funny

[Dan RatherNot]

There's a show on NPR called Cartalk. 2 car mechanics supposedly giving
advice to callers but really it's just an excuse for them to goof around.
Hysterical. There's a segment about a guy wanting to put a Subaru engine in
an experiment plane. Scroll down to Mazda Miata with Wings
http://cartalk.cars.com/Radio/Back-Tracks/ Broadband helps.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/
-George-

[Corrie]

Funny stuff! They sure didn't want to go out on a limb, though.

"Dan RatherNot" > wrote in message >...
> There's a show on NPR called Cartalk. 2 car mechanics supposedly giving
> advice to callers but really it's just an excuse for them to goof around.
> Hysterical. There's a segment about a guy wanting to put a Subaru engine in
> an experiment plane. Scroll down to Mazda Miata with Wings
> http://cartalk.cars.com/Radio/Back-Tracks/ Broadband helps.
>
> Natural Light Black and White Photography
> http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/
> -George-

[Bart D. Hull]

Ok Guys,

What's so funny about a Soob in a plane? That's precisely what I'm working on.
(Don't worry I don't get uptight about people questioning my motor choice.)

See links below.

For the anti car conversion crowd, I'm not worried about the engine. I've done
the motorcycle, drag truck, dirt track etc and not a single engine has crapped
out on me, yet.

I believe if you take the time and do things right the first time it don't
matter where the engine originally came from.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Corrie wrote:
> Funny stuff! They sure didn't want to go out on a limb, though.
>
> "Dan RatherNot" > wrote in message >...
>
>>There's a show on NPR called Cartalk. 2 car mechanics supposedly giving
>>advice to callers but really it's just an excuse for them to goof around.
>>Hysterical. There's a segment about a guy wanting to put a Subaru engine in
>>an experiment plane. Scroll down to Mazda Miata with Wings
>>http://cartalk.cars.com/Radio/Back-Tracks/ Broadband helps.
>>
>>Natural Light Black and White Photography
>>http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/
>>-George-

[Barnyard BOb --]

>What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?

I don't know.
What?

I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1

YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.

>(Don't worry I don't get uptight about people questioning my motor choice.)
>That's precisely what I'm working on.

Any other personal problems that you would care to reveal?

>For the anti car conversion crowd, I'm not worried about the engine. I've done
>the motorcycle, drag truck, dirt track etc and not a single engine has crapped
>out on me, yet.

YET.

>I believe if you take the time and do things right the first time it don't
>matter where the engine originally came from.
>
>--
>Bart D. Hull

WoW....

Nothing quite like well intentioned advice and philosophy
uttered from a semi-literate, neophyte Soob dood's keyboard.

Are you listening, Lycoming and Continental?


Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss

[RSwanson]

Final line of the report:
"The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in an
inadvertent stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of
experience in this type of airplane."
And THAT has something to do with his engine choice?????????
R

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
>
> I don't know.
> What?
>
> I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>
> YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
> attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>
> >(Don't worry I don't get uptight about people questioning my motor
choice.)
> >That's precisely what I'm working on.
>
> Any other personal problems that you would care to reveal?
>
> >For the anti car conversion crowd, I'm not worried about the engine. I've
done
> >the motorcycle, drag truck, dirt track etc and not a single engine has
crapped
> >out on me, yet.
>
> YET.
>
> >I believe if you take the time and do things right the first time it
don't
> >matter where the engine originally came from.
> >
> >--
> >Bart D. Hull
>
> WoW....
>
> Nothing quite like well intentioned advice and philosophy
> uttered from a semi-literate, neophyte Soob dood's keyboard.
>
> Are you listening, Lycoming and Continental?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss

[Barnyard BOb --]

"RSwanson" wrote:

>Final line of the report:
>"The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in an
>inadvertent stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of
>experience in this type of airplane."
>And THAT has something to do with his engine choice?????????
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You don't comprehend the TOTAL scenario for beans, do you?
This is a tragic comedy of errors.. not jerror.

You can't cherry pick a last line and expect to learn squat
or argue in an intelligent manner.

To begin with... the prop/engine combo could not pull the plane
though the air with sufficient airspeed above a stall. The
pilot-builder committed a number of errors before, during and
after take off that doomed him.

If the nuances and details of the report escape you , sorry.
The loss is yours.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight.

[Owe Rudbeck]

Dear, dear, dear Bob the accident had noting to do with the
kind of engine. So , it is obviously much cheeper to kill your-
self behind a non Lycosaurus, isnt it?

Owe who only very seldom agrees with You.


"Barnyard BOb --" > skrev i meddelandet
...
>
> >What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
>
> I don't know.
> What?
>
> I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>
> YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
> attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>
> >(Don't worry I don't get uptight about people questioning my motor
choice.)
> >That's precisely what I'm working on.
>
> Any other personal problems that you would care to reveal?
>
> >For the anti car conversion crowd, I'm not worried about the engine. I've
done
> >the motorcycle, drag truck, dirt track etc and not a single engine has
crapped
> >out on me, yet.
>
> YET.
>
> >I believe if you take the time and do things right the first time it
don't
> >matter where the engine originally came from.
> >
> >--
> >Bart D. Hull
>
> WoW....
>
> Nothing quite like well intentioned advice and philosophy
> uttered from a semi-literate, neophyte Soob dood's keyboard.
>
> Are you listening, Lycoming and Continental?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss

[Kevin Horton]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 08:02:56 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- wrote:


> "RSwanson" wrote:
>
>>Final line of the report:
>>"The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in an
>>inadvertent stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of
>>experience in this type of airplane." And THAT has something to do with
>>his engine choice?????????
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You don't comprehend the TOTAL scenario for beans, do you? This is a
> tragic comedy of errors.. not jerror.
>
> You can't cherry pick a last line and expect to learn squat or argue in
> an intelligent manner.
>
> To begin with... the prop/engine combo could not pull the plane though
> the air with sufficient airspeed above a stall. The pilot-builder
> committed a number of errors before, during and after take off that
> doomed him.
>
> If the nuances and details of the report escape you , sorry. The loss is
> yours.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight.

I have to agree with BOb on this one.

You could conclude that the thrust problem was due to the prop pitch being
set too fine, which it apparently was. The engine didn't fail. Now, why
was the prop pitch set so fine? Two possibilities: the engine wasn't
putting out enough power, or the builder simply screwed up with this
"non-standard" prop. Why was he using such a "non-standard" prop? He had
that prop because of the "non-standard" engine installation.

If you stick with a "standard" aviation engine and prop, there is no
guarantee they will be problem free, but at least the usual problem areas
are well known and you should be able to watch out for them. If you go
with a "non-standard" engine and/or prop you don't know what problems to
look out for, so you can get bit, as happened in this case.

From what I can tell the core engines seem to do OK in the automotive
conversions, but it is the other stuff that causes problems - PSRUs,
ignition systems, fuel systems, cooling systems, props, etc. But if you
have a power loss it doesn't matter whether it was the core engine or some
other part that let you down. You are in the trees either way.

A local Murphy Rebel flyer had a Subura conversion, but he eventually
pulled it out and went with a Lycoming. He had scared himself a few too
many times with various failues of his home-brew conversion.

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>I don't know.
>What?
>
>I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
>burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
>end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>

So how then do you explain a recent RV-6 with a certified engine that also
crashed on its maiden flight with propulsion issues? Was it a bad engine
choice or a bad installation?

>YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
>attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>

That is the real issue, was the engine a bad choice or was the installation not
done correctly?

>
>Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss
>

I won't go there! :-)


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)

[Jerry Springer]

Robert, can't fine that one could you point me to a NTSB report?
Because I fly an RV-6 I try to learn from the other guys mistakes.
Thanks,

Jerry

RobertR237 wrote:
> In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> > writes:
>
>
>>I don't know.
>>What?
>>
>>I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
>>burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
>>end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>>
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>>
>
>
> So how then do you explain a recent RV-6 with a certified engine that also
> crashed on its maiden flight with propulsion issues? Was it a bad engine
> choice or a bad installation?
>
>
>>YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
>>attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>>
>
>
> That is the real issue, was the engine a bad choice or was the installation not
> done correctly?
>
>
>>Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss
>>
>
>
> I won't go there! :-)
>
>
> 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)
>

[Del Rawlins]

On 05 Oct 2003 04:02 AM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:
>
> "RSwanson" wrote:
>
>>Final line of the report:
>>"The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in
>>an inadvertent stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's
>>lack of experience in this type of airplane." And THAT has something
>>to do with his engine choice?????????
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You don't comprehend the TOTAL scenario for beans, do you?
> This is a tragic comedy of errors.. not jerror.
>
> You can't cherry pick a last line and expect to learn squat
> or argue in an intelligent manner.
>
> To begin with... the prop/engine combo could not pull the plane
> though the air with sufficient airspeed above a stall. The
> pilot-builder committed a number of errors before, during and
> after take off that doomed him.
>
> If the nuances and details of the report escape you , sorry.
> The loss is yours.

The report says that his prop was adjusted incorrectly. Is it your
position that it is impossible to have an incorrectly adjusted prop on a
Lycoming, or that somebody smart enough to install a lycoming would not
have adjusted it incorrectly?

Either way I don't see how the choice of engine had anything to do with
it, only the installation. Even the auto-conversion advocates will tell
you that everything depends on the quality of the installation.

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

[Kevin Horton]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:06:58 +0000, RobertR237 wrote:

> In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> > writes:
>
>
>>I don't know.
>>What?
>>
>>I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed, burned and the
>>pilot became another fatality statistic off the end of runway. Maiden
>>flight Propulsion issues.
>>
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>>
>>
> So how then do you explain a recent RV-6 with a certified engine that
> also crashed on its maiden flight with propulsion issues? Was it a bad
> engine choice or a bad installation?
>
>>YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
>>attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>>
>>
> That is the real issue, was the engine a bad choice or was the
> installation not done correctly?
>

There is a lot more service history and corporate knowledge on Lycoming
and Continental installations than there is for automotive conversions. So
a Lycoming or Continental installer has a lot more info to work with, and
he is much less likely to come up with a bad installation.

I think there is some hope that well engineered, firewall-forward
automotive conversion packages may eventually become as reliable as
Lycomings or Continentals. But getting the same reliablity from home-brew
conversions will be a lot more difficult. We need more guys like Bruce
Frank collecting and diseminating information, and all builders need to
share info on what works and what doesn't work.

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Dear, dear, dear Bob the accident had noting to do with the
>kind of engine. So , it is obviously much cheeper to kill your-
>self behind a non Lycosaurus, isnt it?

Obviously, this is too complex for you to see in depth.

Like I was telling the other clown of limited capacity
and/or experience. There is much more to this than
meets the uneducated, untrained and biased eye.

>Owe who only very seldom agrees with You.

And vice-versa.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Barnyard BOb --]

Kevin Horton > wrote:

>>>"The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in an
>>>inadvertent stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of
>>>experience in this type of airplane." And THAT has something to do with
>>>his engine choice?????????
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> You don't comprehend the TOTAL scenario for beans, do you? This is a
>> tragic comedy of errors.. not jerror.
>>
>> You can't cherry pick a last line and expect to learn squat or argue in
>> an intelligent manner.
>>
>> To begin with... the prop/engine combo could not pull the plane though
>> the air with sufficient airspeed above a stall. The pilot-builder
>> committed a number of errors before, during and after take off that
>> doomed him.
>>
>> If the nuances and details of the report escape you , sorry. The loss is
>> yours.
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight.
>
>I have to agree with BOb on this one.
>
>You could conclude that the thrust problem was due to the prop pitch being
>set too fine, which it apparently was. The engine didn't fail. Now, why
>was the prop pitch set so fine? Two possibilities: the engine wasn't
>putting out enough power, or the builder simply screwed up with this
>"non-standard" prop. Why was he using such a "non-standard" prop? He had
>that prop because of the "non-standard" engine installation.
>
>If you stick with a "standard" aviation engine and prop, there is no
>guarantee they will be problem free, but at least the usual problem areas
>are well known and you should be able to watch out for them. If you go
>with a "non-standard" engine and/or prop you don't know what problems to
>look out for, so you can get bit, as happened in this case.
>
>From what I can tell the core engines seem to do OK in the automotive
>conversions, but it is the other stuff that causes problems - PSRUs,
>ignition systems, fuel systems, cooling systems, props, etc. But if you
>have a power loss it doesn't matter whether it was the core engine or some
>other part that let you down. You are in the trees either way.
>
>A local Murphy Rebel flyer had a Subura conversion, but he eventually
>pulled it out and went with a Lycoming. He had scared himself a few too
>many times with various failues of his home-brew conversion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on and well stated, Kevin.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Either way I don't see how the choice of engine had anything to do with
>it, only the installation. Even the auto-conversion advocates will tell
>you that everything depends on the quality of the installation.
>
>Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++
You have tunnel vision, Del.
I cannot help you. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Cy Galley]

Try Greg Young's RV-6 N6GY first flight.
"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Robert, can't fine that one could you point me to a NTSB report?
> Because I fly an RV-6 I try to learn from the other guys mistakes.
> Thanks,
>
> Jerry
>
> RobertR237 wrote:
> > In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> > > writes:
> >
> >
> >>I don't know.
> >>What?
> >>
> >>I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> >>burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> >>end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
> >>
> >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
> >>
> >
> >
> > So how then do you explain a recent RV-6 with a certified engine that
also
> > crashed on its maiden flight with propulsion issues? Was it a bad
engine
> > choice or a bad installation?
> >
> >
> >>YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
> >>attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is the real issue, was the engine a bad choice or was the
installation not
> > done correctly?
> >
> >
> >>Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss
> >>
> >
> >
> > I won't go there! :-)
> >
> >
> > 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)
> >
>

[Bart D. Hull]

Bob,

You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes you have
personally built? Or just stories?

I'm still building as we speak. Check out my links.

And the devil is in the details whether it be a Cont, Lyc or a Soob.

I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
classed an auto engine by you as well?

Semi-literate? Did someone not give you your happy medication today?


Some do, others just bitch.

-
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>>What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
>
>
> I don't know.
> What?
>
> I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>
> YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
> attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>
>
>>(Don't worry I don't get uptight about people questioning my motor choice.)
>>That's precisely what I'm working on.
>
>
> Any other personal problems that you would care to reveal?
>
>
>>For the anti car conversion crowd, I'm not worried about the engine. I've done
>>the motorcycle, drag truck, dirt track etc and not a single engine has crapped
>>out on me, yet.
>
>
> YET.
>
>
>>I believe if you take the time and do things right the first time it don't
>>matter where the engine originally came from.
>>
>>--
>>Bart D. Hull
>
>
> WoW....
>
> Nothing quite like well intentioned advice and philosophy
> uttered from a semi-literate, neophyte Soob dood's keyboard.
>
> Are you listening, Lycoming and Continental?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

[Marcus]

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



> You have tunnel vision, Del.


And you have your head up your ass as usual.

M

[RobertR237]

In article et>, Jerry
Springer > writes:

>
>Robert, can't fine that one could you point me to a NTSB report?
>Because I fly an RV-6 I try to learn from the other guys mistakes.
>Thanks,
>
>Jerry
>
>

I don't know about the NTSB report but it occured at David Wayne Hooks airport
about a year or so ago. The guy didn't stay in the pattern and the engine
failed as he was returning to the airport. Crashed into a trailer (and tree)
not too far from the airport. I don't know all the details but his engine just
stopped with what I later heard were fuel supply problems.


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)

[Jerry Springer]

Oh boy I want to get the popcorn out and sit back and watch this one. :-)

Jerry

Bart D. Hull wrote:
> Bob,
>
> You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes
> you have personally built? Or just stories?
>
> I'm still building as we speak. Check out my links.
>
> And the devil is in the details whether it be a Cont, Lyc or a Soob.
>
> I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
> 4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
> classed an auto engine by you as well?
>
> Semi-literate? Did someone not give you your happy medication today?
>
>
> Some do, others just bitch.
>
> -
> Bart D. Hull
>
> Tempe, Arizona
>
> Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
> for my Subaru Engine Conversion
> Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
> for Tango II I'm building.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>>> What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know.
>> What?
>>
>> I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
>> burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
>> end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19459&key=1
>>
>> YMMV, but you appear to share and reflect the pilot-builder's deadly
>> attitude. The devil lurks in the 10,000 details.
>>
>>
>>> (Don't worry I don't get uptight about people questioning my motor
>>> choice.)
>>> That's precisely what I'm working on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any other personal problems that you would care to reveal?
>>
>>
>>> For the anti car conversion crowd, I'm not worried about the engine.
>>> I've done
>>> the motorcycle, drag truck, dirt track etc and not a single engine
>>> has crapped
>>> out on me, yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> YET.
>>
>>
>>> I believe if you take the time and do things right the first time it
>>> don't matter where the engine originally came from.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bart D. Hull
>>
>>
>>
>> WoW....
>>
>> Nothing quite like well intentioned advice and philosophy
>> uttered from a semi-literate, neophyte Soob dood's keyboard.
>>
>> Are you listening, Lycoming and Continental?
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- Ignorance is bliss
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

RobertR237 wrote:

> In article et>, Jerry
> Springer > writes:
>
>
>>Robert, can't fine that one could you point me to a NTSB report?
>>Because I fly an RV-6 I try to learn from the other guys mistakes.
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't know about the NTSB report but it occured at David Wayne Hooks airport
> about a year or so ago. The guy didn't stay in the pattern and the engine
> failed as he was returning to the airport. Crashed into a trailer (and tree)
> not too far from the airport. I don't know all the details but his engine just
> stopped with what I later heard were fuel supply problems.
>
>
> Bob Reed

Thanks Bob I believe that is the one Cy refered to earlier.

Jerry

[Cy Galley]

That was Greg Young.

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>, Jerry
> Springer > writes:
>
> >
> >Robert, can't fine that one could you point me to a NTSB report?
> >Because I fly an RV-6 I try to learn from the other guys mistakes.
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >
>
> I don't know about the NTSB report but it occured at David Wayne Hooks
airport
> about a year or so ago. The guy didn't stay in the pattern and the engine
> failed as he was returning to the airport. Crashed into a trailer (and
tree)
> not too far from the airport. I don't know all the details but his engine
just
> stopped with what I later heard were fuel supply problems.
>
>
> 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)
>

[Cy Galley]

NTSB Identification: FTW01LA164. The docket is stored in the (offline) NTSB
Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, July 12, 2001 in Spring, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/28/01
Aircraft: Young RV-6, registration: N6GY
Injuries: 1 Minor.
This was the first flight of the homebuilt airplane following its
certification on the day prior to the accident. While returning from the
airplane's maiden flight, about 10 nautical miles from the airport,
approximately 1,200 feet msl, the pilot turned the electric fuel pump on for
landing, and the engine began to run "rough." He turned the fuel pump off
and the engine "smoothed out." With the fuel pump on, the pilot could lean
the mixture and get the engine to "smooth out." After trying several
combinations of fuel pump and mixture settings, the pilot thought the engine
was running smooth and planned for a tight pattern, high speed approach,
with the mixture full rich and the fuel pump off. While on base leg, at
approximately 600 feet agl, the aircraft appeared to be settling faster than
anticipated. The pilot attempted to add power, but the engine was "dead and
just wind milling." He went through a "quick restart" and at approximately
400 feet, initiated a forced landing to a nearby trailer park and declared
an emergency. The airplane touched down between two rows of trailers, and
during the landing roll the right wing impacted a tree. The airplane came to
rest upright with the left wing against a house trailer. The reason for the
loss of engine power could not be determined.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

the loss of engine power for undetermined reasons during the landing
approach. A contributing factor was the lack of suitable terrain for the
forced landing.
"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:PL2gb.694506$uu5.113525@sccrnsc04...
> That was Greg Young.
>
> "RobertR237" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>, Jerry
> > Springer > writes:
> >
> > >
> > >Robert, can't fine that one could you point me to a NTSB report?
> > >Because I fly an RV-6 I try to learn from the other guys mistakes.
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Jerry
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I don't know about the NTSB report but it occured at David Wayne Hooks
> airport
> > about a year or so ago. The guy didn't stay in the pattern and the
engine
> > failed as he was returning to the airport. Crashed into a trailer (and
> tree)
> > not too far from the airport. I don't know all the details but his
engine
> just
> > stopped with what I later heard were fuel supply problems.
> >
> >
> > 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)
> >
>
>

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bart D. Hull" wrote:

>Bob,
>
>You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes you have
>personally built?

Guilty of all of the above and much more.
Check Ron Wanttaja's site for pix.

I have a second RV-3 project in the garage that needs FWF.
It may or may not get finished. Depends if one of my sons cares
to take an interest in flying it. The RV-3 I fly now keeps me
satisfied and quite busy several hundred hours a year.
Bass fishing takes up a lot of my retired life as well.

In case you don't know...
Some guys are born to build and others born to fly.
You may place me in the latter group at this point.
No question that I'm on the downhill side of things,
but chances are damn good I can show you a thing
or two about building, flying and surviving.

>Or just stories?

Got plenty of them, too, but....

What have you got that would impress someone
that has survived 50 flight years of mistakes made
by myself and my generation of aviation comrades?

I have a very rich flying history.
If you want to turn a deaf ear and repeat much of my
youthful foolishness for yourself, be my guest. Maybe you
will be lucky enough not to kill yourself, too. OTOH.....

>I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
>4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
>classed an auto engine by you as well?

Don't **** with me, junior.
I don't suffer fools well, as you already know.

>Some do, others just bitch.

I was "doing" before your mommy learned
about contraceptives and abortion.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

(Marcus) wrote:


>> You have tunnel vision, Del.
>
>
>And you have your head up your ass as usual.
>
>M
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Better than a casket, doofus.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Bob,
>>
>> You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes
>> you have personally built? Or just stories?
>>
>> I'm still building as we speak. Check out my links.
>>
>> And the devil is in the details whether it be a Cont, Lyc or a Soob.
>>
>> I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
>> 4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
>> classed an auto engine by you as well?
>>
>> Semi-literate? Did someone not give you your happy medication today?
>>
>>
>> Some do, others just bitch.
>>
>> -
>> Bart D. Hull


>Oh boy I want to get the popcorn out and sit back and watch this one. :-)
>
>Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bart Simpson, Bart Hull... no difference.


Barnyard BOb --

[Bart D. Hull]

Bob,

I'm just not happy with the old injection systems, ignition systems and starting
issues with the Lycs. If I throw all those away, I just have a old air-cooled
long block anyways. A big question I see is what IF they do away with 100LL and
replace it with 82UL? What then for those old Lyc's and Conts'? I know its a
vague threat by those environmentalist types but what if they manage it?

I do understand your comments about tried and true but at one time they were
"cutting edge" as well, right? In your 50 years of flying you must have had a
time that you thought, "Man the old XXXXX engine (or plane) was a piece of ****
I'm glad I'm flying a XXXXXXX now."

I think its time to bring airplane engines and their systems up to more modern
and reliable levels. I don't mean more complicated, but things have come a long
way since air cooled, low compression, twin valve per cylinder, pushrod engine.

Yes, it's more work than just installing a Lyc, it will require more effort to
work out the bugs (as on any new engine install.) and I'll need to provide the
technical support myself. (better than trusting my life to something I'm not
intimately familiar with.)

Too many think of a auto-conversion as a "cheap" engine, I don't see it this way
if you plan to have a successful conversion. No pinto distributors, old Holley
two barrels, used fuel tank pumps, standard EFI boxes on my engine. Even a
turbo for altitude equalization not a "Rice Boy" HP until it blows installation.

The Honda-Lyc will be very similar to a auto-conversion as is the Bombardier
V-6. Both have serious investments to bring them up to date. I am watching them
carefully to follow the millions of bucks they are spending to learn how to
build a reliable new generation engine package that pilots will trust.

Would you put a Honda-Lyc or a Bombardier V-6 (200 or 300 HP) on your 2nd RV-3?

And yes I take "junior" as a complement as I'm quite the youngster at 35 years
of age. As far as youthful foolishness, we all do it some time in our life and
yet most of us make it to a ripe old age.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> "Bart D. Hull" wrote:
>
>
>>Bob,
>>
>>You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes you have
>>personally built?
>
>
> Guilty of all of the above and much more.
> Check Ron Wanttaja's site for pix.
>
> I have a second RV-3 project in the garage that needs FWF.
> It may or may not get finished. Depends if one of my sons cares
> to take an interest in flying it. The RV-3 I fly now keeps me
> satisfied and quite busy several hundred hours a year.
> Bass fishing takes up a lot of my retired life as well.
>
> In case you don't know...
> Some guys are born to build and others born to fly.
> You may place me in the latter group at this point.
> No question that I'm on the downhill side of things,
> but chances are damn good I can show you a thing
> or two about building, flying and surviving.
>
>
>>Or just stories?
>
>
> Got plenty of them, too, but....
>
> What have you got that would impress someone
> that has survived 50 flight years of mistakes made
> by myself and my generation of aviation comrades?
>
> I have a very rich flying history.
> If you want to turn a deaf ear and repeat much of my
> youthful foolishness for yourself, be my guest. Maybe you
> will be lucky enough not to kill yourself, too. OTOH.....
>
>
>>I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
>>4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
>>classed an auto engine by you as well?
>
>
> Don't **** with me, junior.
> I don't suffer fools well, as you already know.
>
>
>>Some do, others just bitch.
>
>
> I was "doing" before your mommy learned
> about contraceptives and abortion.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

[Treefrog]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
>
> I don't know.
> What?
>
> I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.

I don't know what kind of crap you get sold in the states but over here
(UK), the standard 2.0l turbo Subaru engine kicks out 208Bhp and is very
very very very very reliable. You could prop hang an ultralight with that
much power!

[Kevin Horton]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:09:56 +0100, Treefrog wrote:

> "Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
>>
>> I don't know.
>> What?
>>
>> I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed, burned and the
>> pilot became another fatality statistic off the end of runway. Maiden
>> flight Propulsion issues.
>
> I don't know what kind of crap you get sold in the states but over here
> (UK), the standard 2.0l turbo Subaru engine kicks out 208Bhp and is very
> very very very very reliable. You could prop hang an ultralight with
> that much power!

The basic engine is probably very reliable as installed in the car. The
problem is that you have to make some modifications to put it in the
aircraft, and those modifications aren't as well engineered or tested as
the basic engine.

For example, you'll need some sort of reduction drive to reduce the rpm at
the prop. Even if you had an engine that made sufficient power at low rpm
to directly connect it to the prop you still need to cobble together a
thrust bearing and prop flange. You'll need to modify the cooling system
to use a different radiator and hose routing. You'll need to cobble
together an air induction system to take air from the front of the
aircraft and feed it to the engine's air intake. Depending how high you
want to fly, and the design of the fuel injection system, you may need to
replace the fuel injection with something that works at higher altitudes.
Etc. Etc.

All these builder designed items introduce the possiblity for new failure
modes.

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

[Ben Haas]

This will be good !!!!!!! Bob might blow a head gasket on this one. <g>
Bart D. Hull" > wrote in message >...
> Bob,
>
> I'm just not happy with the old injection systems, ignition systems and starting
> issues with the Lycs. If I throw all those away, I just have a old air-cooled
> long block anyways. A big question I see is what IF they do away with 100LL and
> replace it with 82UL? What then for those old Lyc's and Conts'? I know its a
> vague threat by those environmentalist types but what if they manage it?
>
> I do understand your comments about tried and true but at one time they were
> "cutting edge" as well, right? In your 50 years of flying you must have had a
> time that you thought, "Man the old XXXXX engine (or plane) was a piece of ****
> I'm glad I'm flying a XXXXXXX now."
>
> I think its time to bring airplane engines and their systems up to more modern
> and reliable levels. I don't mean more complicated, but things have come a long
> way since air cooled, low compression, twin valve per cylinder, pushrod engine.
>
> Yes, it's more work than just installing a Lyc, it will require more effort to
> work out the bugs (as on any new engine install.) and I'll need to provide the
> technical support myself. (better than trusting my life to something I'm not
> intimately familiar with.)
>
> Too many think of a auto-conversion as a "cheap" engine, I don't see it this way
> if you plan to have a successful conversion. No pinto distributors, old Holley
> two barrels, used fuel tank pumps, standard EFI boxes on my engine. Even a
> turbo for altitude equalization not a "Rice Boy" HP until it blows installation.
>
> The Honda-Lyc will be very similar to a auto-conversion as is the Bombardier
> V-6. Both have serious investments to bring them up to date. I am watching them
> carefully to follow the millions of bucks they are spending to learn how to
> build a reliable new generation engine package that pilots will trust.
>
> Would you put a Honda-Lyc or a Bombardier V-6 (200 or 300 HP) on your 2nd RV-3?
>
> And yes I take "junior" as a complement as I'm quite the youngster at 35 years
> of age. As far as youthful foolishness, we all do it some time in our life and
> yet most of us make it to a ripe old age.
>
> --
> Bart D. Hull
>
> Tempe, Arizona
>
> Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
> for my Subaru Engine Conversion
> Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
> for Tango II I'm building.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> > "Bart D. Hull" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bob,
> >>
> >>You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes you have
> >>personally built?
> >
> >
> > Guilty of all of the above and much more.
> > Check Ron Wanttaja's site for pix.
> >
> > I have a second RV-3 project in the garage that needs FWF.
> > It may or may not get finished. Depends if one of my sons cares
> > to take an interest in flying it. The RV-3 I fly now keeps me
> > satisfied and quite busy several hundred hours a year.
> > Bass fishing takes up a lot of my retired life as well.
> >
> > In case you don't know...
> > Some guys are born to build and others born to fly.
> > You may place me in the latter group at this point.
> > No question that I'm on the downhill side of things,
> > but chances are damn good I can show you a thing
> > or two about building, flying and surviving.
> >
> >
> >>Or just stories?
> >
> >
> > Got plenty of them, too, but....
> >
> > What have you got that would impress someone
> > that has survived 50 flight years of mistakes made
> > by myself and my generation of aviation comrades?
> >
> > I have a very rich flying history.
> > If you want to turn a deaf ear and repeat much of my
> > youthful foolishness for yourself, be my guest. Maybe you
> > will be lucky enough not to kill yourself, too. OTOH.....
> >
> >
> >>I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
> >>4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
> >>classed an auto engine by you as well?
> >
> >
> > Don't **** with me, junior.
> > I don't suffer fools well, as you already know.
> >
> >
> >>Some do, others just bitch.
> >
> >
> > I was "doing" before your mommy learned
> > about contraceptives and abortion.
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb --
> >

[Marcus]

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


> Better than a casket, doofus.


This is true. But face it Bob. Your constant head butting with
everyone else, your lack of rationality and your refusal to
acknowledge the validity of anybody elses thinking whatsoever is a
pretty clear indication that you're at least partially brain dead.

If you've got a reasoned argument to present, then present it as best
you can and accept equally reasoned counter-arguments, but this
nonsensical "I'm an old fart! I've seen it all! I know everything!
Nobody else knows ****!" attitude of yours is worth nothing. It's
gotten so old that few are likely to listen to a word you have to say
when it is worthwhile. That's a shame, because you've got a LOT of
experience that would be worthwhile to share.

On the other hand, I guess I can just throw you back in the kill file
for another six months like most folks.

M

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Jerry Springer wrote:

> Oh boy I want to get the popcorn out and sit back and watch this one. :-)

It would be a lot more exciting if the anti- auto engine folks had
something substantial to say, instead of just pointing at crashes that
were caused by fuel system, prop, etc., and trying to blame them on the
auto engine. I'd really like to see an objective, factual discussion of
the issue, but this ain't either.

-Dan

[Barnyard BOb --]

(Marcus) wrote:

>> Better than a casket, doofus.
>
>
>This is true. But face it Bob. Your constant head butting with
>everyone else, your lack of rationality and your refusal to
>acknowledge the validity of anybody elses thinking whatsoever is a
>pretty clear indication that you're at least partially brain dead.

At least I have my senior years to blame for my behavior.
What is your excuse, dim bulb... or is that your excuse?

>If you've got a reasoned argument to present, then present it as best
>you can and accept equally reasoned counter-arguments, but this
>nonsensical "I'm an old fart! I've seen it all! I know everything!
>Nobody else knows ****!" attitude of yours is worth nothing. It's
>gotten so old that few are likely to listen to a word you have to say
>when it is worthwhile. That's a shame, because you've got a LOT of
>experience that would be worthwhile to share.

I know the "reasoned" arguments....
and so does the silent majority here. BUT --
it's like arguing religion and expecting to change
someone's mind. Naturally, passion will take its toll.

IMO, the majority is not only silent on the discussion
of auto conversions.... but exceedingly smart. They
don't have to take **** from the RAH peanut gallery.

Anywhoooo --
As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.

>On the other hand, I guess I can just throw you back in the kill file
>for another six months like most folks.
>
>M


Your message here reminds me of what a great pleasure
it is to be in your kill fill. Please return me to it ASAP.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Barnyard BOb --]

>On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>> Oh boy I want to get the popcorn out and sit back and watch this one. :-)
>
>It would be a lot more exciting if the anti- auto engine folks had
>something substantial to say, instead of just pointing at crashes that
>were caused by fuel system, prop, etc., and trying to blame them on the
>auto engine. I'd really like to see an objective, factual discussion of
>the issue, but this ain't either.
>
>-Dan
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's get something straight, Dan.
I'm NOT anti auto conversion.

I am a fine candidate for doing an auto conversion.

Why?
Because I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON -
have the requisite skills and experience as pilot, builder, mechanic
and attitude to approach such a project with a reasonable chance
of success; plus having contacts that can solve problem I can't.
What I lack is drive, energy and commitment at this stage of life.
Plain talk - I'm getting old and tired. I've had my day in the sun.

No brag, just fact.

You want factual discussions, YOU start the ball rolling.
Don't tell anyone what THEY need to do or how to act.

In closing...
I'll never support RAH as an auto conversion forum
for wannabees in search of a "feel good" chat room.

AND, for those that desire serious stuff on conversions,
there are groups dedicated to the task. Serious info and
advice exists there, not here. So, guys like you, Dan...
best move on to where birds of a feather definitely exist.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight.

[David Hill]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
<snip>
> AND, for those that desire serious stuff on conversions,
> there are groups dedicated to the task. Serious info and
> advice exists there, not here.
<snip>

Lemme see, yep, I though so, it says it right there at the top:
rec.aviation.homebuilt.

What's the point of having this forum, if for not sharing serious info
and advice? On conversions or any other facet of homebuilding? Did I
miss something? Is this a private party? An entertainment center for
surly curmudgeons?

Tell you what, BOb. I've never met you in person, so I don't know what
you're *really* like. From the way you talk/write, you make it sound
like you're as old as my dad, so in my book you automatically get a
certain amount of respect credited to your account. But you sure seem
to use up that kind of credit fast.

For the record, I've gotten serious responses to my questions, and I try
to give serious responses where I think I can be helpful.

And I'll let you know when I get that Harley motor flying. :-)

--
David Hill, parttime surly curmedgeon
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>Anywhoooo --
>As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
>are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
>If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
>Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.
>
>

Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
working on putting a Mazda in his 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)

[Morgans]

"Treefrog" > wrote in message
...
> "Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
> >
> > I don't know.
> > What?
> >
> > I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> > burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> > end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
>
> I don't know what kind of crap you get sold in the states but over here
> (UK), the standard 2.0l turbo Subaru engine kicks out 208Bhp and is very
> very very very very reliable. You could prop hang an ultralight with that
> much power!
>
>

I am as much pro auto conversion as any person in this group. You are
DREAMING if you think you can rate a 2 liter Soob for 208 HP continuous
output. You are running how many RPM, and how many inches boost to get that
figure? No sane person would run a motor that hard, and depend on it for
hour after hour.

Give me the figures. RPM and amount of boost.
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Anywhoooo --
>>As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
>>are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
>>If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
>>Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.
>>
>>
>
>Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
>working on putting a Mazda in his plane.
>
>
>Bob Reed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I like Mazda engines.
I even have one in my Mazda car.


Barnyard BOb --

[Morgans]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>Anywhoooo --
> >>As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
> >>are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
> >>If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
> >>Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
> >working on putting a Mazda in his plane.
> >
> >
> >Bob Reed
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I like Mazda engines.
> I even have one in my Mazda car.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
*******************************

Go ahead. But................
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb --]

David Hill > wrote:

>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
><snip>
> > AND, for those that desire serious stuff on conversions,
> > there are groups dedicated to the task. Serious info and
> > advice exists there, not here.
><snip>
>
>Lemme see, yep, I though so, it says it right there at the top:
>rec.aviation.homebuilt.
>
>What's the point of having this forum, if for not sharing serious info
>and advice? On conversions or any other facet of homebuilding? Did I
>miss something? Is this a private party? An entertainment center for
>surly curmudgeons?

It is indeed an entertainment center for at least one surly
curmudgeon. Could be more. Not my job to count.

>Tell you what, BOb. I've never met you in person, so I don't know what
>you're *really* like. From the way you talk/write, you make it sound
>like you're as old as my dad, so in my book you automatically get a
>certain amount of respect credited to your account. But you sure seem
>to use up that kind of credit fast.

1. I might be older than your dad.

2 If you want to show some respect as a noble gesture, do it.
If your intention is to meter the amount, cut me off now.

3. Either way, I'm gonna continue to do what I've been doing
way before you showed up here to set your righteous path.

>For the record, I've gotten serious responses to my questions, and I try
>to give serious responses where I think I can be helpful.

And I've even given serious answers. So what?
Seems there is a small number of newbies here that just
gotta pick at every generality that I utter at every turn.
You'll never see the forest fer the trees that a way.

>And I'll let you know when I get that Harley motor flying. :-)

Be sure to lemme know when you scare the crap out
yourself as well.... and the number of times per flying hour.
I'd like to keep stats on how many off field landings you
must endure before you get your head right. <g>

Harley motors suck on Harleys.
Ford V-6 motors suck in Fords.
How could they be any worse as conversions.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

David Hill wrote:


>Lemme see, yep, I though so, it says it right there at the top:
>rec.aviation.homebuilt.
>
>What's the point of having this forum, if for not sharing serious info
>and advice? On conversions or any other facet of homebuilding? Did I
>miss something? Is this a private party? An entertainment center for
>surly curmudgeons?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David,
You claim to have left four years ago because you didn't
like what was going on here and... first shot back, you
loudly whined about the number of Zoom posts. Here
you are whining about me. IMO, you are a control freak
and cannot be pleased unless in charge.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
as you exit for another four years, OK?

Bye-bye.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:20:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >>Anywhoooo --
>> >>As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
>> >>are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
>> >>If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
>> >>Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
>> >working on putting a Mazda in his plane.
>> >
>> >
>> >Bob Reed
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> I like Mazda engines.
>> I even have one in my Mazda car.
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>*******************************
>
>Go ahead. But................
><g>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"BUT" ........ WHAT? <g>


Banrnyard BOb --

[David Hill]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
<snip>
> 2 If you want to show some respect as a noble gesture, do it.
> If your intention is to meter the amount, cut me off now.

Not a problem. I'm not the noble gesture type, so if you want no
respect, it's yours.

> 3. Either way, I'm gonna continue to do what I've been doing
> way before you showed up here to set your righteous path.

That is abundantly clear to anyone who spends more than a day or two here.

<snip>> Seems there is a small number of newbies here that just
> gotta pick at every generality that I utter at every turn.

Not exactly a newby, just gone for four years, mainly because of the
extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. This time around I'm working on
filtering the noise.

> You'll never see the forest fer the trees that a way.

Whatever. I do tend to take people at their word, until they show me I
shouldn't, and I do assume people here actually wish to communicate,
rather than just chat to make noise. Obviously, for some people this is
only entertainment.

Have fun.

>>And I'll let you know when I get that Harley motor flying. :-)
>
> Be sure to lemme know when you scare the crap out
> yourself as well.... and the number of times per flying hour.
> I'd like to keep stats on how many off field landings you
> must endure before you get your head right. <g>

If you're still around, I'll be sure to do that. <g>

--
David Hill, curly surmudgeon
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[Morgans]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote > >>
> >> I like Mazda engines.
> >> I even have one in my Mazda car.
> >>
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb --
> >*******************************
> >
> >Go ahead. But................
> ><g>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> "BUT" ........ WHAT? <g>
>
>
> Banrnyard BOb --
**************************
Someone call EMS. BOb has gone brain dead. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Anywhoooo --
>>As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
>>are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
>>If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
>>Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.
>>
>>
>
>Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
>working on putting a Mazda in his plane.
>
>
>Bob Reed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Geez, Bob.

The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.

Who here has built and is currently piling up hours in
their own homemade auto conversion - RIGHT NOW.
Anybody besides Mr. Graham?
Of those that are flying auto conversions...
How many have been able to acquire liability insurance?
No way will I fly without it.
I like keeping the assets I've worked a lifetime to own.

If I was to do an auto conversion.....
I most definitely would stuff the NEW Mazda rotary
into my number two RV3.

This would not take a whole lot of doing on my part
since much of the pioneering work is already done.
Liability insurance might be do-able too, since I've
got lotsa' hours total time and a bunch in RV-3's.

Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 06 Oct 2003 17:47:18 GMT, (RobertR237) wrote:

>Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
>working on putting a Mazda in his plane.

Actually, there were two engines that Paul had no objection to, as far as
aircraft conversions: The Mazda and the VW.

Ron Wanttaja

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>Geez, Bob.
>
>The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
>as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
>All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
>warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.
>

There might be one or two others but I am not sure. I seem to recall a couple
posting from time to time.

>Who here has built and is currently piling up hours in
>their own homemade auto conversion - RIGHT NOW.
>Anybody besides Mr. Graham?
>Of those that are flying auto conversions...
>How many have been able to acquire liability insurance?
>No way will I fly without it.
>I like keeping the assets I've worked a lifetime to own.
>

Now you are finally getting around to giving the answers that the poster of the
question needs. Reasons for or against which are based on sound logic.


>If I was to do an auto conversion.....
>I most definitely would stuff the NEW Mazda rotary
>into my number two RV3.
>

How about the new one announced with their latest sports car?

>This would not take a whole lot of doing on my part
>since much of the pioneering work is already done.
>Liability insurance might be do-able too, since I've
>got lotsa' hours total time and a bunch in RV-3's.
>
>Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.
>
>
>

:-)))))))


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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>>As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
>>>are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
>>>If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
>>>Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
>>working on putting a Mazda in his plane.
>>
>>
>>Bob Reed
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>I like Mazda engines.
>I even have one in my Mazda car.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
>
>

GEEEEEEE You are getting old if that is the only rise out of you for saying you
sounded like Paul Lamar...I would have thought the ground would have shook.

<BFG>

I also believe the Mazda would be a good choice but not for the inexperienced.
My whole point is that auto engines can be successfully adapted for aircraft
use, not just the Mazda, IF you know what you are doing. I don't believe it
will be significantly cheaper and that is proven by the cost of the many
conversion engines on the market. It should also not be done by anyone that
doesn't have the knowledge to do the maintenance on the engine, anytime and
anywhere.


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)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:03:10 -0700, wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>> Oh boy I want to get the popcorn out and sit back and watch this one. :-)
>
>It would be a lot more exciting if the anti- auto engine folks had
>something substantial to say, instead of just pointing at crashes that
>were caused by fuel system, prop, etc., and trying to blame them on the
>auto engine.

Well...remember, you aren't just installing an auto engine on an airplane.
You are installing an auto-based powerplant *system*. Any problems with
system changes that are necessary to install the auto engine should be
lumped in with the problems relative to the engine.

Take my airplane, for instance...a Bowers Fly Baby, built by someone else.
It has a dead-stock Continental C-85 powerplant system. System, not merely
an engine. Everything forward of the firewall could be unbolted and
transferred directly to a typical high-wing Piper. Heck, I think
everything FWF on my plane but the duct tape is right from the Piper parts
book. :-)

I have considered, when contemplating the awful prospect of my Continental
giving up the ghost someday (hopefully leaving the airframe and its pilot
intact in the process), that I might install a Subaru conversion. If I do,
it will more than likely require a near-total reworking of the firewall
forward area of my plane.

From the point I next holler, "Clear," nearly *any* power-loss problem has
to be attributed to the auto-engine conversion. Whether it's a failure in
the actual engine or not. If a fuel line chafes and starts a leak, it's
because of the conversion (after all, the certified fuel lines connected to
my Continental haven't chafed). If an engine mount cracks, it's because of
the conversion (my Continental's mount hasn't broken). If I use the
existing throttle cable and the cable breaks, it's because of the
conversion...it may be a stock aircraft part, but it didn't break until
there was a non-aircraft part attached to the other end.

Yes, the case mentioned sounded more like builder error than anything;
dialing in the wrong amount of propeller pitch. But if the guy had used an
aircraft engine, there's a ton of history that could have been used to
select the right pitch for the engine and airframe.

Builder error on either engine or aircraft kills pilots. But when a known
standard is used, there's less chance of making a mistake. I can wander
two hangars down and see another C-85 installation if I have any questions.

I have nothing against people experimenting with auto engines on
aircraft...heck, I'm rooting for Corky and Bruce. But they understand what
they're up against. They know it's not just a simple matter of bolting on
new hardware...that new hardware is going to vibrate differently and react
to stresses differently. Bruce's newsletter helps spread the word, telling
people where they might expect problems.

Who's telling me what kind of problems to expect? All the people who had
problems with Continentals and/or Piper installations since about 1935.
Nicely documented by the FAA.

If someone has worked with engines for a while and wants to try one on an
airplane, that's great. But if someone has never done much more than
change plugs or swap out a carburetor, I worry whether they have the right
background to detect and solve problems before they cause harm.

The solution for them are the firewall forward packages. But there is
still that pesky interface with the airframe that they have to solve.
And...well, those FWF packages ain't a whole lot cheaper than a good used
Lycoming or Continental.

I fully confess, I ain't an engine guy. Personally, all I want is a lot of
flame- and fume-free propwash blowing back in my face when I shove the
black knob forward. My Continental fills the bill.

Yes, there's the potential that it might hit me hard in the wallet. It
hasn't yet...had to replace an exhaust valve to the tune of $350, but I at
least provided all the cylinder remove/reinstall labor myself. But if
worst comes to worst, I can probably get a rebuilt C-85 for less than
$5,000, and it'll still be the Continental *system* that has served me so
well.

But I agree, this is the place to discuss these sorts of trades.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bart D. Hull]

Nah,
Might lead to real discussion!

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Ben Haas wrote:
> This will be good !!!!!!! Bob might blow a head gasket on this one. <g>
> Bart D. Hull" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Bob,
>>
>>I'm just not happy with the old injection systems, ignition systems and starting
>> issues with the Lycs. If I throw all those away, I just have a old air-cooled
>>long block anyways. A big question I see is what IF they do away with 100LL and
>>replace it with 82UL? What then for those old Lyc's and Conts'? I know its a
>>vague threat by those environmentalist types but what if they manage it?
>>
>>I do understand your comments about tried and true but at one time they were
>>"cutting edge" as well, right? In your 50 years of flying you must have had a
>>time that you thought, "Man the old XXXXX engine (or plane) was a piece of ****
>>I'm glad I'm flying a XXXXXXX now."
>>
>>I think its time to bring airplane engines and their systems up to more modern
>>and reliable levels. I don't mean more complicated, but things have come a long
>>way since air cooled, low compression, twin valve per cylinder, pushrod engine.
>>
>>Yes, it's more work than just installing a Lyc, it will require more effort to
>>work out the bugs (as on any new engine install.) and I'll need to provide the
>>technical support myself. (better than trusting my life to something I'm not
>>intimately familiar with.)
>>
>>Too many think of a auto-conversion as a "cheap" engine, I don't see it this way
>>if you plan to have a successful conversion. No pinto distributors, old Holley
>>two barrels, used fuel tank pumps, standard EFI boxes on my engine. Even a
>>turbo for altitude equalization not a "Rice Boy" HP until it blows installation.
>>
>>The Honda-Lyc will be very similar to a auto-conversion as is the Bombardier
>>V-6. Both have serious investments to bring them up to date. I am watching them
>>carefully to follow the millions of bucks they are spending to learn how to
>>build a reliable new generation engine package that pilots will trust.
>>
>>Would you put a Honda-Lyc or a Bombardier V-6 (200 or 300 HP) on your 2nd RV-3?
>>
>>And yes I take "junior" as a complement as I'm quite the youngster at 35 years
>>of age. As far as youthful foolishness, we all do it some time in our life and
>>yet most of us make it to a ripe old age.
>>
>>--
>>Bart D. Hull

>>Tempe, Arizona
>>
>>Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
>>for my Subaru Engine Conversion
>>Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
>>for Tango II I'm building.
>>
>>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>>
>>>"Bart D. Hull" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes you have
>>>>personally built?
>>>
>>>
>>>Guilty of all of the above and much more.
>>>Check Ron Wanttaja's site for pix.
>>>
>>>I have a second RV-3 project in the garage that needs FWF.
>>>It may or may not get finished. Depends if one of my sons cares
>>>to take an interest in flying it. The RV-3 I fly now keeps me
>>>satisfied and quite busy several hundred hours a year.
>>>Bass fishing takes up a lot of my retired life as well.
>>>
>>>In case you don't know...
>>>Some guys are born to build and others born to fly.
>>>You may place me in the latter group at this point.
>>>No question that I'm on the downhill side of things,
>>>but chances are damn good I can show you a thing
>>>or two about building, flying and surviving.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or just stories?
>>>
>>>
>>>Got plenty of them, too, but....
>>>
>>>What have you got that would impress someone
>>>that has survived 50 flight years of mistakes made
>>>by myself and my generation of aviation comrades?
>>>
>>>I have a very rich flying history.
>>>If you want to turn a deaf ear and repeat much of my
>>>youthful foolishness for yourself, be my guest. Maybe you
>>>will be lucky enough not to kill yourself, too. OTOH.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
>>>>4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
>>>>classed an auto engine by you as well?
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't **** with me, junior.
>>>I don't suffer fools well, as you already know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some do, others just bitch.
>>>
>>>
>>>I was "doing" before your mommy learned
>>>about contraceptives and abortion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb --
>>>

[Del Rawlins]

On 06 Oct 2003 05:02 PM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:

> Take my airplane, for instance...a Bowers Fly Baby, built by someone
> else. It has a dead-stock Continental C-85 powerplant system. System,
> not merely an engine. Everything forward of the firewall could be
> unbolted and transferred directly to a typical high-wing Piper. Heck,
> I think everything FWF on my plane but the duct tape is right from the
> Piper parts book. :-)

I believe you will find that particular part number in the Alaskan
supplement to the Piper parts book, right next to the copper RTV anti-
chafe compound.

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

[David Hill]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> David Hill wrote:
>
>>Lemme see, yep, I though so, it says it right there at the top:
>>rec.aviation.homebuilt.
>>
>>What's the point of having this forum, if for not sharing serious info
>>and advice? On conversions or any other facet of homebuilding? Did I
>>miss something? Is this a private party? An entertainment center for
>>surly curmudgeons?
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> David,
> You claim to have left four years ago because you didn't
> like what was going on here and... first shot back, you
> loudly whined about the number of Zoom posts. Here
> you are whining about me.

I don't think of it so much as whining, as trying to see if it's
possible to have a civil discourse with you. Apparently, it's not.

> IMO, you are a control freak
> and cannot be pleased unless in charge.

You learned so much by so few posts? Tell you what I've learned about
you, besides the surly curmudgeon part -- you are *way* too sensitive,
dude. Take a chill pill.

> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
> as you exit for another four years, OK?

You wish.

You know, you must be a helluva guy in person, for so many people to put
up with your online persona. But I don't know you, and I don't have to
put up with you.

> Bye-bye.

I'll see your bye-bye and raise you one <PLONK>!

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[Treefrog]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Treefrog" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >What's so funny about a Soob in a plane?
> > >
> > > I don't know.
> > > What?
> > >
> > > I do know.... the last Soob powered local plane crashed,
> > > burned and the pilot became another fatality statistic off the
> > > end of runway. Maiden flight Propulsion issues.
> >
> > I don't know what kind of crap you get sold in the states but over here
> > (UK), the standard 2.0l turbo Subaru engine kicks out 208Bhp and is very
> > very very very very reliable. You could prop hang an ultralight with
that
> > much power!
> >
> >
>
> I am as much pro auto conversion as any person in this group. You are
> DREAMING if you think you can rate a 2 liter Soob for 208 HP continuous
> output. You are running how many RPM, and how many inches boost to get
that
> figure? No sane person would run a motor that hard, and depend on it for
> hour after hour.
>
> Give me the figures. RPM and amount of boost.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

Oops, my figures were out slightly. The new model produces a little bit more
than 208bhp.

Ok, it ain't going to last at continuous redline but the power is there for
short bursts, e.g. takeoff.

This is the engine specs straight from the factory, I can't find any
information about stock boost pressure.
265bhp @ 6000

It has been known for these engines to be tuned to well over 500bhp (in
fact, I know of an 800bhp Subaru). Obviously you would never run that in an
aircraft but my point is, the stock engine is reliable at 265bhp (or less).
Kevin made a good point though, with all this power, any modifications will
have to be very well engineered. Home made components would most likely be
the breaking point, not the engine.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>GEEEEEEE You are getting old if that is the only rise out of you for saying you
>sounded like Paul Lamar...I would have thought the ground would have shook.
>
><BFG>

Few will believe this....
But, my blood pressure stays flat through all this RAH stuff UNTIL....
somebody says something truly funny. Yep. I can be caught rolling
on the floor at 3, 4, or 5 AM.

>I also believe the Mazda would be a good choice but not for the inexperienced.

The crux of the matter is there are few as gifted at Tracy Crooks.

>My whole point is that auto engines can be successfully adapted for aircraft
>use, not just the Mazda, IF you know what you are doing.

Super humongous... "IF".
And where is the financial responsibility coming from?
Your personal assets ?

No insurance company wants to write a low time pilot, with no time
in type, playing test pilot with a one of a kind homebrew engine.
They'd have to be as nuts as the builder/pilot/engine combo.

>I don't believe it
>will be significantly cheaper and that is proven by the cost of the many
>conversion engines on the market.

Those that believe otherwise are delusional and should not even
be allowed near a wrench, torch or hammer. However, this is where
most of the boos and hisses come from. Yes, I'm speaking in
generalities, but it is GENERALLY TRUE.

> It should also not be done by anyone that
>doesn't have the knowledge to do the maintenance on the engine, anytime and
>anywhere.
>
>
>Bob Reed

FIRST...
You have to get past the engineering obstacles before you can
even think about a maintenance program. For my money,
the R & D never ends and therefore....
passengers should not be put at risk in this kind of experimenting.
This is an area of risk that insurance companies are loathe to write.

If I'm wrong, show me where.


Barnyard BOb --



Barnyard BOb --

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:19:44 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>Geez, Bob.
>
>The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
>as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
>All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
>warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.

>Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.

Hard as this may be to believe, not everyone who owns a homebuilt,
powered by auto conversion or not, knows about or cares about
Recreational Aviation Homebuilt.

Just because they don't post here doesn't mean they don't exist.
There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that the
"in-your-face" intimidating nature of many respondents drives them
away, or makes them reluctant to post.

For the record, the reverend Ron Van der Hart flew a Buick engined
Pawnee for years, saw him at Oshkosh in '95, he sells a video on the
conversion.

Fred Geschwender built PSRU's for big block Fords to be used for
dusting operations. He's gone now but his business continues.

Johnny Lindgren, who now owns Northwest Aero has been selling engines
and PSRU's for years.

Andy Venable flew behind a Mazda engine for years before switching to
an aircraft engine. Why did he switch? Because it froze on him while
taxiing out for takeoff one day. He thinks it may be because he'd
tilted the engine for the installation, which he guesses screwed up
the oil system, eventually.

Speaking of Mazda's, there's Tracy Crook, who's flown a 13B powered
RV4 for five years or more now.

Then there's Jim Stewart in the Stewart S-51 Chevy V-8 powered Mustang
replica.

Belted Air Power makes PSRU's for Chevy V-6's and has been flying
behind a Chevy V-6 powered RV4 for years. Bill Phillips has flown it.

Jan Eggenfellner has been making Subaru auto conversions for at least
6 years and has sold several hundred units.

There was an engineer, a friend of Ron's, who flew behind a Ford
powered BD-4 for a number of years. He died flying a Gyro a few years
ago. His was the voice of reason and articulate examination of auto
conversions.

There's the guy, forget his name but he used to be the force behind
"Hurst" shifters, who modified a Chevy V-8 to be used in Lancair IV's.
It puts out 420 horsepower. He won the inaugural race from Kittyhawk
to Oshkosh flying that airplane. The engine is now being built and
sold in Auburn Maine.

Bruce Frank figures there are about 200 or so owners of V-6 Stol's
some of whom have hundreds of hours on them. Several have over 1,000
and one guy accumulated 2,000.

I have a Mpeg of a guy making his maiden flight in a Subaru powered
Comp Monster down in Florida. He had no problems.

Jerry Schweitzer did a busines building Ford V-6's and has flown to
many airshows to display his V6 Stol and his more recent Ford V-6
powered RV4. I have his video in which he describes the various
modifications he makes on the engine to make it reliable. The video
concludes with him flying around for 15 minutes in the Stol to show it
off.

There are others, they just don't post here.

Do they fail? Of course, so do professionally installed certified
engines. If you do the work yourself, if you are qualified to do so,
you can have a zero time engine that puts out at least 180 horsepower
for about $5,000 to $6,000. I have about $2400 in the engine at this
point. I still have to buy the radiator and hoses and the ignition
system. I also have to fabricate the exhaust system. My desire is to
include a muffler in the system so as to keep noise levels down while
in flight.

Corky Scott

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>FIRST...
>You have to get past the engineering obstacles before you can
>even think about a maintenance program. For my money,
>the R & D never ends and therefore....
>passengers should not be put at risk in this kind of experimenting.
>This is an area of risk that insurance companies are loathe to write.
>
>If I'm wrong, show me where.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>

My thoughts on the maintenance vs engineering was directly aimed a the FWF
packages available from some sources such as NSI. These are well engineered
packages but still leave you with an engine that can not be serviced by the
majority of AP's and which you should think twice about have your local greese
monkey work on.


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)

[Don Elliott]

George do you get the impression that NONE of these guys got your point at
all. LMAO. Those two guys are funny.
Don

[Michael]

Kevin Horton > wrote
> If you stick with a "standard" aviation engine and prop, there is no
> guarantee they will be problem free, but at least the usual problem areas
> are well known and you should be able to watch out for them. If you go
> with a "non-standard" engine and/or prop you don't know what problems to
> look out for, so you can get bit, as happened in this case.

In fact, if you just stop experimenting and do things the way everyone
else has always done them (the "standard" way), you avoid lots of
problems.

Now excuse me - I'm going to lunch, so I need to sharpen my spear.

Michael

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:03:30 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:19:44 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
>wrote:
>
>>Geez, Bob.
>>
>>The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
>>as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
>>All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
>>warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.
>
>>Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.
>
>Hard as this may be to believe, not everyone who owns a homebuilt,
>powered by auto conversion or not, knows about or cares about
>Recreational Aviation Homebuilt.

>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXACTLY my argument !!!!!!

Thank you, thank you , thank you...
for your support. <g>

I recently stated and NOW REPEAT...
RAH is NOT the hotbed for auto conversions.
Anyone SERIOUS about such goes where in depth
information, knowledge and action occurs.

The conversion enthusiasts here that thump their chests and whine
so loudly are mere clueless ****ant wannabees in need of a roost
before moving on. The 'real deals' are too damn busy tending to their
conversions to waste precious time screwing around with circular and
dead end arguments that generate far more heat than light here in the
wannabee land of RAH.


Barnyard BOb --

[Peter Dohm]

Thanks, Corky,

I had wondered what became of the Geschwender reduction drives after Mr. G's
passing, and couldn't quite believe that a fully engineered and marketable
product would have been bandoned. For some reason, a Google search with the
argument fred + geschwender + psru gave Alternate Air Power, which now has a
web site. It is well out of my price range for the moment; but is actually
a real bargain when you consider the way it is built, and that it is made to
swing a constant speed prop.

I had also been unaware of the Belted Air Power name. It certainly looks
like a reasonable solution for a fixed pitch prop, and more effecient answer
than Steve Wittman's inverted engine solution--especially if you lust after
a retractable nose wheel. :-)

Peter


Corky Scott wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:19:44 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
> wrote:
>
> >Geez, Bob.
> >
> >The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
> >as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
> >All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
> >warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.
>
> >Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.
>
> Hard as this may be to believe, not everyone who owns a homebuilt,
> powered by auto conversion or not, knows about or cares about
> Recreational Aviation Homebuilt.
>
> Just because they don't post here doesn't mean they don't exist.
> There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that the
> "in-your-face" intimidating nature of many respondents drives them
> away, or makes them reluctant to post.
>
> For the record, the reverend Ron Van der Hart flew a Buick engined
> Pawnee for years, saw him at Oshkosh in '95, he sells a video on the
> conversion.
>
> Fred Geschwender built PSRU's for big block Fords to be used for
> dusting operations. He's gone now but his business continues.
>
> Johnny Lindgren, who now owns Northwest Aero has been selling engines
> and PSRU's for years.
>
> Andy Venable flew behind a Mazda engine for years before switching to
> an aircraft engine. Why did he switch? Because it froze on him while
> taxiing out for takeoff one day. He thinks it may be because he'd
> tilted the engine for the installation, which he guesses screwed up
> the oil system, eventually.
>
> Speaking of Mazda's, there's Tracy Crook, who's flown a 13B powered
> RV4 for five years or more now.
>
> Then there's Jim Stewart in the Stewart S-51 Chevy V-8 powered Mustang
> replica.
>
> Belted Air Power makes PSRU's for Chevy V-6's and has been flying
> behind a Chevy V-6 powered RV4 for years. Bill Phillips has flown it.
>
> Jan Eggenfellner has been making Subaru auto conversions for at least
> 6 years and has sold several hundred units.
>
> There was an engineer, a friend of Ron's, who flew behind a Ford
> powered BD-4 for a number of years. He died flying a Gyro a few years
> ago. His was the voice of reason and articulate examination of auto
> conversions.
>
> There's the guy, forget his name but he used to be the force behind
> "Hurst" shifters, who modified a Chevy V-8 to be used in Lancair IV's.
> It puts out 420 horsepower. He won the inaugural race from Kittyhawk
> to Oshkosh flying that airplane. The engine is now being built and
> sold in Auburn Maine.
>
> Bruce Frank figures there are about 200 or so owners of V-6 Stol's
> some of whom have hundreds of hours on them. Several have over 1,000
> and one guy accumulated 2,000.
>
> I have a Mpeg of a guy making his maiden flight in a Subaru powered
> Comp Monster down in Florida. He had no problems.
>
> Jerry Schweitzer did a busines building Ford V-6's and has flown to
> many airshows to display his V6 Stol and his more recent Ford V-6
> powered RV4. I have his video in which he describes the various
> modifications he makes on the engine to make it reliable. The video
> concludes with him flying around for 15 minutes in the Stol to show it
> off.
>
> There are others, they just don't post here.
>
> Do they fail? Of course, so do professionally installed certified
> engines. If you do the work yourself, if you are qualified to do so,
> you can have a zero time engine that puts out at least 180 horsepower
> for about $5,000 to $6,000. I have about $2400 in the engine at this
> point. I still have to buy the radiator and hoses and the ignition
> system. I also have to fabricate the exhaust system. My desire is to
> include a muffler in the system so as to keep noise levels down while
> in flight.
>
> Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:25:55 GMT, Peter Dohm >
wrote:

>Thanks, Corky,
>
>I had wondered what became of the Geschwender reduction drives after Mr. G's
>passing, and couldn't quite believe that a fully engineered and marketable
>product would have been bandoned. For some reason, a Google search with the
>argument fred + geschwender + psru gave Alternate Air Power, which now has a
>web site. It is well out of my price range for the moment; but is actually
>a real bargain when you consider the way it is built, and that it is made to
>swing a constant speed prop.

>Peter

Peter, the Geschwender unit was originally built for high output Ford
V-8's, power in the 450 hp range.

I actually had an opportunity to speak with Fred Geschwender and he
talked me out of using his PSRU because it was massive and overbuilt
for something like the Ford V-6, or anything that small.

I see from that website you mentioned that they now make something
that fits the smaller engines. They don't mention a price for it
though...

I was planning to use a hy-vo type reduction unit but came by a second
hand (unused) NW Aero 2 to 1 reduction ratio unit for less than half
price. That's what's on the no. 2 engine that's bolted into the
engine mount as a mockup right now.

Corky Scott

[Peter Dohm]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:25:55 GMT, Peter Dohm >
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks, Corky,
> >
> >I had wondered what became of the Geschwender reduction drives after Mr. G's
> >passing, and couldn't quite believe that a fully engineered and marketable
> >product would have been bandoned. For some reason, a Google search with the
> >argument fred + geschwender + psru gave Alternate Air Power, which now has a
> >web site. It is well out of my price range for the moment; but is actually
> >a real bargain when you consider the way it is built, and that it is made to
> >swing a constant speed prop.
>
> >Peter
>
> Peter, the Geschwender unit was originally built for high output Ford
> V-8's, power in the 450 hp range.
>
> I actually had an opportunity to speak with Fred Geschwender and he
> talked me out of using his PSRU because it was massive and overbuilt
> for something like the Ford V-6, or anything that small.
>
> I see from that website you mentioned that they now make something
> that fits the smaller engines. They don't mention a price for it
> though...
>
> I was planning to use a hy-vo type reduction unit but came by a second
> hand (unused) NW Aero 2 to 1 reduction ratio unit for less than half
> price. That's what's on the no. 2 engine that's bolted into the
> engine mount as a mockup right now.
>
> Corky Scott

Corky,

I don't know whether a lot of smaller manufacturers have frequently added
a web presence, or your earlier post just gave me a key to better search
arguments.

You are certainly right about Fred Geschwender's original design goals,
which appear to be shared by EPI, Inc. If you need a tremendous amount
of power on take-off, a controllable prop, and possibly a reduced power
cruise; then the hy-vo units look like a real bargain. In the simplest
form, a 300 horsepower big-block truck engine with a PSRU and constant
speed propeller should be well under 30K; which looks pretty respectable
against a 260HP Lycoming or Continental also new and equipped with a
constant speed propeller. Add the nacelle shape requirement for a good
P51 replica and the market, aside from Ag planes, is understandable.

It happens that I in your end of the marketplace and I am gradually
beginning to accept the idea that a PSRU which cannot accept a constant
speed prop is not necessarily a bad thing; and is probably as reliable.

I am a little curious about the specifics of how the 2:1 reduction ratios
are acheived on both the belt and hy-vo chain drives, as I learned a
number of years ago that evenly divisible ratios (such as 2.0:1, 1.50:1,
3.0:1, etc.) should be avoided in spur gear type reduction drives as
they will wear unevenly and require more frequent overhaul. The problem
occurs when the same gear teeth consistently transmit the power or
compression strokes of the engine, and can be mitigated by slightly
hanging the ratios; usually by one tooth on either the drive gear or
the driven gear. However, since the drive gear is fixed to the crank
shaft, the uneven wear problem can not be eliminated in a spur geared
system.

In the case of a belt or hy-vo chain system, it should be possible to
mitigate the wear problem to a similar degree if the number of teeth
on the chain is not divisible by those of either of the two pulleys;
although the crank shaft pulley is obviously the more important of the
two.

I couldn't find much on the Northwest-aero web site regarding the
"innards" of their PSRU, so I am curious.

Peter Dohm

[Morgans]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I couldn't find much on the Northwest-aero web site regarding the
> "innards" of their PSRU, so I am curious.
>
> Peter Dohm

It is a toothed belt system.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > I couldn't find much on the Northwest-aero web site regarding the
> > "innards" of their PSRU, so I am curious.
> >
> > Peter Dohm
>
> It is a toothed belt system.
> --
> Jim in NC

Thanks, Jim,

Hopefully, the teeth on the belt are not divisible by the teeth on the
drive pulley; so that the belt will wear evenly. It the sort of feature
that I would expect every manufacturer to mention in their promotional
material, so I am given to wonder when it appears that none of them do.

Peter Dohm

[Ken Bauman]

A Hy-Vo chain drive should ideally use an even number of links in the chain.
And also have one even count sprocket and one odd count sprocket. So a 2 to
1 is possible say with a 50/25 sprocket combination. A properly designed
Hy-Vo drive will have a B10 chain life measered in 10's of thousands of
hours. An improperly designed one can have a chain live measured in 10's of
hours. For example a 2" wide 3/8 pitch chain in one case will be a 17 hour
B10. Replace the 2" with 3" wide and the life is 26,000 hours in the exact
same situation. In the first case the chain will break due to link fatigue
before it gets the chance to wear.

Hy-Vo chain is also very tollerant of center to center distance in
comparison to cog belts.

EPI has the best info regarding Hy-Vo chain use in a PSRU that I've seen.

Kenny Bauman



"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> Corky Scott wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:25:55 GMT, Peter Dohm >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Thanks, Corky,
> > >
> > >I had wondered what became of the Geschwender reduction drives after
Mr. G's
> > >passing, and couldn't quite believe that a fully engineered and
marketable
> > >product would have been bandoned. For some reason, a Google search
with the
> > >argument fred + geschwender + psru gave Alternate Air Power, which now
has a
> > >web site. It is well out of my price range for the moment; but is
actually
> > >a real bargain when you consider the way it is built, and that it is
made to
> > >swing a constant speed prop.
> >
> > >Peter
> >
> > Peter, the Geschwender unit was originally built for high output Ford
> > V-8's, power in the 450 hp range.
> >
> > I actually had an opportunity to speak with Fred Geschwender and he
> > talked me out of using his PSRU because it was massive and overbuilt
> > for something like the Ford V-6, or anything that small.
> >
> > I see from that website you mentioned that they now make something
> > that fits the smaller engines. They don't mention a price for it
> > though...
> >
> > I was planning to use a hy-vo type reduction unit but came by a second
> > hand (unused) NW Aero 2 to 1 reduction ratio unit for less than half
> > price. That's what's on the no. 2 engine that's bolted into the
> > engine mount as a mockup right now.
> >
> > Corky Scott
>
> Corky,
>
> I don't know whether a lot of smaller manufacturers have frequently added
> a web presence, or your earlier post just gave me a key to better search
> arguments.
>
> You are certainly right about Fred Geschwender's original design goals,
> which appear to be shared by EPI, Inc. If you need a tremendous amount
> of power on take-off, a controllable prop, and possibly a reduced power
> cruise; then the hy-vo units look like a real bargain. In the simplest
> form, a 300 horsepower big-block truck engine with a PSRU and constant
> speed propeller should be well under 30K; which looks pretty respectable
> against a 260HP Lycoming or Continental also new and equipped with a
> constant speed propeller. Add the nacelle shape requirement for a good
> P51 replica and the market, aside from Ag planes, is understandable.
>
> It happens that I in your end of the marketplace and I am gradually
> beginning to accept the idea that a PSRU which cannot accept a constant
> speed prop is not necessarily a bad thing; and is probably as reliable.
>
> I am a little curious about the specifics of how the 2:1 reduction ratios
> are acheived on both the belt and hy-vo chain drives, as I learned a
> number of years ago that evenly divisible ratios (such as 2.0:1, 1.50:1,
> 3.0:1, etc.) should be avoided in spur gear type reduction drives as
> they will wear unevenly and require more frequent overhaul. The problem
> occurs when the same gear teeth consistently transmit the power or
> compression strokes of the engine, and can be mitigated by slightly
> hanging the ratios; usually by one tooth on either the drive gear or
> the driven gear. However, since the drive gear is fixed to the crank
> shaft, the uneven wear problem can not be eliminated in a spur geared
> system.
>
> In the case of a belt or hy-vo chain system, it should be possible to
> mitigate the wear problem to a similar degree if the number of teeth
> on the chain is not divisible by those of either of the two pulleys;
> although the crank shaft pulley is obviously the more important of the
> two.
>
> I couldn't find much on the Northwest-aero web site regarding the
> "innards" of their PSRU, so I am curious.
>
> Peter Dohm

[sean trost]

Bob,
I was sittin on the fence about your thoughts on the egine debate
subject. What you wrote above makes sense and I now have an idea as to
the thougth process in your arguments.

all the best
Sean Trost

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>>GEEEEEEE You are getting old if that is the only rise out of you for saying you
>>sounded like Paul Lamar...I would have thought the ground would have shook.
>>
>><BFG>
>
>
> Few will believe this....
> But, my blood pressure stays flat through all this RAH stuff UNTIL....
> somebody says something truly funny. Yep. I can be caught rolling
> on the floor at 3, 4, or 5 AM.
>
>
>>I also believe the Mazda would be a good choice but not for the inexperienced.
>
>
> The crux of the matter is there are few as gifted at Tracy Crooks.
>
>
>>My whole point is that auto engines can be successfully adapted for aircraft
>>use, not just the Mazda, IF you know what you are doing.
>
>
> Super humongous... "IF".
> And where is the financial responsibility coming from?
> Your personal assets ?
>
> No insurance company wants to write a low time pilot, with no time
> in type, playing test pilot with a one of a kind homebrew engine.
> They'd have to be as nuts as the builder/pilot/engine combo.
>
>
>>I don't believe it
>>will be significantly cheaper and that is proven by the cost of the many
>>conversion engines on the market.
>
>
> Those that believe otherwise are delusional and should not even
> be allowed near a wrench, torch or hammer. However, this is where
> most of the boos and hisses come from. Yes, I'm speaking in
> generalities, but it is GENERALLY TRUE.
>
>
>>It should also not be done by anyone that
>>doesn't have the knowledge to do the maintenance on the engine, anytime and
>>anywhere.
>>
>>
>>Bob Reed
>
>
> FIRST...
> You have to get past the engineering obstacles before you can
> even think about a maintenance program. For my money,
> the R & D never ends and therefore....
> passengers should not be put at risk in this kind of experimenting.
> This is an area of risk that insurance companies are loathe to write.
>
> If I'm wrong, show me where.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:37:37 GMT, Peter Dohm >
wrote:


>I am a little curious about the specifics of how the 2:1 reduction ratios
>are acheived on both the belt and hy-vo chain drives, as I learned a
>number of years ago that evenly divisible ratios (such as 2.0:1, 1.50:1,
>3.0:1, etc.) should be avoided in spur gear type reduction drives as
>they will wear unevenly and require more frequent overhaul. The problem
>occurs when the same gear teeth consistently transmit the power or
>compression strokes of the engine, and can be mitigated by slightly
>hanging the ratios; usually by one tooth on either the drive gear or
>the driven gear. However, since the drive gear is fixed to the crank
>shaft, the uneven wear problem can not be eliminated in a spur geared
>system.
>
>In the case of a belt or hy-vo chain system, it should be possible to
>mitigate the wear problem to a similar degree if the number of teeth
>on the chain is not divisible by those of either of the two pulleys;
>although the crank shaft pulley is obviously the more important of the
>two.
>
>I couldn't find much on the Northwest-aero web site regarding the
>"innards" of their PSRU, so I am curious.
>
>Peter Dohm

Peter, perhaps Bruce Frank can tell you more about the cog belt
systems, I can only give you an overview. Bruce issues a newsletter
on the subject and has written about a guy who managed to accumulate
2,000 hour on his engine/psru (Ford 3.8L V-6 with 2 to 1 ratio cog
belt psru). At that point, he tore down the engine and also inspected
the psru. He replaced the belt, but did not actually discern much
wear on it. His impression was that it could have run much longer.

The 2 to 1 ratio drives don't seem to have any abnormal wear pattern
that has been reported.

The problem you describe may be specific to metal to metal gears
meshing.

Corky Scott

[RobertR237]

In article >, sean trost >
writes:

>
>Bob,
>I was sittin on the fence about your thoughts on the egine debate
>subject. What you wrote above makes sense and I now have an idea as to
>the thougth process in your arguments.
>
>all the best
>Sean Trost
>
>

BOb is like the old military sargents who used to state "When I say Jump, you
jump and only ask how high on the way up but you NEVER ask why". Sometimes you
have to get down and dirty with him to get the why, but in most cases, it is
pretty valid reasoning.


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)

[Bart Hull]

Bart D. Hull wrote:

> Bob,
>
> I'm just not happy with the old injection systems, ignition systems
> and starting issues with the Lycs. If I throw all those away, I just
> have a old air-cooled long block anyways. A big question I see is what
> IF they do away with 100LL and replace it with 82UL? What then for
> those old Lyc's and Conts'? I know its a vague threat by those
> environmentalist types but what if they manage it?
>
> I do understand your comments about tried and true but at one time
> they were "cutting edge" as well, right? In your 50 years of flying
> you must have had a
> time that you thought, "Man the old XXXXX engine (or plane) was a
> piece of ****
> I'm glad I'm flying a XXXXXXX now."
>
> I think its time to bring airplane engines and their systems up to
> more modern and reliable levels. I don't mean more complicated, but
> things have come a long way since air cooled, low compression, twin
> valve per cylinder, pushrod engine.
>
> Yes, it's more work than just installing a Lyc, it will require more
> effort to work out the bugs (as on any new engine install.) and I'll
> need to provide the technical support myself. (better than trusting my
> life to something I'm not intimately familiar with.)
>
> Too many think of a auto-conversion as a "cheap" engine, I don't see
> it this way
> if you plan to have a successful conversion. No pinto distributors,
> old Holley
> two barrels, used fuel tank pumps, standard EFI boxes on my engine.
> Even a
> turbo for altitude equalization not a "Rice Boy" HP until it blows
> installation.
>
> The Honda-Lyc will be very similar to a auto-conversion as is the
> Bombardier V-6. Both have serious investments to bring them up to
> date. I am watching them carefully to follow the millions of bucks
> they are spending to learn how to build a reliable new generation
> engine package that pilots will trust.
>
> Would you put a Honda-Lyc or a Bombardier V-6 (200 or 300 HP) on your
> 2nd RV-3?
>
> And yes I take "junior" as a complement as I'm quite the youngster at
> 35 years of age. As far as youthful foolishness, we all do it some
> time in our life and
> yet most of us make it to a ripe old age.
>

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

[Bruce A. Frank]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> I am a little curious about the specifics of how the 2:1 reduction ratios
> are acheived on both the belt and hy-vo chain drives, as I learned a
> number of years ago that evenly divisible ratios (such as 2.0:1, 1.50:1,
> 3.0:1, etc.) should be avoided in spur gear type reduction drives as
> they will wear unevenly and require more frequent overhaul. The problem
> occurs when the same gear teeth consistently transmit the power or
> compression strokes of the engine, and can be mitigated by slightly
> hanging the ratios; usually by one tooth on either the drive gear or
> the driven gear. However, since the drive gear is fixed to the crank
> shaft, the uneven wear problem can not be eliminated in a spur geared
> system.

> Peter Dohm

Actually it has been found that exactly 2:1 ratio with a cog belt PSRU
runs trouble free whereas one tooth above or below that ratio caused a
very noisy unit. (Dave Blanton's original development work)
--
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.|