fouled plugs "ill" effects).

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...
> Robert Bates > wrote:
> : How long ago? I recently contacted him about a PA23-180 and he said he
> : wasn't interested in working on any more STCs for the time being
>
> He's probably busy laughing his way to the bank. We just put
> $1600 into an autogas STC for our Cherokee 180.

The need for a second boost pump in the Cherokees is one of the
only places where the STC isn't just paper.

[Rich S.]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd consider the engine for my Bearhawk but I want a minimum of 200hp
> for float operations, and maybe liquid cooling if possible. 8^)

Liquid cooling is an occupational hazard for float planes drivers. ;o)

Rich S.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:45:18 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>FWIW --
>A fellow RV-3 owner here at 3GV also flies his dad's C-175.
>On the way to Osh, it had a piston fail with less than 800 hours
>since major, so he never made Osh. So.... this particular
>engine continues to build a reputation only somewhat better
>than the average auto engine in a plane. B-D
>
>Barnyard BOb --

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:45:18 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>FWIW --
>A fellow RV-3 owner here at 3GV also flies his dad's C-175.
>On the way to Osh, it had a piston fail with less than 800 hours
>since major, so he never made Osh. So.... this particular
>engine continues to build a reputation only somewhat better
>than the average auto engine in a plane. B-D
>
>Barnyard BOb --

Hmmmm, cept that I've never heard of an auto conversion engine eating
a piston. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I've just not heard of it.


Corky Scott

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:45:18 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
> wrote:
>
> >FWIW --
> >A fellow RV-3 owner here at 3GV also flies his dad's C-175.
> >On the way to Osh, it had a piston fail with less than 800 hours
> >since major, so he never made Osh. So.... this particular
> >engine continues to build a reputation only somewhat better
> >than the average auto engine in a plane. B-D
> >
> >Barnyard BOb --
>
> Hmmmm, cept that I've never heard of an auto conversion engine eating
> a piston. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I've just not heard of it.
>
>
> Corky Scott
>
Snicker... You beat me to it!
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb --]

>A friend of mine down in Homer has one and he likes it just fine. He
>used to post here and bought it partly based on advice from Highflier,
>who also seems to like them. My friend explained to me his theory on
>why people have had trouble with the engine, which seems to make some
>sense, but I don't understand all the issues involved well enough to be
>comfortable explaining it here.

>Del Rawlins-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've heard enough of the "theories" and seen enough evidence
that I know that I don't need to own a C-175 unless it has an O-360
engine. The C-175 that blew the piston was being piloted by the
A&P that is intimately familiar with this plane and how to treat the
geared engine. Ditto for his dad and another long time C-175
A&P that helps with repairs, annuals and overhauls. This plane
has been "in the family" for many years, but **** still happens
with regularity. The damn thing is what it is. <g>

TBO by the book, when it can be made, is too short for me.


Barnyard BOb --

[Richard Lamb]

Good candidate for a Blanton concersion ?
:)


Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> >A friend of mine down in Homer has one and he likes it just fine. He
> >used to post here and bought it partly based on advice from Highflier,
> >who also seems to like them. My friend explained to me his theory on
> >why people have had trouble with the engine, which seems to make some
> >sense, but I don't understand all the issues involved well enough to be
> >comfortable explaining it here.
>
> >Del Rawlins-
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I've heard enough of the "theories" and seen enough evidence
> that I know that I don't need to own a C-175 unless it has an O-360
> engine. The C-175 that blew the piston was being piloted by the
> A&P that is intimately familiar with this plane and how to treat the
> geared engine. Ditto for his dad and another long time C-175
> A&P that helps with repairs, annuals and overhauls. This plane
> has been "in the family" for many years, but **** still happens
> with regularity. The damn thing is what it is. <g>
>
> TBO by the book, when it can be made, is too short for me.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

--
Richard Lamb

http://www.flash.net/~lamb01/

[Del Rawlins]

On 17 Sep 2003 09:08 PM, Richard Lamb posted the following:
> Good candidate for a Blanton concersion ?
>:)

Every time I start to consider one of those, I keep coming back to the
weight. *If* I can afford it, and *if* the companies concerned can get
into production, I would like either a Deltahawk V-4 diesel or that ATP
turbine that has gotten some press in the last year. Deltahawk seems to
have their act together but I'm skeptical of the turbine folks. I
inquired via email as to their product status a few weeks ago and never
received a reply. Mazda and Subaru are remote possibilities.

The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
project.

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>FWIW --
>>A fellow RV-3 owner here at 3GV also flies his dad's C-175.
>>On the way to Osh, it had a piston fail with less than 800 hours
>>since major, so he never made Osh. So.... this particular
>>engine continues to build a reputation only somewhat better
>>than the average auto engine in a plane. B-D
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>
>Hmmmm, cept that I've never heard of an auto conversion engine eating
>a piston. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I've just not heard of it.
>
>
>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why would you hear of it?

Or more importantly ....
HOW would you hear of it, unless personally
involved or it happened in your personal little inner circle?

If you can infer that auto engines are in some way superior by what
you have or have not heard on the internet today, good luck.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Corky Scott
>>
>Snicker... You beat me to it!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Enjoy.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>
>> I've heard enough of the "theories" and seen enough evidence
>> that I know that I don't need to own a C-175 unless it has an O-360
>> engine. The C-175 that blew the piston was being piloted by the
>> A&P that is intimately familiar with this plane and how to treat the
>> geared engine. Ditto for his dad and another long time C-175
>> A&P that helps with repairs, annuals and overhauls. This plane
>> has been "in the family" for many years, but **** still happens
>> with regularity. The damn thing is what it is. <g>
>>
>> TBO by the book, when it can be made, is too short for me.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:08:20 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>Good candidate for a Blanton concersion ?
>:)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't you mean.... COERCION? B-D


Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight

[Barnyard BOb --]

>The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
>project.
>
>Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You're ready for a better teacher.
Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.

I hope she doesn't kill you.


Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:24:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>Why would you hear of it?
>
>Or more importantly ....
>HOW would you hear of it, unless personally
>involved or it happened in your personal little inner circle?
>
>If you can infer that auto engines are in some way superior by what
>you have or have not heard on the internet today, good luck.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
Because for 15 years I've been actively seeking news of auto engine
failures. Since I'm building up a Ford V-6 for use in my Christavia,
I thought it might be a good idea to understand where the failures
have occured.

In regards auto engine conversion failures in general, there have been
some, of course. Most of the time the failure has been something
other than the shortblock. No question, a failure is a failure, but
the conversation was about a blown piston, which is part of the
shortblock.

Still doesn't mean anything, people don't contact me when their engine
fails so I miss most of the news.

But Bruce is ruthless in printing news of engine failures, feeling
that we should understand the failure modes rather than stick our
heads in the sand. Can't recall any article on a blown piston with
the Ford. Perhaps he can comment.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>
>In regards auto engine conversion failures in general, there have been
>some, of course. Most of the time the failure has been something
>other than the shortblock. No question, a failure is a failure, but
>the conversation was about a blown piston, which is part of the
>shortblock.
>
>Still doesn't mean anything, people don't contact me when their engine
>fails so I miss most of the news.

AFAIK, this C-175 piston failure is an anomaly.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Read more into it if you will.

>
>But Bruce is ruthless in printing news of engine failures, feeling
>that we should understand the failure modes rather than stick our
>heads in the sand. Can't recall any article on a blown piston with
>the Ford. Perhaps he can comment.
>
>Corky Scott

No one is accusing anyone of having their head in the sand,
but given the millions of hours Lycoming and Continental have
been flown and tracked over the years, any backyard data base
by a couple of conversion enthusiasts is insignificant and quite
suspect in the scheme of things. The FAA and the AD system
far exceeds anything you or Bruce can begin to track regarding
auto conversion world faux pas.

Further...
The Ford engine is but one conversion and not a popular one.
Whatever its record is, or can be... it ain't good enough for the
majority of folks interested in converting auto engines today.
As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse
and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity.

Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base,
if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot.


Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.

[Dptate]

>
>You're ready for a better teacher.
>Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.
>
>I hope she doesn't kill you.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.
>
>
>

Hey Barnyard, Up until now it was only 50 years of flight. Happy birthday!

Dave "only 37 years of flight" Tate

[Del Rawlins]

On 18 Sep 2003 03:58 AM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:
>
>
>>The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
>>project.
>>
>>Del Rawlins-
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You're ready for a better teacher.
> Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.
>
> I hope she doesn't kill you.

The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I
choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be alright.

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

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:23:15 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>No one is accusing anyone of having their head in the sand,
>but given the millions of hours Lycoming and Continental have
>been flown and tracked over the years, any backyard data base
>by a couple of conversion enthusiasts is insignificant and quite
>suspect in the scheme of things. The FAA and the AD system
>far exceeds anything you or Bruce can begin to track regarding
>auto conversion world faux pas.

My sincere apologies if I implied that you accused anyone of having
their heads in the sand. That was intended as my reference to myself
and anyone else who would rather charge ahead with a project without
first ascertaining what, if anything, has gone before and where the
failure modes are. That just seemed logical to me.
>
>Further...
>The Ford engine is but one conversion and not a popular one.
>Whatever its record is, or can be... it ain't good enough for the
>majority of folks interested in converting auto engines today.
>As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse
>and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity.

It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only
reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that
we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then
what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals?

I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket
parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy
an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still
be heavier.


>Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base,
>if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot.

>Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.

The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that.
But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one
time too, back when they were first introduced.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the concept of using an
auto conversion. An engine is an engine as long is it's run within
it's design parameters. But you can't just bolt a prop to Mom's
salvaged grocery shuttle V-6 and expect it to work like an IO-360-L2A.


The devil is in the details. That's why the subject keeps being
discussed, that's why Bruce and others persist in printing
newsletters, a thankless task by the way. People need to know the
latest information.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>>The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
>>>project.
>>>
>>>Del Rawlins-
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> You're ready for a better teacher.
>> Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.
>>
>> I hope she doesn't kill you.
>
>The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I
>choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be alright.
>
>Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Really?

Who are you listening to in Alaska that would
prefer to bet their lives on auto conversions
in the middle of rugged Alaska wilderness?

Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse
>>and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity.

>It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only
>reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that
>we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then
>what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals?

If form still follows function....
Lycoming and Continental are definitely here to stay.
The economics of this small industry makes it very likely.

One thing for sure, no shade tree artists are going to put them
out of business. Further, when diesels become economically viable,
look for Lycoming and Continental to lead the pack.

>I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket
>parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy
>an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still
>be heavier.

It still belongs in a car, if form still follows function.

>>Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base,
>>if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot.
>
>>Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.
>
>The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that.
>But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one
>time too, back when they were first introduced.

>Corky Scott

Are you kidding yourself? How can your database grow past more
than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?


Barnyard BOb --

[Capt. Doug]

>Barnyard BOb wrote in message How can your database grow past more
> than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
> and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?

I dunno BOb- Take a look at this little jewel.
It just begs to be in an airplane like a Mooney Mite.
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/tokyo02/eco/index.html#2cddi

D. (stirring the pot)

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message How can your database grow past more
>> than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
>> and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?
>
>I dunno BOb- Take a look at this little jewel.
>It just begs to be in an airplane like a Mooney Mite.
>http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/tokyo02/eco/index.html#2cddi
>
>D. (stirring the pot)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Nah...
You're not stirring my pot
until you put some money in it. <g>

Remember...
Money talks.
Bull**** walks.


Barnyard BOb --

[Capt. Doug]

>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > You're not stirring my pot
> until you put some money in it. <g>

Problem is that 50 hp isn't enough. I need 450 hp with a max of 2 lbs/hp for
my VTOL.

D. (reality is over-rated)

[Del Rawlins]

On 18 Sep 2003 02:55 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:

> One thing for sure, no shade tree artists are going to put them
> out of business. Further, when diesels become economically viable,
> look for Lycoming and Continental to lead the pack.

When diesels become widely available, Lycoming and Continental will very
likely continue much as they are right now, selling a few (relatively
speaking) new engines each year as replacements and new engines for
homebuilders/manufacturers, and selling parts to support their existing
engines. The availability of diesels won't immediately reduce the need
for support for existing engine designs.

My personal conspiracy theory on the subject is that after winning the
NASA grants to develop a diesel engine, Continental made enough progress
on it to fulfill their oblications for taking the money. In doing that,
they accomplished mainly 2 things. They were able to give their R&D
people valuable practice on developing a totally new engine with other
people's money, and they kept anybody else from getting that development
money. It was worth doing even if they never sell a single one, which
would likely only eat into their existing market. Assuming the engine
is any good, they will only bring it out when forced to by competition
from other diesel manufacturers. Contrary to what other people have
spouted, diesel engines aren't going to revitalize the GA market and
lead to increased production, so they would just be attacking their own
core market. What diesel engines will do is give us a better powerplant
for the same money. Due to the small market this is taking some time.

As far as Lycomings go, they seem to have had too much trouble in recent
years building their existing designs (i.e. O-540 crankshaft AD) to be
considered a threat to whoever brings out the first commercially
successful diesels.

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

[Del Rawlins]

On 18 Sep 2003 02:09 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:
>
>>>>The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
>>>>project.
>>>>
>>>>Del Rawlins-
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> You're ready for a better teacher.
>>> Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.
>>>
>>> I hope she doesn't kill you.
>>
>>The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I
>>choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be
>>alright. Del Rawlins-
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Really?
>
> Who are you listening to in Alaska that would
> prefer to bet their lives on auto conversions
> in the middle of rugged Alaska wilderness?

A large percentage of those accidents which do not involve weather seem
to be related to an overabundance of air in the fuel lines, which was
the basis of my statement. I guess my point is, that there are enough
things that can go wrong that I'm less concerned with whether my engine
was originally installed in a car or an airplane, than I am with how
well it is installed in *my* airplane. I'm more worried about whether
the wind blowing up the Copper is going to slow me enough to jeopardize
my fuel supply for getting home (why I am installing extra tanks),
getting caught in some other nasty weather that came up suddenly like it
does here, getting CO poisoning from that muffler that cracked since the
last annual, or zigging when I should have zagged landing on some remote
strip. I'm a lot more afraid of stupid pilot/mechanic tricks than I am
of a PSRU, automotive ignition, or whatever other system you choose to
criticize on any given day.

In the Alaskan wilderness you will not find many homebuilts period, and
therefore few auto conversions, although the number of homebuilts is
starting to increase. The reality is, most airplanes here are working
airplanes and that requires a standard C of A. Actually for a private
airplane I think that auto conversions make a lot of sense up here from
the standpoint of being able to get parts in some of the more remote
communities, and better tolerance for the crappy fuel that is sometimes
the only thing available in the bush.

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > You're not stirring my pot
>> until you put some money in it. <g>
>
>Problem is that 50 hp isn't enough. I need 450 hp with a max of 2 lbs/hp for
>my VTOL.
>
>D. (reality is over-rated)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reduce the weight.

Have you considered an ultra lightweight
piston engine constructed of unobtainium?


Barnyard BOb --

[Model Flyer]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > You're not stirring my pot

> >D. (reality is over-rated)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Reduce the weight.
>
> Have you considered an ultra lightweight
> piston engine constructed of unobtainium?
>

The problems they've had with those engines, what you save on the
very lightweight engines that result, you spend ten time over keeping
the thing on the ground. See, you have to keep the engine running at
full power with the prop in negative pitch all day just to stop "it"
from taking off by itself. When it runs out of fuel, you've lot it,
either the engine breaks loose or the whole lot simply floats
away...............................BS.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place



>
> Barnyard BOb --
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:55:47 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:


>
>Are you kidding yourself? How can your database grow past more
>than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
>and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

BOb, you're the guy asking for the database, not me. I'm content to
note that the Ford V-6's now flying are continuing to do so without
encountering any major problems.

Of course the Fords, Chevy's and Subaru's are no threat to Lycoming.
They aren't intended to be. They are intended as an alternative to
outworldly expensive certified engine technology.

Personally, I'm having a lot of fun building the engine and assembling
the PSRU.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>As far as Lycomings go, they seem to have had too much trouble in recent
>years building their existing designs (i.e. O-540 crankshaft AD) to be
>considered a threat to whoever brings out the first commercially
>successful diesels.
>
>Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Got any evidence to supporting your 'pie in the sky'
Lycoming sour grapes conjecture and assertions?

How do you define... "commercially successful"?



Barnyard BOb --

[Del Rawlins]

On 19 Sep 2003 04:48 AM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:
>
>
>>As far as Lycomings go, they seem to have had too much trouble in
>>recent years building their existing designs (i.e. O-540 crankshaft
>>AD) to be considered a threat to whoever brings out the first
>>commercially successful diesels. Del Rawlins-
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Got any evidence to supporting your 'pie in the sky'
> Lycoming sour grapes conjecture and assertions?

Nope, it's pure speculation and no less valid than your assertion that
new manufacturers will never amount to anything. Last I heard that was
still allowed here.

> How do you define... "commercially successful"?

I would define it as you can call them up and order one and expect to
have it delivered within a reasonable time, and some undefined degree of
longevity for the company. Dynacam, BD Aircraft, Dreamwings, Moller and
their ilk need not apply. They wouldn't have to put lyc/cont out of
business, just support themselves on the sales of their own product. It
is a tall order under the current market conditions, but eventually
somebody will succeed.

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Got any evidence to supporting your 'pie in the sky'
>> Lycoming sour grapes conjecture and assertions?
>
>Nope, it's pure speculation and no less valid than your assertion that
>new manufacturers will never amount to anything. Last I heard that was
>still allowed here.

Sure, pure speculation certainly is allowed.
However, it appeared that you knew something.
My mistake.

>> How do you define... "commercially successful"?
>
>I would define it as you can call them up and order one and expect to
>have it delivered within a reasonable time, and some undefined degree of
>longevity for the company. Dynacam, BD Aircraft, Dreamwings, Moller and
>their ilk need not apply. They wouldn't have to put lyc/cont out of
>business, just support themselves on the sales of their own product. It
>is a tall order under the current market conditions, but eventually
>somebody will succeed.

>Del Rawlins-

Yes, someday somebody will succeed Lycoming.
Someday the United States will be succeeded
by another nation. Someday the world will end...
and this kind of pondering is silly and a waste of
time and energy.


Barnyard Bob --

[Capt. Doug]

>Barnyard BOb wrote in message> Someday the world will end...
> and this kind of pondering is silly and a waste of time and energy.

So is sitting in front of our computers reading rah, but we continue to do
it every day.

Now then, back to my milling machine. I'm building my own turbo-diesel. For
my VTOL.

D. (The grass is always greener... until the fall when it dies!)

[Del Rawlins]

On 19 Sep 2003 06:35 PM, Capt. Doug posted the following:
> D. (The grass is always greener... until the fall when it dies!)

Fine by me, then it doesn't need to be mowed anymore. 8^)

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

[Del Rawlins]

On 19 Sep 2003 05:31 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:

> Sure, pure speculation certainly is allowed.
> However, it appeared that you knew something.
> My mistake.

The point is that your crystal ball is no more clear than mine. For all
I know you may be right, and we could be stuck with the same damn thing
for the NEXT 50 years. That is a depressing thought and I prefer to
hope for some improvement by the time I have to buy an engine. At my
current rate of building, the diesel folks have plenty of time.

> Yes, someday somebody will succeed Lycoming.
> Someday the United States will be succeeded
> by another nation. Someday the world will end...
> and this kind of pondering is silly and a waste of
> time and energy.

True, but at least I am in good company.

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

[Bruce A. Frank]

Corky,

I am not sure it is worth it to try to make any point with BOb about any
auto conversion, but I can supply some information that others might
find interesting. Six years ago I could count over 400 homebuilts flying
with a Ford V-6. I could find more than 400 more under construction. I
don't know what the totals are now. I know of 300 professionally built
engines sold for installation in aircraft which have gone to builders
whom I don't know.

I can now report on 4 that have reached 1400+ hours and one that has
gone 2000 with no catastrophic failure. I can also report on several who
had problems that they could not figure out and who eventually pulled
the Ford to install a Lycoming. I can report one death related to engine
stoppage caused by a failed coil. I can report another death due to an
improperly supported accessory belt jumping the pulleys and yanking the
coil wires off. I can report on four that have been used exclusively for
glider towing each reaching 500+ hours with no failure. I can report one
engine failure due to a broken stock piston.(we all now use aftermarket
pistons) No injury.

The only short comings found with the engine was initial problems with
head gaskets. Solutions were found and now gasket failures are rare to
nonexistent. Early intake manifolds didn't flow well. Later ones work
OK. Speed parts are now becoming available with fancy intakes and
improved ratio roller rockers.

The engine has been found to weigh in at 400 lb to 450 lb FWF and
consistently produce 195 to 210 hp at 4800 RPM. Cog belt PSRUs produced
by Blanton, Brantly and Northwest Aero have shown dependability and
durability with belt life of 2000+ hours. THe engine can be built and
flown for $5000 to $7000. And you can buy a new crank when it's time to
rebuild for $450.

If you don't understand mechanical devises and have never overhauled an
engine, choose another engine project. If you like experimentation and
enjoy the fruits of your own physical labor, go with an auto conversion.

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:23:15 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
> wrote:
>
> >No one is accusing anyone of having their head in the sand,
> >but given the millions of hours Lycoming and Continental have
> >been flown and tracked over the years, any backyard data base
> >by a couple of conversion enthusiasts is insignificant and quite
> >suspect in the scheme of things. The FAA and the AD system
> >far exceeds anything you or Bruce can begin to track regarding
> >auto conversion world faux pas.
>
> My sincere apologies if I implied that you accused anyone of having
> their heads in the sand. That was intended as my reference to myself
> and anyone else who would rather charge ahead with a project without
> first ascertaining what, if anything, has gone before and where the
> failure modes are. That just seemed logical to me.
> >
> >Further...
> >The Ford engine is but one conversion and not a popular one.
> >Whatever its record is, or can be... it ain't good enough for the
> >majority of folks interested in converting auto engines today.
> >As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse
> >and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity.
>
> It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only
> reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that
> we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then
> what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals?
>
> I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket
> parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy
> an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still
> be heavier.
>
> >Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base,
> >if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot.
>
> >Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.
>
> The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that.
> But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one
> time too, back when they were first introduced.
>
> There isn't anything inherently wrong with the concept of using an
> auto conversion. An engine is an engine as long is it's run within
> it's design parameters. But you can't just bolt a prop to Mom's
> salvaged grocery shuttle V-6 and expect it to work like an IO-360-L2A.
>
> The devil is in the details. That's why the subject keeps being
> discussed, that's why Bruce and others persist in printing
> newsletters, a thankless task by the way. People need to know the
> latest information.
>
> Corky Scott

--
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.|

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Sure, pure speculation certainly is allowed.
>> However, it appeared that you knew something.
>> My mistake.
>
>The point is that your crystal ball is no more clear than mine. For all
>I know you may be right, and we could be stuck with the same damn thing
>for the NEXT 50 years.

Your point was and still is patently obvious...
at least to me.

>
>> Yes, someday somebody will succeed Lycoming.
>> Someday the United States will be succeeded
>> by another nation. Someday the world will end...
>> and this kind of pondering is silly and a waste of
>> time and energy.
>
>True, but at least I am in good company.

>Del Rawlins

How can you be sure? <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:

>I am not sure it is worth it to try to make any point with BOb about any
>auto conversion, but...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


You have it all wrong, Bruce.
Your_points_ have ALWAYS been well understood.

The point is...
I simply disagree with the points as you and Corky present them.
Let it be known now and forever more that this is the way it is.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

[Capt. Doug]

>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > Hmmmm...
> Whatz this **WE** ****?

Shiite- you're here everyday but church day. So am I. It beats watching
television with the wife.

> Mouse or Meeses in your pockets?

That's rather personal, no?

> capable of speaking to hisself

You'll meet a better class of people that way.

D.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > Hmmmm...
>> Whatz this **WE** ****?
>
>Shiite- you're here everyday but church day. So am I. It beats watching
>television with the wife.

Unless church day is Saturday....
Here I am on this rainy Sunday with thunderstorms.
Otherwise, I would have already left for airport
breakfast 100 miles away as the crow flies.
Sometimes, a break from my own cooking is a good idea.

Diarrhea 7 days a week, is hard to take.


>> Mouse or Meeses in your pockets?
>
>That's rather personal, no?

Yes. but I always axe the tuff questions....
Just like Barbara Wa-Wa on 20/20.

>> capable of speaking to hisself
>
>You'll meet a better class of people that way.
>
>D.

When your down and out.....
I'm told this is all too often true.

If this ever happens to me....
I'll just go the FAA.

I wuz told they are here to help me.


Barnyard BOb --

[Model Flyer]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...

> breakfast 100 miles away as the crow flies.
> Sometimes, a break from my own cooking is a good idea.
>
> Diarrhea 7 days a week, is hard to take.
>

I had that, was going to the Doctor for some time about it and
discovered it was all to do with Bad Teeth, once I got rid of 17
rotton teeth the Diarrhea cleared up completely.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place


>
> >> Mouse or Meeses in your pockets?
> >
> >That's rather personal, no?
>
> Yes. but I always axe the tuff questions....
> Just like Barbara Wa-Wa on 20/20.
>
> >> capable of speaking to hisself
> >
> >You'll meet a better class of people that way.
> >
> >D.
>
> When your down and out.....
> I'm told this is all too often true.
>
> If this ever happens to me....
> I'll just go the FAA.
>
> I wuz told they are here to help me.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

[Bruce A. Frank]

Oh, I am sorry BOb, I miss worded that statement. I should have said,
"It is useless to try cajole, convince or pound any information into
that hard headed SOB!" B^)

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>
> >I am not sure it is worth it to try to make any point with BOb about any
> >auto conversion, but...
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You have it all wrong, Bruce.
> Your_points_ have ALWAYS been well understood.
>
> The point is...
> I simply disagree with the points as you and Corky present them.
> Let it be known now and forever more that this is the way it is.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

--
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.|

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>
>> "Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>>
>> >I am not sure it is worth it to try to make any point with BOb about any
>> >auto conversion, but...
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> You have it all wrong, Bruce.
>> Your_points_ have ALWAYS been well understood.
>>
>> The point is...
>> I simply disagree with the points as you and Corky present them.
>> Let it be known now and forever more that this is the way it is.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote:

>Oh, I am sorry BOb, I miss worded that statement. I should have said,
>"It is useless to try cajole, convince or pound any information into
>that hard headed SOB!" B^)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How blind, misguided and insulting can you be?

ONCE AGAIN...
I have precisely understood every syllable, word, sentence,
paragraph and nuance that you have ever typed my way.
Because I don't agree that make me hard headed?
Grow up.

A very long time ago, I could have supported you.
That was before 50 years of flight experience and good
judgment brought me to a more mature position. If you
cannot respect it, that's YOUR problem.

Engaging you and Corking on the risks, merits and costs
associated with auto conversions relative to certified aircraft
engines is futile. However, I find no need to insult you for
your intractable position..

Have a nice day.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Bruce A. Frank]

Gee, BOb, you sure are getting thin skinned these days. Thought you knew
me better than that. I'm not Juan. I haven't exchanged words with you in
anger or even irritation. I appreciate your history and experience and
know your thoughts on the subject. I thought I was responding with humor
and a little poke in fun. If I'd intended to be spiteful I'd have left
off the smiley face. BOb, I consider you a friend and was not trying to
put you down are start a fight.

Man, the last time I had to walk this gingerly was in a conversation
with Garfield. That's a joke!

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> >>
> >> "Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am not sure it is worth it to try to make any point with BOb about any
> >> >auto conversion, but...
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> You have it all wrong, Bruce.
> >> Your_points_ have ALWAYS been well understood.
> >>
> >> The point is...
> >> I simply disagree with the points as you and Corky present them.
> >> Let it be known now and forever more that this is the way it is.
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" > wrote:
>
> >Oh, I am sorry BOb, I miss worded that statement. I should have said,
> >"It is useless to try cajole, convince or pound any information into
> >that hard headed SOB!" B^)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> How blind, misguided and insulting can you be?
>
> ONCE AGAIN...
> I have precisely understood every syllable, word, sentence,
> paragraph and nuance that you have ever typed my way.
> Because I don't agree that make me hard headed?
> Grow up.
>
> A very long time ago, I could have supported you.
> That was before 50 years of flight experience and good
> judgment brought me to a more mature position. If you
> cannot respect it, that's YOUR problem.
>
> Engaging you and Corking on the risks, merits and costs
> associated with auto conversions relative to certified aircraft
> engines is futile. However, I find no need to insult you for
> your intractable position..
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

--
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.|

[Dave Hyde]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> How blind, misguided and insulting can you be?

I dunno, but I am willing to learn. <g>

Dave 'never convicted' Hyde

[Del Rawlins]

On 21 Sep 2003 04:45 PM, Bruce A. Frank posted the following:

> Man, the last time I had to walk this gingerly was in a conversation
> with Garfield. That's a joke!

Yeah, but it was a lot more fun to intentionally antagonize Gar. 8^)
Wish I'd saved the last email that I received from him; it was in
response to a suggestion that he obtain some Prozac.

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:

>Gee, BOb, you sure are getting thin skinned these days.

>Man, the last time I had to walk this gingerly was in a conversation
>with Garfield. That's a joke!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Will you let up.

I've said nothing to be ashamed of
or that needs retracting, IMO.


Barnyard BOb --

[Bruce A. Frank]

BOb,

I didn't ask for or expect an kind of apology or retraction!! I was
trying to apologize for apparently insulting you. And that's the bald
face truth.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>
> >Gee, BOb, you sure are getting thin skinned these days.
>
> >Man, the last time I had to walk this gingerly was in a conversation
> >with Garfield. That's a joke!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Will you let up.
>
> I've said nothing to be ashamed of
> or that needs retracting, IMO.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

--
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.|

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bruce A. Frank"wrote:

>BOb,
>
>I didn't ask for or expect an kind of apology or retraction!! I was
>trying to apologize for apparently insulting you. And that's the bald
>face truth.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Bald is good....
Apology accepted.


Balding Barnyard BOb --

[Morgans]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>
> >Gee, BOb, you sure are getting thin skinned these days.
>
> >Man, the last time I had to walk this gingerly was in a conversation
> >with Garfield. That's a joke!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Will you let up.
>
> I've said nothing to be ashamed of
> or that needs retracting, IMO.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Me thinks that there is a number of people greater than one or two, that
thinks you went a bit over with the reaction, in this case. IMO, of course.
He was joking, as indicated by the smiley.

Back to my cage.
--
Jim in NC

[jj]

You could try cooking something other than "Diarrhea".


"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > Hmmmm...
> >> Whatz this **WE** ****?
> >
> >Shiite- you're here everyday but church day. So am I. It beats watching
> >television with the wife.
>
> Unless church day is Saturday....
> Here I am on this rainy Sunday with thunderstorms.
> Otherwise, I would have already left for airport
> breakfast 100 miles away as the crow flies.
> Sometimes, a break from my own cooking is a good idea.
>
> Diarrhea 7 days a week, is hard to take.
>
>
> >> Mouse or Meeses in your pockets?
> >
> >That's rather personal, no?
>
> Yes. but I always axe the tuff questions....
> Just like Barbara Wa-Wa on 20/20.
>
> >> capable of speaking to hisself
> >
> >You'll meet a better class of people that way.
> >
> >D.
>
> When your down and out.....
> I'm told this is all too often true.
>
> If this ever happens to me....
> I'll just go the FAA.
>
> I wuz told they are here to help me.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --