V-8 powered Seabee

[Corky Scott]

Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.

The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
stainless steel mufflers.

http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml

Corky Scott

[Robert Schieck]

You forgot that it gets air-conditioning as a bonus of the conversion...

I have seen the plane, nicely done...

Rob


Corky Scott wrote:

>Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
>Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.
>
>The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
>cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
>conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
>burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
>stainless steel mufflers.
>
>http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml
>
>Corky Scott
>
>

[Barnyard BOb --]

(Corky Scott) wrote:

>Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
>Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.
>
>The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
>cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
>conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
>burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
>stainless steel mufflers.
>
>http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml
>
>Corky Scott
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as
fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. <g>

If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it?


Dictionary.com - Anecdotal:

Based on casual observations or indications
rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:

When was the last time someone posted
that their auto conversion was a POS.

Beware of hidden agendas


Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor

[Bart D. Hull]

Aye Barnyard Boob,

I think we all know your agenda. Caveat emptor for certain.

If you have constructive comments fine, otherwise shut your pie hole.

Noticed you didn't want to critique the new Honda-Lyc, Bombardier
or Jabiru engines. Too new for you? Or would they be considered
auto-conversions since their not Lyc or Cont?

Bart
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Building for the new Century.

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:
> (Corky Scott) wrote:
>
>
>>Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
>>Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.
>>
>>The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
>>cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
>>conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
>>burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
>>stainless steel mufflers.
>>
>>http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml
>>
>>Corky Scott
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as
> fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. <g>
>
> If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
> how many would buy it?
>
>
> Dictionary.com - Anecdotal:
>
> Based on casual observations or indications
> rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:
>
> When was the last time someone posted
> that their auto conversion was a POS.
>
> Beware of hidden agendas
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor

[BD5ER]

>If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
>how many would buy it?

>Beware of hidden agendas

You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the
thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets......

That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many
Seebees are there left in the world in need of power?

Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion
group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding
everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm
concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous
ice with that last post.

These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the
O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew......

I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you
think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should
be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite
useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post
does nothing more than to express your bias.

If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you
find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find
a better way?

[Jerry Springer]

BD5ER wrote:
>>If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
>>how many would buy it?
>
>
>>Beware of hidden agendas
>
>
> You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the
> thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets......
>
> That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many
> Seebees are there left in the world in need of power?
>
> Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion
> group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding
> everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm
> concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous
> ice with that last post.
>
> These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the
> O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew......
>
> I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you
> think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should
> be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite
> useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post
> does nothing more than to express your bias.
>
> If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you
> find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find
> a better way?


Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.

Jerry

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>

>
>
> Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
> flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
> auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
> Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
> comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
> be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
> components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
> passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.
>
> Jerry

Building on what Jerry said...

"My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One
of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to
the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s
still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which
turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied
with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport
to make an uneventful dead stick landing.

Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in
mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong*
way than the right way.

KB

[Bart D. Hull]

Kyle,

What has been the experiences with the other members of
your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this
last year?

Why did the first homebuilt engine quit?

I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you
don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe
that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single
pilot and a homebuilt engine.

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

Thanks
--
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.


Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>
>
>>
>>Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
>>flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
>>auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
>>Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
>>comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
>>be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
>>components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
>>passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>
> Building on what Jerry said...
>
> "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One
> of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
> totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to
> the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s
> still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which
> turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied
> with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport
> to make an uneventful dead stick landing.
>
> Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
> conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in
> mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
> Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong*
> way than the right way.
>
> KB
>
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bart D. Hull" > wrote in message
m...
> Kyle,
>
> What has been the experiences with the other members of
> your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this
> last year?
>
> Why did the first homebuilt engine quit?
>
> I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you
> don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe
> that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single
> pilot and a homebuilt engine.
>
> I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
> Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.
>
> I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
> auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
> install.
>
> Thanks
> --
> 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.
>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> >
> > "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft.
One
> > of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
> > totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up
to
> > the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft
s
> > still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of
which
> > turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box
supplied
> > with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an
airport
> > to make an uneventful dead stick landing.
> >
> > Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
> > conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that
purpose in
> > mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
> > Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the
*wrong*
> > way than the right way.
> >
> > KB

The first aircraft went down because the subaru ate a valve. There was some
talk in the chapter that the engine's oil temperatures were very high, but
the owner has never personally confirmed this in my presence. The gear
failure was related to *where* the weight was located - all of it was waaay
up front. The electrical problems on the third aircraft had to do with a
ground wire that had an intermittant connection which took out the brain
box. Obviously, with two ignition systems - particularly if at least is a
magneto, the chances of losing BOTH ignition systems is very small. The
chances of losing the *single* home baked ignition system is much higher.

Again, most folks don't have the ability, financial ability, or patience to
properly engineer an engine conversion that is up to Lycoming or Continental
standards. There are all sorts of NTSB cases which indicate this. I'm sure
it can be done, but at what price? 5-10 years and/or a million dollars in
development costs? To KNOW you've got the equivalent of a Lycoming or
Continental, that's what it would take...

This year's only *bad* chapter experience with a certified engine was a
fellow with a Continental 0-300 who wasn't happy with his compression
readings, so he pulled the cylinders and reseated the valves or something.
A non-event, as it was not a failure, and was dealt with on the ground.
That's one of the better things about certified engines. The engines and
systems are fairly robust, so most problems don't result in the fan
stopping.

KB

[Ron Wanttaja]

> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
>>Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
>>flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
>>auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type.

But look at the bright side: With this one, if the SeaBee engine fails,
you get to shoot the dead-stick landing in air-conditioned comfort. :-)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0700, "Bart D. Hull" >
wrote:

>I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
>Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

But Continental and Lycoming had to convince a *very* skeptical FAA about
the reliability of the FADEC. They had to prove that the FADEC is at least
as reliable as two magnetos.

I remember an article, years ago, about what Porsche had to do to certify
the PFM engine for the Mooney. They had to prove the two independent
ignition systems *were* completely independent. I think they even had to
apply a sudden dead short across one, just to prove the other one would
keep running.

>I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
>auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
>install.

A good goal, and worthy of discussion. With one exception, the failures I
hear about have been fairly random, mostly related to the subsystems rather
than the core engine.

I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems. Two batteries,
two electronics boxes, two sets of plug wires, two plugs per cylinder. The
second should be solely a backup, connected to *nothing* in common with the
primary system. If the primary system uses the distributor drive to time
the ignition, the backup system should run off a hall effect sensor on the
flywheel.

Buy a drycell battery and run it directly to the backup ignition
electronics...no connection to the primary bus. I say a drycell simply
because of their ability to hold a charge a long time. Test the ignition
momentarily during runup and slap a charger on the backup system every week
or so.

That way if your electrical system goes to hellandgone, you've got a
completely independent backup. The drycell should be sized to give you at
least a half-hour of flight time...I'm basing that on the required VFR fuel
reserve.

Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
spews oil everywhere, of course).

You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
a fading gauge.

I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?

The PSRU is another single point failure item. I don't know what one could
do to increase redundancy, but plenty of design margin would be a good
start. Regular, in-depth inspections would be another...guy across from me
just found a crack in one plate of his gyro's PSRU.

Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
engine. Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
to fill. :-)

I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
into information sources to build the safest engine possible.

Ron Wanttaja

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bart D. Hull" > wrote:


>I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
>auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
>install.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dream on. There are no details to make your auto-conversion
more successful than a LYC or Cont.

Successfully pass a course in statistical analysis and you may
begin to see the light. The odds of your one shot conversion
performing remotely close to time proven aircraft engines is
slim to none unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars
laying around and some bright engineers willing to baby sit
your R&D until the worst of the bugs are ironed out.

Never mind that a minor bug can be lethal and your project
may never qualify for hull or liability insurance. Remember,
those aviation insurance guys are more conservative than I.
They have no desire to risk paying out one million dollars on
your crap shoot or buy you another hull for a second attempt
to outdo LYC or Continental at their own professional game.

Barnyard BOb - once again predictable

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bart D. Hull" > wrote:

>Aye Barnyard Boob,
>
>I think we all know your agenda. Caveat emptor for certain.
>
>If you have constructive comments fine, otherwise shut your pie hole.

>Bart
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You and your name calling can go **** off and die.

This group is just as much open to my opinions as your
dizzy unproven crap. Somebody needs to balance out
your 'pie in the sky twit ****' so, learn to deal with me...
in a constructive manner if you can.

Until you get the bejeezus scared out of you real good...
you're just another punk talking through a large paper asshole.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
>A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
>tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
>ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
>half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
>engine.


> Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
>systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
>fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
>thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
>to fill. :-)
>
>Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hopefully, you are reaching more than just the choir. <g>


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:13:29 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as
>fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. <g>
>
>If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
>how many would buy it?
>
>
>Dictionary.com - Anecdotal:
>
>Based on casual observations or indications
>rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:
>
>When was the last time someone posted
>that their auto conversion was a POS.
>
>Beware of hidden agendas
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor

That's the correct definition of anectdotal BOb, it would appear to be
a mistaken application though. These guys aren't casually observing
their conversion, they created it, developed it, trouble shot it and
flew it with their own bodies inside the airplane on which they
installed it. And they flew it for 600 hours so far. It looks like
they were as scientific about it as they could be, with direct
comparisons, in all modes, to the Franklin powered model.

I don't understand why you consider them liars. Do you have evidence
that the photos and text is faked?

It obviously really irks you when someone actually successfully flies
behind an auto conversion, almost as much as when someone just talks
naively about it.

Corky Scott

[David Hill]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
<snip>
> I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
> *should* be two completely independent ignition systems.
<snip>
> I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
> want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
> details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
> into information sources to build the safest engine possible.

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.

At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

In trying to decide what engine to put on the replica, I did a lot of
research on modern motorcycle engines. I found that there are modern
V-Twin engines (Honda VT1100 and Kawasaki 1500) that already have two
spark plugs per cylinder. They do not have redundant ignition systems,
but they lend themselves to building your own.

You pointed out that the PSRU is a single point of failure. One
attraction with many modern motorcycle engines is that most have a well
engineered gear reduction system in place. The down side of it is that
there are usually 4 or 5 reduction ratios more than you need, and there
is a substantial weight penalty associated with the integral transmission.

One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

The biggest down side to the use of a modern motorcycle engine in a
plane is that so few people have done it; you are truly experimenting,
which entails obvious risks.

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

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

[Russell Kent]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
> cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
> properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
> to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
> probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
> spews oil everywhere, of course).
>
> You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
> have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
> thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
> the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
> the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
> plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
> rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
> able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
> sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
> a fading gauge.

All good suggestions. Another tack on the cooling system failure would be to
select an auto engine (or engineer its conversion) such that loss of coolant
does not cause a catastrophic failure. For example (and it's only an example!)
the Mazda Wankel engine will happily continue to run and produce usable power
without any coolant remaining. It will likely never start again, however,
without a major rebuild. Why is this? Because when overheating, the aluminum
rotor housings expand more than the cast iron rotors, which precludes seizing
(unlike most piston engines). Parts of the engine permanently deform however,
causing insufficient compression once the engine cools. Thus, no start.

I guess my point is: sometimes we should try to prevent the failure, and other
times we should try to minimize the effect of the failure. There's a balance
in there somewhere.

> I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
> emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
> makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
> Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
> engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
> and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?

The radiator's area is many times the surface area of the engine's water
jacket. Plus the now empty water jacket makes a real nice air gap blanket for
the cylinders. You'd do better to engineer a coolant-loss makeup system.
IMHO. Unfortunately, "make-up coolant" weighs 7.5 lbs. / gallon. Fly in the
rain with a big funnel? Secondary use for that "relief tube" ? :-)

Or perhaps have the pistons machined from some alloy with a low Cte (titanium?)
and make them as undersized (relative to the cylinder diameter) as the rings
will permit.

Russell Kent

[Bart D. Hull]

Boob,

Obviously you haven't looked for insurance on a Soob.

Lots of takers. (AIG for example)

Already taken a course on statistics in college, got an
A. ;-)

All installation bugs can be lethal on a Soob or Lyc or Cont.

I just think your too old to "get it".


How about a Honda-Lyc, a Bombardier or a Jabiru? Millions
spent on those installations but no time on their type yet.

Have a nice day. Don't forget to take your anti-grumpy medications.

--
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:
>
>
>
>>I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
>>auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
>>install.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Dream on. There are no details to make your auto-conversion
> more successful than a LYC or Cont.
>
> Successfully pass a course in statistical analysis and you may
> begin to see the light. The odds of your one shot conversion
> performing remotely close to time proven aircraft engines is
> slim to none unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars
> laying around and some bright engineers willing to baby sit
> your R&D until the worst of the bugs are ironed out.
>
> Never mind that a minor bug can be lethal and your project
> may never qualify for hull or liability insurance. Remember,
> those aviation insurance guys are more conservative than I.
> They have no desire to risk paying out one million dollars on
> your crap shoot or buy you another hull for a second attempt
> to outdo LYC or Continental at their own professional game.
>
> Barnyard BOb - once again predictable
>
>
>

[John Stricker]

Corky,

Liars? Well, I'll reserve judgment. A little weak in the details and
presentation? Absolutely.

I have pretty intimate knowledge of the LS1 and LS6. So let's just start
looking at their information, shall we?

Can you show me what their rated, maximum hp for their CONVERSION is? How
about the CONTINUOUS rated hp for their CONVERSION? I can't find it. They
list a maximum hp rating of 350 for the LS1, which isn't their rating it's
GM's rating. And that's not a continuous rating. But we'll just let that
slide for a moment, let's get to fuel consumption.

They show a BSFC of .454 or .507 at 3200 rpm. Interesting, not, that they
don't show a MAP they got that at, since that with RPM would tell us what HP
the engine was making? Never mind that, let's go back to GM. At 3200 rpm
GM showed the LS1 making 200 hp. That means that at 200 hp, the engine is
burning between 10 and 11 gph. WoW!! All those electronic bells and
whistles sure did improve efficiency over the old dinosaurs, didn't it?

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except
to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2
sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2
sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
..500 or so.

But speaking of fuel.................

Yep, it's getting less rare to have auto fuel on the airport, but I still
wouldn't say that's a common thing to have, would you? And even if it was,
91 octane? Some places, premium IS 91 octane. KS, it's not. 99% of the
premium grade is 89 octane and that's with 10% ethanol. So, you land, have
to hunt down auto gas, and then have to hunt down 91 octane auto gas, get it
back to the airport to fuel up. Yep, that's going to be cost and time
effective. NOT. Oh, the LS1/LS6 will run on 89 octane, by having the ECM
pull the timing back which gives you less power and a higher BSFC.......

Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including
a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.

As far as price goes, the best price I've found on an LS6 is about $8,500,
with shipping. They're really not a very good engine to rebuild due to
their method of construction, but if you want to you probably can, for
around $7,500. Of course there's that gear reduction and the normal
aircraft accessories that need to be overhauled as well. He lists the
overhaul cost of the LS6 at $13,000 CDN, that's about $9,875 on today's
market US$. He is NOT going to overhaul the conversion package of an LS6
for $10K. Not going to happen.

I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
untold failure modes. If these folks want to be pioneers, good on them.
I'll pioneer my system on the ground, thanks anyway.

John Stricker

PS: How many hours of vibration analysis on that prop/PSRU system do you
suppose they had before they took the old girl for a spin?

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's the correct definition of anectdotal BOb, it would appear to be
> a mistaken application though. These guys aren't casually observing
> their conversion, they created it, developed it, trouble shot it and
> flew it with their own bodies inside the airplane on which they
> installed it. And they flew it for 600 hours so far. It looks like
> they were as scientific about it as they could be, with direct
> comparisons, in all modes, to the Franklin powered model.
>
> I don't understand why you consider them liars. Do you have evidence
> that the photos and text is faked?
>
> It obviously really irks you when someone actually successfully flies
> behind an auto conversion, almost as much as when someone just talks
> naively about it.
>
> Corky Scott

[Robert Schieck]

John Stricker wrote:

>Corky,
>
>
>Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
>their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including
>a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.
>
>
He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
56 hours on the second one ......

I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...

Rob

..ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
talk about the plane.

[John Stricker]

Rob,

I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6 now.
His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
happen.

My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it, that's
great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion should
be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
something that's going to save you a ton of money.

As to "rest of the error.." your point is???

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" > wrote in message
...
> John Stricker wrote:
>
> >Corky,
> >
> >
> >Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
> >their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product,
including
> >a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.
> >
> >
> He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
> 56 hours on the second one ......
>
> I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...
>
> Rob
>
> .ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
> talk about the plane.
>
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
> wrote:

>The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
>me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
>original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
>looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
>subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.
>
>At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
>A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
>One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
>the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)


>One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
>Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
> Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
>time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
>power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per cylinder. As
I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one distributor.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jerry Springer]

I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
the the hours flown.

Jerry

Robert Schieck wrote:
> John Stricker wrote:
>
>> Corky,
>>
>>
>> Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
>> their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product,
>> including
>> a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.
>>
>>
> He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
> 56 hours on the second one ......
>
> I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...
>
> Rob
>
> .ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
> talk about the plane.
>
>

[James Lloyd]

I am not recomending this but my 95 ford ranger has a 4 cyl.eng. with
dual elect. ign. that is fully redundant in case smeone wants to copy
it.One coil fires one set of plugs and the other,the other.Jim

[Barnyard BOb --]

Jerry Springer wrote:

>I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
>In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
>enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
>Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
>the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
>the the hours flown.
>
>Jerry
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jerry,
You're beating a very, very dead horse.

The RAH auto conversion wannabees are incurably gullible
and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality.

Legitimate auto conversion guys are knee deep in alligators...
walking their talk and have no time for the fuzzy and inane
horse**** that drives the RAH noisemakers. The RAH group
is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself
off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle,
comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case.
The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame.

It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, immature twits
do what they do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot
themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely
no awareness to that very fact.


Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable

[Bart D. Hull]

> Bob wrote:
>
>
> Jerry,
> You're beating a very, very dead horse.
>
> The RAH anti-auto conversion wannabees are incurable
> and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality.
>
> I don't like debating with legitimate auto conversion guys
> as I don't know what the **** I'm talking about. The RAH group
> is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself
> off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle,
> comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case.
> The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame.
>
> It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, old twits
> like myself, do what I do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot
> themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely
> no awareness to that very fact.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable


Thought I'd do a "truth in advertising" re-write of Bob's prose.

;-)
--
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.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
>job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
>that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
>$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
>Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of
Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the
conversion.

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

[Larry Smith]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> >I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
> >In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
> >enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
> >Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
> >the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
> >the the hours flown.
> >
> >Jerry
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Jerry,
> You're beating a very, very dead horse.
>
> The RAH auto conversion wannabees are incurably gullible
> and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality.
>
> Legitimate auto conversion guys are knee deep in alligators...
> walking their talk and have no time for the fuzzy and inane
> horse**** that drives the RAH noisemakers. The RAH group
> is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself
> off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle,
> comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case.
> The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame.
>
> It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, immature twits
> do what they do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot
> themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely
> no awareness to that very fact.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable

[Model Flyer]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
> > wrote:

> >the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain
breaking.
>
> Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
> reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)
>
> (For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an
AD note
> calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders.
To
> prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)
>

Now that's really funny, same as the Bleriot crossing of the English
Channel, by the time he got half way his boots were burning as there
was no fire wall, he has the full heat from the engine to contend
with.:-)
--

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




>
> >One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
> >Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark
boxes.
> > Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had
a hard
> >time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a
bit on
> >power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of
four.
>
> My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per
cylinder. As
> I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one
distributor.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:15:26 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:


>>I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
>>job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
>>that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
>>$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
>>Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.
>
>The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of
>Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the
>conversion.

The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or currently
supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this engine running;
I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto piston rings for use
in the 165 Franklin.

According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-B8F.
The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-C1R. Don't
know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite possible that they're
totally different engines.

However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Ron Wanttaja

[Robert Schieck]

John Stricker wrote:

>Rob,
>
>I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6 now.
>His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
>happen.
>
>My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it, that's
>great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
>the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion should
>be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
>something that's going to save you a ton of money.
>
>
As to "rest of the error.." your point is???

>
>

as you said:

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except
to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2
sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2
sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
..500 or so.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is better.

Rob

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bart D. Hull" wrote:

>
>> Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable
>
>
>Thought I'd do a "truth in advertising" re-write of Bob's prose.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bart,
You have nothing going for you.
Least of all, originally.

If your auto conversion carries the same level of quality
as your posts here, you are in deep **** and will be my
poster boy for... how NOT to proceed in aviation.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Big John]

Ron

I flew the Szekely in a Rearwin Junior 3000 in the late 30's at Des
Moines, IA. Rearwin only built about 30 of the 3000/4000 (4000 used
the Aeromarine AR-3 engine) of the Jr. Szekely started ok. Ran with a
funny sound with the short stacks and three cylinders. Not a smooth
engine.

Did pull the stick out of the fitting as I flared for landing one
time. Of course in those days the birds kind of landed themselves and
it just flopped down and dribbled along and made a touch down about as
good as I was making with the stick in the fitting :o)

Big John

----clip----

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekley. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekley 3-cylinder radial has an AD
note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)

----clip----

Ron Wanttaja

[Big John]

Corky

Remember the messenger always gets shot :o)

Big John

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Bart D. Hull" > wrote:

> > <snip>

> Thought I'd do a "truth in advertising" re-write of Bob's prose.

You might think it's funny, and in a way maybe it is funny.

However, I for one consider it a fairly grave breach of Usenet
etiquette to alter the substantiative content of a Usenet post and
format it so that it appears to be a direct quote - including what
appears to be a legitimate Bob Urban sig line. The way I see it,
you're not just parodying Mr. Urban, you're impersonating him.

If someone were to quote you misquoting Bob Urban, and pass it off as
something that Bob actually wrote, it could get you in a little bit of
trouble. At very least, Bob has a good case for a complaint to your
ISP.

I believe that name calling, cheap shots, hopeless dreaming, immature
put-downs, imperious denials, and sweeping generalizations, all that
stuff is the inevitable and inescapable by-product of a free and open
marketplace for ideas. I also believe it might be the reason that so
many of my friends will read this NG but won't post their thoughts
here. But it's basically OK as long as it's done honestly and fairly.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Robert Schieck]

Hi Rob. Thanks for forwarding the E-mail. I was unable to find the website
you mentioned. Would you please post my response.

I appologize for not keeping my site totally current. As of 21 Oct 2003, we
have logged 874 trouble free hour on our LS-1 powered Seabee. A second LS-1
powered Bee has loged over 70 hours, and an LS-6 powered Bee has over 180
hours on it. They are using my conversion. The first LS-6 conversion has
been delivered to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

If you check my website, you will see the LS-1 is rated a@ 345 H.P. by G.M.
We derate it to 320 H.P. for our use. The LS-6 is rated by G.M. at 405 H.P.
We derate it to 350 H.P. for our use. If you do a literature search, you
will discover G.M. ran two LS-1's at 100% power for 520 hours. The engines
were torn down & and all parts were within new parts tolerences. We do not
recommend running any engine at 100% continuous power. We run at full power
untill it is safe to throttle back. We cruse climb at 25" & 3500 rpm untill
we are at desired altitude. I have only climed to 11.000' for test purposes.
The engine ran great.I enjoy the scenery & normally cruse in the 2500 to
7000' range.

In terms of fuel efficiency, I normally burn 8.5 Imperial Gallons Per hour
at 22' & 3200 RPM. This increases to 10 IGPH at 25 " & 3500RPM. This is the
maximum popwer setting I have used for extended periods of time. Both of the
other Seabee owners claim they burn less fuel per hour than I do! I time my
flights with my GPS unit & dip the tanks every flight. I normally use the
lower power setting - I pay for all my gas myself & the extra speed is not
worth it.

If these gentlemen check the website, they will discover I do not use Oxygen
sensors on my aircraft. G.M. provides three calibration codes for the
computer, including the one which uses no Oxygen sensors. We did use oxygen
sensors on the LS-6 installation initially (the first 100 hours). They do
last fine if you use leaded fuel occasionally, but provided no operating
advantage. All my current installations do not use Oxygen sensors.

In terms of fuel, I run 100LL when I am at an airport, & premimum unleaded
when I am at home. The unleaded is better for the engine & the environment &
is cheaper.

In terms of the rebuild costs, I have quoted the average cost paid by
several Franklin owners recently. For the LS-1 overhaul costs I have
included the cost of replacing the engine with a factory new short block, &
dismantling the reduction unit & replacing key components.

In terms of reliability, I never passed the 100 hour mark on my Franklin
without incuring some major work. The Lycoming on my Supercub was better,
but not great. They recently replaced the Factory new lycoming on a
commercially operated, well maintained local aircraft at the 800 hour mark
because it plugged the oil cooler with metal. They also replaced 2 cylinders
in the first 800 hours. I believe the V-8 will prove to be a reliable
powerplant, & is certainly more cost effective. The modern heating & air
conditioning systems are a bonus. I remove my reduction unit & dismantle it
for inspection regularly (roughly every 200 hours), & so far it is like new
inside. Last winter I removed the oil pan from the engine & visually
inspected the engine. It too looked like new.

I had also considered the Northstar engin when I was in the design phase. I
rejected it as unnecessarily complicated. I believe the LS series is a much
better choice for aircraft use. I strongly believe in the KISS principle
(Keep It Simple Stupid)

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these items. If anyone wishes to
discuss the mater further, please contact me.

Regards

Brian Robinson

705-374-4347

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>Corky,
>
>Liars? Well, I'll reserve judgment. A little weak in the details and
>presentation? Absolutely.
>
You have to see and hear the plane to believe it, guys. I have. Up
close. It is BEAUTIFULL and it sounds like no 'Bee you have ever heard
before - with "street mufflers"

>I have pretty intimate knowledge of the LS1 and LS6. So let's just start
>looking at their information, shall we?
>
>Can you show me what their rated, maximum hp for their CONVERSION is? How
>about the CONTINUOUS rated hp for their CONVERSION? I can't find it. They
>list a maximum hp rating of 350 for the LS1, which isn't their rating it's
>GM's rating. And that's not a continuous rating. But we'll just let that
>slide for a moment, let's get to fuel consumption.
>
>They show a BSFC of .454 or .507 at 3200 rpm. Interesting, not, that they
>don't show a MAP they got that at, since that with RPM would tell us what HP
>the engine was making? Never mind that, let's go back to GM. At 3200 rpm
>GM showed the LS1 making 200 hp. That means that at 200 hp, the engine is
>burning between 10 and 11 gph. WoW!! All those electronic bells and
>whistles sure did improve efficiency over the old dinosaurs, didn't it?
>
>Speaking of which..............
>
>They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
>they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
>electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except
>to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
>loop mode.
GM has an "export" calibration that shuts off the O2 sensors - and
under load the engine runs open loop just fine even without the
recalibration.


> To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2
>sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2
>sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
>.500 or so.
>

I've seen the bird. It is 100% stock GM with an export calibration on
the box to eliminate the need for the O2 sensor. That is IT.


>But speaking of fuel.................
>
>Yep, it's getting less rare to have auto fuel on the airport, but I still
>wouldn't say that's a common thing to have, would you? And even if it was,
>91 octane? Some places, premium IS 91 octane. KS, it's not. 99% of the
>premium grade is 89 octane and that's with 10% ethanol. So, you land, have
>to hunt down auto gas, and then have to hunt down 91 octane auto gas, get it
>back to the airport to fuel up. Yep, that's going to be cost and time
>effective. NOT. Oh, the LS1/LS6 will run on 89 octane, by having the ECM
>pull the timing back which gives you less power and a higher BSFC.......
>
Don't NEED Mogas - no O2 Sensors to worry about as stated above.
>Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
>their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including
>a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.
>
The good doctor has several hundred hours on his. It has flown all
over Ontario with the new engine, and uses significantly less fuel
than the Franklin, which is all that really counts. He and his Dad
have owned and flown the bird for many years with the Franklin, so
they have all the fuel consumption info, and cruise speeds etc, before
and after conversion.
And they have AIR CONDITIONING too!!!
>As far as price goes, the best price I've found on an LS6 is about $8,500,
>with shipping. They're really not a very good engine to rebuild due to
>their method of construction, but if you want to you probably can, for
>around $7,500. Of course there's that gear reduction and the normal
>aircraft accessories that need to be overhauled as well. He lists the
>overhaul cost of the LS6 at $13,000 CDN, that's about $9,875 on today's
>market US$. He is NOT going to overhaul the conversion package of an LS6
>for $10K. Not going to happen.
>
In a few years you will be able to BUY an LS6 for a lot less than
today's price. Not sure, but I think the Doc'd is an LS1
>I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
>job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
>that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
>$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
>Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.


>I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
>different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
>untold failure modes. If these folks want to be pioneers, good on them.
>I'll pioneer my system on the ground, thanks anyway.
>
The Northstar system is VERY daunting.

>John Stricker
>
>PS: How many hours of vibration analysis on that prop/PSRU system do you
>suppose they had before they took the old girl for a spin?

It has been EXTREMELY well engineered and executed. These guys are
perfectionists to the enth degree. And they have contacts. Not much,
if anything, was left to chance.
>
>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That's the correct definition of anectdotal BOb, it would appear to be
>> a mistaken application though. These guys aren't casually observing
>> their conversion, they created it, developed it, trouble shot it and
>> flew it with their own bodies inside the airplane on which they
>> installed it. And they flew it for 600 hours so far. It looks like
>> they were as scientific about it as they could be, with direct
>> comparisons, in all modes, to the Franklin powered model.
>>
>> I don't understand why you consider them liars. Do you have evidence
>> that the photos and text is faked?
>>
>> It obviously really irks you when someone actually successfully flies
>> behind an auto conversion, almost as much as when someone just talks
>> naively about it.
>>
>> Corky Scott
>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:38:17 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
>In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
>enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
>Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
>the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
>the the hours flown.
>
>Jerry

NOTHING but normal scheduled maintenance - not a single failure in
flight. Much better than the franklin that dropped a cyl up around
Baffin Island or Moose Factory.
>
>Robert Schieck wrote:
>> John Stricker wrote:
>>
>>> Corky,
>>>
>>>
>>> Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
>>> their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product,
>>> including
>>> a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.
>>>
>>>
>> He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
>> 56 hours on the second one ......
>>
>> I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> .ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
>> talk about the plane.
>>
>>

[John Stricker]

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" > wrote in message
...
> John Stricker wrote:
>
> >Rob,
> >
> >I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6
now.
> >His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
> >happen.
> >
> >My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it,
that's
> >great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
> >the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion
should
> >be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
> >something that's going to save you a ton of money.
> >
> >
> As to "rest of the error.." your point is???
>
> >
> >
>
> as you said:
>
> Speaking of which..............
>
> They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
> they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
> electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them.
Except
> to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
> loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the
O2
> sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the
O2
> sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
> .500 or so.
>
>
> from the web site:
>
>
>
> Engine Control System
>
> The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
> with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
> was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
> unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
> codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
> correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
> supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
> the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
> imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
> engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
> practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
> the harness manufactured accordingly.
>
> I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of
the O2 sensor was addressed.
>
>
> disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is
better.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>

[David Hill]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
> > wrote:
>
>>The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
>>me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
>>original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine.
<snip>
>>At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
>>A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
>>One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
>>the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.
>
> Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
> reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)
>
> (For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note
> calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
> prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)

The Lawrance engine wasn't much better than the Szekely; it actually was
not that much of an improvement over the bike engine. For those not
familiar with it, I think of it as a 2 cylinder radial. It had two
opposing pistons connecting to one crankshaft throw. And as far as I
have been able to determine, no counterweights. That's a lot of mass
being thrown back and forth in synchronization.

The fellow who bought the plane with the Lawrance engine installed
recalled (in 1985 or so) that the engine vibrated terribly. And in fact
the plane was demolished when the engine quit one day with Paul Rizzo
flying it.

The biggest surprise I got regarding the Lawrance engine, once I saw one
up close and in person, is no engine mounts! Just a groove around the
base of each cylinder to facilitate strapping it to the airplane!

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

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

[David Hill]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
<snip>
> I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
> the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
> took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.
He is still around, isn't he? Not that I can tell.

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

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

[Morgans]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message

I regret ever having come
> out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.
>
> John Stricker


Why? You haven't been flamed, or anything.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert Schieck]

You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

Re: V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

>Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
>easily then.
>
>Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
>That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
>system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
>no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
>according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
>happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.
>
>The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
>won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
>the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
>what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
>engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.
>
>That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
>the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?
>
>The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
>commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
>it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.
>
>You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
>out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.
>
>John Stricker
>
>"Robert Schieck" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>John Stricker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Rob,
>>>
>>>I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6
>>>
>>>
>now.
>
>
>>>His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
>>>happen.
>>>
>>>My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it,
>>>
>>>
>that's
>
>
>>>great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
>>>the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion
>>>
>>>
>should
>
>
>>>be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
>>>something that's going to save you a ton of money.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>As to "rest of the error.." your point is???
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>as you said:
>>
>>Speaking of which..............
>>
>>They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
>>they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
>>electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them.
>>
>>
>Except
>
>
>>to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
>>loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the
>>
>>
>O2
>
>
>>sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the
>>
>>
>O2
>
>
>>sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
>>.500 or so.
>>
>>
>>from the web site:
>>
>>
>>
>> Engine Control System
>>
>>The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
>>with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
>>was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
>>unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
>>codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
>>correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
>>supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
>>the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
>>imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
>>engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
>>practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
>>the harness manufactured accordingly.
>>
>>I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of
>>
>>
>the O2 sensor was addressed.
>
>
>>disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is
>>
>>
>better.
>
>
>>Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:32:47 GMT, David Hill
> wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
><snip>
>> I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
>> the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
>> took to convert the Chevy....
>
>Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.

Well, like I always say, it depends on what your mission goals are... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Del Rawlins]

On 22 Oct 2003 05:31 AM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:

> The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
> four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
> Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or
> currently supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this
> engine running; I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto
> piston rings for use in the 165 Franklin.
>
> According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-
> B8F. The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-
> C1R. Don't know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite
> possible that they're totally different engines.
>
> However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to
> replace the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less
> work than it took to convert the Chevy....

Even support for the "current" models is sketchy at the moment. One of
the instructors at the A&P school here in Anchorage has the 220hp
Franklin in his 172, and can't get the parts he needs to get it working
again (he has a cracked case, on a 2nd or 3rd run engine) or even a
complete new engine. He's been trying since at least April or May with
no success so far. Something to do with the factory in Poland having
found more lucrative things to build.

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

[John Stricker]

Clare,

The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the exception
of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.

John Stricker

<clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...

> The Northstar system is VERY daunting.
>

[Jay]

I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.

All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
fails.

Read all about it at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
type I'm using now in the model.

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

[Bart D. Hull]

Whatever Bob!

Too bad you choose not to participate in a discussion.

Could put those many years to use.

I'm just mirroring your posts so what does that have
to say about your RV-3 build?

Didn't notice that did you? That was what the last
post was about, getting you to notice.

The Seabee discussion has actually produced some useful info
pertaining to all conversions.

Bart

--
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:
>
>
>>>Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable
>>
>>
>>Thought I'd do a "truth in advertising" re-write of Bob's prose.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Bart,
> You have nothing going for you.
> Least of all, originally.
>
> If your auto conversion carries the same level of quality
> as your posts here, you are in deep **** and will be my
> poster boy for... how NOT to proceed in aviation.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight
>
>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>Clare,
>
>The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the exception
>of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.
>
>John Stricker
>
><clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
>
>> The Northstar system is VERY daunting.
>>
>
The LS6 is lighter, more powerful, and gives better mileage than a
Northstar. It also tends to stay in one peice, and running, much
longer than the Northstar. The LS6 has adaptive shut-down to allow it
to get home without coolant like the Northstar (supposedly) will? ? If
so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was ONLY the northstar and
Aurora engines that had those features.

[John Stricker]

I did read your other post and emailed Brian myself complimenting him on the
job they do and asked some more questions.

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.

What did I misquote? He has different numbers in different parts of his
website. Even with his email you published, he STILL doesn't give a power
rating, does he? I didn't see the second set of numbers. That's not a
misquote. I also didn't see that he eliminated the O2 sensors. My point
remains unchanged, without the O2 sensors he's running in open loop and not
running the way the engine was designed to run.

I don't need to worry about luck with my Northstar because it's not flying
anywhere. It's staying firmly attached to the ground, as long as the
suspension holds up. Tickled me, though, that they thought the Northstar
was too complicated when it has DOHC and direct lifter on valve actuation
and virtually the same electronics as the LS6. But the car itself, when
finished, will run faster than a SeaBee. Where did I say it was too
daunting? Nice little attempted backhand slam, didn't work though.
Besides, do you really think the guys will help me convert the 4T80E to a
six speed with a paddle shift (which is what I'm working on right now)? Oh,
that's right, airplanes don't need that. 8-)

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" > wrote in message
...
> You have changed the topic...
>
> We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
> asked for another error and I delivered another one.
>
> You may want to read the post from me titled :
>
> Re: V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson
>
> it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
> message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
> it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.
>
> And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
> flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
> hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
> first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.
>
> Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
> your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
> system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
> conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
> systems all worked out. .
>
> Rob
>
>
> John Stricker wrote:
>
> >Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You
disappoint
> >easily then.
> >
> >Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
> >That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
> >system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We
have
> >no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that
rpm
> >according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
> >happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.
> >
> >The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
> >won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's
own,
> >the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really
know
> >what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
> >engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.
> >
> >That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
> >the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?
> >
> >The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them
is
> >commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not
putting
> >it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.
> >
> >You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having
come
> >out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.
> >
> >John Stricker
> >
> >"Robert Schieck" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >>John Stricker wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Rob,
> >>>
> >>>I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6
> >>>
> >>>
> >now.
> >
> >
> >>>His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
> >>>happen.
> >>>
> >>>My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it,
> >>>
> >>>
> >that's
> >
> >
> >>>great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But
in
> >>>the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion
> >>>
> >>>
> >should
> >
> >
> >>>be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and
not
> >>>something that's going to save you a ton of money.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>As to "rest of the error.." your point is???
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>as you said:
> >>
> >>Speaking of which..............
> >>
> >>They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they??
All
> >>they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and
"computerized
> >>electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them.
> >>
> >>
> >Except
> >
> >
> >>to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
> >>loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the
> >>
> >>
> >O2
> >
> >
> >>sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the
> >>
> >>
> >O2
> >
> >
> >>sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of
around
> >>.500 or so.
> >>
> >>
> >>from the web site:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Engine Control System
> >>
> >>The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
> >>with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
> >>was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
> >>unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
> >>codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
> >>correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
> >>supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
> >>the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
> >>imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
> >>engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
> >>practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
> >>the harness manufactured accordingly.
> >>
> >>I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of
> >>
> >>
> >the O2 sensor was addressed.
> >
> >
> >>disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is
> >>
> >>
> >better.
> >
> >
> >>Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Holger Stephan]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:37:37 +0000, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> You might think it's funny, and in a way maybe it is funny.

No it is not funny. The discussions here are saved to many databases and
threads are not always kept together. There is no guarantee Bart's
second mail will stay together with his childish attempt to make a joke
using someone else's identity.

Thanks for pointing that out, Bob.

Bart: if you want to improve the noise level here stop picking on those
you don't agree with. Or get a life.

- Holger

[Bart D. Hull]

Holger,

I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
auto-conversions without a complaint.

If you notice, my emails generated REAL feedback on auto
conversions.

I'm sure Bob's Ego will heal and maybe he'll be a more
beneficial contributor to this group.

That's my hope.

Bart
--
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.
Holger Stephan wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:37:37 +0000, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>
>>You might think it's funny, and in a way maybe it is funny.
>
>
> No it is not funny. The discussions here are saved to many databases and
> threads are not always kept together. There is no guarantee Bart's
> second mail will stay together with his childish attempt to make a joke
> using someone else's identity.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out, Bob.
>
> Bart: if you want to improve the noise level here stop picking on those
> you don't agree with. Or get a life.
>
> - Holger

[RDA]

I'm still trying to figger how you got under 600 hrs out of your 0-200 in
your 172....Oh....thats right- two jugs fell off somewhere.

Yea, that's the answer!


"BD5ER" > wrote in message
...


SNIP

> These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than
the
> O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew......
>

[Folgers Coffee]

>> I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
>> the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
>> took to convert the Chevy....
>
>Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.
>He is still around, isn't he? Not that I can tell.
>
>--
>David Hill

>Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA
>
>filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
>The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
>Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David who?


Barnyard BOb --

[Holger Stephan]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:05:23 +0000, Bart D. Hull wrote:

> I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
> of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
> auto-conversions without a complaint.

If it is as you say, Bob commented on the matter and you on his person.
Which is what I refered to as noise. Bob won't change and particularily
not in reaction to your attacks. Or, probably in reaction to anything that
comes from someone with 20 years less aviation than he has.

- Holger

[Barnyard BOb --]

<snip>

>The Seabee discussion has actually produced some useful info
>pertaining to all conversions.
>
>Bart
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From your statement it can be seen that more gullibility
was produced than broad implementable information.


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Holger,
>
>I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
>of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
>auto-conversions without a complaint.
>
>If you notice, my emails generated REAL feedback on auto
>conversions.
>
>I'm sure Bob's Ego will heal and maybe he'll be a more
>beneficial contributor to this group.
>
>That's my hope.
>
>Bart
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry Bart,
Your emails, for the most part, attack ME...
not my position on auto conversions which
you have yet to comprehend.

I am NOT against auto conversions.
I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.

*YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".


Barnyard BOb --

[John Stricker]

The Northstar of either the 4.6L or the 4.0 Liter are within 10 pounds in
weight to the LS6, ready to run. Many Northstars are still running with no
visible wear on the cylinders after 150,000 miles. They had a problem the
first three years of porous aluminum castings causing oil leaks that were
replaced by Cadillac with new engines. That problem hasn't been a factor
for quite a while. They had a service bulletin on the oil pump relief valve
sticking as well which was addressed with a new design oil pump in '96.

I don't think you can make the mileage claim of the LS6 over the Northstar
since they were never put in comparably weighted vehicles. I know that the
guys that swap them into Fieros can routinely make well over 30 mpg on the
highway, and the LS6 guys can't do that. But most of the LS6 guys are using
manuals and not the 4T80E that the Northstar was designed to run in front
of.

Both the LS6 and the Northstar/Aurora can supposedly be driven with no
coolant but that's simply a factor of power limiting coming into play in the
PCM. They won't allow them to make enough power to generate enough heat to
cause a catastrophic failure. The other thing is they come standard with an
external engine oil cooler that takes a lot of the coolant load off the
radiator. That doesn't change the complexity of the engine itself. They
use the same sensors and fuel management control. In fact, the LS6 fuel
pressure regulator is a bolt on that the Northstar guys use because there
are adjustable versions of it out there.

There is one major difference in the electronics of a Northstar over a LS6.
The Northstar uses two crankshaft position sensors and a special toothed
segment on the crankshaft which allows the ECM to determine the precise
crank position within 180° of crankshaft rotation. That was incorporated
strictly to make the engine start quickly.

I don't know what you mean by "staying in one piece". The Cadillac is good
to over 7000 rpm on a regular basis with stock rods, crank, and pistons.
The only time they get upgraded by the guys that push them is if they're
boosted over about 7 psi and making more than 525hp. They use the same
powdered metal construction rods the LS6 uses with full floating piston
pins. The engine I'm in the process of building uses turbo cams and springs
from CHRFab that are good to 9,000 rpm. When I called around to some of my
friends that were service managers in Cadillac dealerships to get some
information on rebuilding and weak spots, all of them said they really
didn't know much about it because they'd never had one apart.

John Stricker



<clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "John Stricker"
> > wrote:
>
> >Clare,
> >
> >The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the
exception
> >of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.
> >
> >John Stricker
> >
> ><clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> The Northstar system is VERY daunting.
> >>
> >
> The LS6 is lighter, more powerful, and gives better mileage than a
> Northstar. It also tends to stay in one peice, and running, much
> longer than the Northstar. The LS6 has adaptive shut-down to allow it
> to get home without coolant like the Northstar (supposedly) will? ? If
> so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was ONLY the northstar and
> Aurora engines that had those features.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
>> of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
>> auto-conversions without a complaint.
>
>If it is as you say, Bob commented on the matter and you on his person.
>Which is what I refered to as noise. Bob won't change and particularily
>not in reaction to your attacks. Or, probably in reaction to anything that
>comes from someone with 20 years less aviation than he has.
>
>- Holger
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bart informed me that he is 35 years old.
I am nearly 66.

In some ways, I wish Bart was my eldest son.
He would hold a Masters in Mechanical Engineering
and an MBA plus nearly a decade experience as senior
turbine design engineer for two Fortune 50 companies.
He would also hold a Commercial pilot certificate,
multi engine rating, instrument ticket and CFI rating.

Relating to an immature Bart is infinitely more difficult
than dealing with a youthful educated man of advanced
credentials and experience.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Bart D. Hull]

Bob,

What makes you think I don't have "credentials" or
various flight certs? Even as a "youngster" at 35.

I was attacking your personal vendetta on auto-conversions
that seemed rather lacking in basis.

If I were your son, I'd expect more discussion and less
doctrine. If you can't suggest or support improvement of
anyone elses projects or ideas, how can a person grow
or develop new ideas?

Bart

--
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:
>>>I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
>>>of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
>>>auto-conversions without a complaint.
>>
>>If it is as you say, Bob commented on the matter and you on his person.
>>Which is what I refered to as noise. Bob won't change and particularily
>>not in reaction to your attacks. Or, probably in reaction to anything that
>>comes from someone with 20 years less aviation than he has.
>>
>>- Holger
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Bart informed me that he is 35 years old.
> I am nearly 66.
>
> In some ways, I wish Bart was my eldest son.
> He would hold a Masters in Mechanical Engineering
> and an MBA plus nearly a decade experience as senior
> turbine design engineer for two Fortune 50 companies.
> He would also hold a Commercial pilot certificate,
> multi engine rating, instrument ticket and CFI rating.
>
> Relating to an immature Bart is infinitely more difficult
> than dealing with a youthful educated man of advanced
> credentials and experience.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Robert Schieck]

You are changing the topic again....

I never said that you said it was too daunting, I just said that if it
was, you could purchase one from Brian, here is a quote from your first
message:

>I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
>different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
>untold failure modes.

We are the masters of word all unspoken and slave to those that are.....


Rob

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Bob,
>
>What makes you think I don't have "credentials" or
>various flight certs? Even as a "youngster" at 35.

Your behavior.

Post what you got.
Embarrass me.
Show everybody how badly I missed the boat.
Now's your opportunity to really shine.
Go for it.
Let's see what a poor judge of character I am. <g>

Psssst. - No fibbing allowed.

>I was attacking your personal vendetta on auto-conversions
>that seemed rather lacking in basis.

>Bart

Sorry, but you have attacked my name, changed my posts,
and ridiculed me on a personal basis because of my opinions.
If you have a different view, that's fine. It's time to move on at
long last. There is nothing to be gained by either of us engaging
each other now or into the foreseeable future. I'm finished
responding to you. Post your credentials and certs as your
last hurrah. So.. the last word is now yours. Have at it.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:06:07 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>I did read your other post and emailed Brian myself complimenting him on the
>job they do and asked some more questions.
>
>1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
>three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
>and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
>time and it will put things in perspective.

John, I don't understand what it is you're looking for. These guys
aren't Lycoming and they aren't Continental. They are a couple of
guys who make an auto conversion from the Chevy LS1 or LS6, one at a
time.

Of **COURSE** they aren't going to have the millions of hours
LyContinental have accumulated since they first began building flat
engines.

But these guys have an engine conversion that seems to be working
well. Isn't the whole point to have a bunch of this type of engine
out there running so we can see how they match up? The only way to
make comparisons is to build them and fly them.

They're using a setting that allows them to run the computer without
needing oxygen sensors. Is this equally as efficient as running a
closed loop with O2 sensor input? Probably not, but it turns out it's
pretty close and much more efficient than what the Franklin was able
to manage. The engine is readily available, burns less fuel, makes
more power and offers air conditioning to boot. I'm having a hard
time seeing problems here.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On 22 Oct 2003 17:57:02 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

>I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.
>
>All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
>failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
>using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
>the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
>don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
>brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
>year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
>drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
>fails.
>
>Read all about it at:
>
>http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html
>
>I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
>type I'm using now in the model.
>
>There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
>plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
>about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
>idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?

Corky Scott

[John Stricker]

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

I didn't change the topic, I responded to a statement you made, amongst
others. You then proceeded to quote a part of one paragraph of my response.
Daunting, to me, is a difficult and challenging thing. Not impossible. If
I did want to buy a wiring harness, why would I buy one from someone with no
experience on the engine I'm working on for an application that was in no
way similar to the harness I need?

Some of us are the "masters of word all unspoken and blah blah blah"

Some of you have simply never learned to think things through. The
statement you quoted from me showed you missed the point completely. It's
the last part that's important. Any difficult project can be completed
given a sufficient quantity of time and/or money. But it's one thing to
have many failure modes on the ground and quite another to have them in the
air. THAT'S the important point of my comment. In one case, I coast to a
stop on the highway and use my cellphone to call a tow truck. In the other,
I'm practicing a forced landing for real.

There is a reason that the certified engines have remained very simple
systems.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" > wrote in message
...
> You are changing the topic again....
>
> I never said that you said it was too daunting, I just said that if it
> was, you could purchase one from Brian, here is a quote from your first
> message:
>
> >I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
> >different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
> >untold failure modes.
>
> We are the masters of word all unspoken and slave to those that are.....
>
>
> Rob
>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>The Northstar of either the 4.6L or the 4.0 Liter are within 10 pounds in
>weight to the LS6, ready to run. Many Northstars are still running with no
>visible wear on the cylinders after 150,000 miles. They had a problem the
>first three years of porous aluminum castings causing oil leaks that were
>replaced by Cadillac with new engines. That problem hasn't been a factor
>for quite a while. They had a service bulletin on the oil pump relief valve
>sticking as well which was addressed with a new design oil pump in '96.
>
>I don't think you can make the mileage claim of the LS6 over the Northstar
>since they were never put in comparably weighted vehicles. I know that the
>guys that swap them into Fieros can routinely make well over 30 mpg on the
>highway, and the LS6 guys can't do that. But most of the LS6 guys are using
>manuals and not the 4T80E that the Northstar was designed to run in front
>of.
>
>Both the LS6 and the Northstar/Aurora can supposedly be driven with no
>coolant but that's simply a factor of power limiting coming into play in the
>PCM. They won't allow them to make enough power to generate enough heat to
>cause a catastrophic failure. The other thing is they come standard with an
>external engine oil cooler that takes a lot of the coolant load off the
>radiator. That doesn't change the complexity of the engine itself. They
>use the same sensors and fuel management control. In fact, the LS6 fuel
>pressure regulator is a bolt on that the Northstar guys use because there
>are adjustable versions of it out there.
>
>There is one major difference in the electronics of a Northstar over a LS6.
>The Northstar uses two crankshaft position sensors and a special toothed
>segment on the crankshaft which allows the ECM to determine the precise
>crank position within 180° of crankshaft rotation. That was incorporated
>strictly to make the engine start quickly.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "staying in one piece". The Cadillac is good
>to over 7000 rpm on a regular basis with stock rods, crank, and pistons.
>The only time they get upgraded by the guys that push them is if they're
>boosted over about 7 psi and making more than 525hp. They use the same
>powdered metal construction rods the LS6 uses with full floating piston
>pins. The engine I'm in the process of building uses turbo cams and springs
>from CHRFab that are good to 9,000 rpm. When I called around to some of my
>friends that were service managers in Cadillac dealerships to get some
>information on rebuilding and weak spots, all of them said they really
>didn't know much about it because they'd never had one apart.
>
>John Stricker

Well, the caddy experts around here say the factory is "still trying
to get it right" and they can pretty well tell what failures to look
for by looking at the production date. One of the latest failures to
come to light is a fracture of the block, with no apparent cause.
Can't remember where, but IIRC between 2 cyls. Usually good to
150,000K, but some don't get half that far. They are Godawfull
expensive to replace, too. $8000 Canadian for a (hopefully) good used
engine????
Now to give credit where credit is due, they are a very technically
advanced engine, capable of significant power output, and very smooth
when running right. Possibly one of the best engine "designs" out
there - but the implementation is still not up to the standard of,
say, a Lexus.Or a Bimmer.Or a SBC II
My brother's shop services a large fleet of limos - and a year or so
ago they got rid of the last Caddy - had just Lincs and Mercs and a
Caprice. This was due to the expense of keeping the caddies on the
road. They have a couple (Chevy powered) Caddies in the fleet again
this year - and they've got their fingers crossed.
>
As for the dealers never having one apart, that is very likely true,
as when they have a problem they pull the engine out and drop a new
one in - the "defective" engine goes back to GM for an autopsy.
In my 25 years in the business, that only happened when the factory
had "concerns" with a given item.
In the early seventies with Toyota it was 1600cc cyl heads. For 6
months, every one that came off went back to Japan for analysis - and
they found out what the problem was, changed the type of sand they
used for the cores, and the problem went away. In a particular
production range, replacement level was close to 100% - and I was
replacing about 6 a day for weeks at a time.
>
>
><clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "John Stricker"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Clare,
>> >
>> >The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the
>exception
>> >of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.
>> >
>> >John Stricker
>> >
>> ><clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> The Northstar system is VERY daunting.
>> >>
>> >
>> The LS6 is lighter, more powerful, and gives better mileage than a
>> Northstar. It also tends to stay in one peice, and running, much
>> longer than the Northstar. The LS6 has adaptive shut-down to allow it
>> to get home without coolant like the Northstar (supposedly) will? ? If
>> so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was ONLY the northstar and
>> Aurora engines that had those features.
>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:22:41 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
> wrote:

>Bob,
>
>What makes you think I don't have "credentials" or
>various flight certs? Even as a "youngster" at 35.
>
>I was attacking your personal vendetta on auto-conversions
>that seemed rather lacking in basis.
>
>If I were your son, I'd expect more discussion and less
>doctrine. If you can't suggest or support improvement of
>anyone elses projects or ideas, how can a person grow
>or develop new ideas?
>
>Bart

Know why they call him "barnyard" Bob?
Cause he's both a S**t disturber, and full of S**t.
You and I will never change his mind. 66 years of bullheaded Dogma is
a terminal condition. There is no proof that could possibly be
provided that will change this old codger's mind (and heck, 66 isn't
OLD, for crying out loud - it's about the median age of the typical
EAA chapter).
He's all but calling the designer and owners of these conversions
liars, and unrealistic, overly optimistic fools, without ever having
met them, or seen the conversions.
I've met them. I've seen them. They are neither.

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:23:45 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>Holger,
>>
>>I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
>>of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
>>auto-conversions without a complaint.
>>
>>If you notice, my emails generated REAL feedback on auto
>>conversions.
>>
>>I'm sure Bob's Ego will heal and maybe he'll be a more
>>beneficial contributor to this group.
>>
>>That's my hope.
>>
>>Bart
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Sorry Bart,
>Your emails, for the most part, attack ME...
>not my position on auto conversions which
>you have yet to comprehend.
>
>I am NOT against auto conversions.
>I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.
>
>*YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
And exactly what is "simplistic" about the conversion under
discussion?? They have taken extreme pains to do things RIGHT. The
only thing that can be construed as "simplistic" is the fact they
adhere to the KISS principal. Use what has been proven to work. Change
only what is necessary, and then do not use unproven changes.
The engine calibration they are using is proven over millions of Kms
on land based apps. All the Saudis and other rich folks of the third
world, and half of eastern Europe driving late model high end GMs are
running the same, factory supplied code. This is because lead free gas
cannot be guaranteed available in better than half the world, even
today.
The proof is in the pudding. These 'Bees DO fly. I see and hear one
of them flying overhead here several times a week. Up to this point
they have been rock solid, dependable.
As for WHY install an auto conversion??
What other engine do you put into these old birds - the "factory"
engine has been out of production for decades - and the installed base
has exhausted the supply of many important replacement parts.
Converting to another existing aviation engine would be almost as
involved as the auto conversion, and a whole lot less "fun".
This IS "RECREATIONAL" aircraft, is it not??? And what can beat the
recreational value of being able to fly into a remote lake to go
fishing or hunting in your antique amphibian, without having to worry
that if something goes wrong it may be after freezeup before the
required part can be located, much less shipped up and installed to
get you out? And the comfort of being able to sit in the air
conditioned, temperature controlled cabin - comfortable in shirt
sleeves in any weather? For guys in the "snack bracket" these fellows
are in, it is not so much a matter of cost. The fact the parts are
available, regardless of cost, is more important than the "fact" that
parts are less expensive. The fact they will be available in another
20 or 25 years is another factor.
The fact that a new, current technology engine is statistically more
reliable than a patched together (by necessity) heavily used, heavily
stressed, high hour antique aircraft engine is another bonus.
Sure, they could buy a brand new Lake, or other current production
Amphib with a certified engine -but then all the old Republics would
either be in museums or scrapyards. They are too unique to suffer that
fate.

[Morgans]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
>
> I am NOT against auto conversions.
> I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.
>
> *YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

BOb, I think I understand your position , now more than ever. The thing I
don't understand what about this particular conversion you feel falls short
of the mark. It seems they have done their homework, are expecting
realistic power levels of the machine, and have a good start on a number of
hours on it.

So, if you would, spell it out.
--
Jim in NC

[John Stricker]

Clare,

Yep, they really stink. That's why, for the last 6 or 7 years, they've been
the basis of every IRL car. Not most. All. I'm sure that full girdle
surrounding the crank was so much weaker than the old style main bearing
caps.

Cracks between the cylinders? Show me the SB. Better yet, just give me the
number, I have all of them. You've obviously never seen how a Northstar
block is designed and built. They may crack somewhere, but I'd be amazed to
find one crack between the cylinders.

$8,000 CDN for a good used engine? Why not just shop EBay and take your
choice of low mileage complete cars for the same amount? How on earth did I
ever find my two engines (one with a 4T80E attached) with wiring and
computer for about $500 each? Maybe I should sell them to the Canadian
market.

As far as engine replacement if major repairs are needed goes, that's been a
CADILLAC policy for almost 20 years, long before the Northstar came on the
scene. It's a way to maintain high customer loyalty.

Obviously, someone you know hasn't had good luck with them. That happens.
Ask Unka Bob what kind of luck he has with GM products. That doesn't make
them a bad engine and they're far more advanced technologically than the
LS6. I like them so I play with them. You don't care for them, I'd suggest
you stay away from them.

Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or BMW, and
don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a damn
fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)? Koni shocks
being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think not.
And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between one of
those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.
Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive some
German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior it
is.

John Stricker

<clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
> > wrote:
>
> >The Northstar of either the 4.6L or the 4.0 Liter are within 10 pounds in
> >weight to the LS6, ready to run. Many Northstars are still running with
no
> >visible wear on the cylinders after 150,000 miles. They had a problem
the
> >first three years of porous aluminum castings causing oil leaks that were
> >replaced by Cadillac with new engines. That problem hasn't been a factor
> >for quite a while. They had a service bulletin on the oil pump relief
valve
> >sticking as well which was addressed with a new design oil pump in '96.
> >
> >I don't think you can make the mileage claim of the LS6 over the
Northstar
> >since they were never put in comparably weighted vehicles. I know that
the
> >guys that swap them into Fieros can routinely make well over 30 mpg on
the
> >highway, and the LS6 guys can't do that. But most of the LS6 guys are
using
> >manuals and not the 4T80E that the Northstar was designed to run in front
> >of.
> >
> >Both the LS6 and the Northstar/Aurora can supposedly be driven with no
> >coolant but that's simply a factor of power limiting coming into play in
the
> >PCM. They won't allow them to make enough power to generate enough heat
to
> >cause a catastrophic failure. The other thing is they come standard with
an
> >external engine oil cooler that takes a lot of the coolant load off the
> >radiator. That doesn't change the complexity of the engine itself. They
> >use the same sensors and fuel management control. In fact, the LS6 fuel
> >pressure regulator is a bolt on that the Northstar guys use because there
> >are adjustable versions of it out there.
> >
> >There is one major difference in the electronics of a Northstar over a
LS6.
> >The Northstar uses two crankshaft position sensors and a special toothed
> >segment on the crankshaft which allows the ECM to determine the precise
> >crank position within 180° of crankshaft rotation. That was incorporated
> >strictly to make the engine start quickly.
> >
> >I don't know what you mean by "staying in one piece". The Cadillac is
good
> >to over 7000 rpm on a regular basis with stock rods, crank, and pistons.
> >The only time they get upgraded by the guys that push them is if they're
> >boosted over about 7 psi and making more than 525hp. They use the same
> >powdered metal construction rods the LS6 uses with full floating piston
> >pins. The engine I'm in the process of building uses turbo cams and
springs
> >from CHRFab that are good to 9,000 rpm. When I called around to some of
my
> >friends that were service managers in Cadillac dealerships to get some
> >information on rebuilding and weak spots, all of them said they really
> >didn't know much about it because they'd never had one apart.
> >
> >John Stricker
>
> Well, the caddy experts around here say the factory is "still trying
> to get it right" and they can pretty well tell what failures to look
> for by looking at the production date. One of the latest failures to
> come to light is a fracture of the block, with no apparent cause.
> Can't remember where, but IIRC between 2 cyls. Usually good to
> 150,000K, but some don't get half that far. They are Godawfull
> expensive to replace, too. $8000 Canadian for a (hopefully) good used
> engine????
> Now to give credit where credit is due, they are a very technically
> advanced engine, capable of significant power output, and very smooth
> when running right. Possibly one of the best engine "designs" out
> there - but the implementation is still not up to the standard of,
> say, a Lexus.Or a Bimmer.Or a SBC II
> My brother's shop services a large fleet of limos - and a year or so
> ago they got rid of the last Caddy - had just Lincs and Mercs and a
> Caprice. This was due to the expense of keeping the caddies on the
> road. They have a couple (Chevy powered) Caddies in the fleet again
> this year - and they've got their fingers crossed.
> >
> As for the dealers never having one apart, that is very likely true,
> as when they have a problem they pull the engine out and drop a new
> one in - the "defective" engine goes back to GM for an autopsy.
> In my 25 years in the business, that only happened when the factory
> had "concerns" with a given item.
> In the early seventies with Toyota it was 1600cc cyl heads. For 6
> months, every one that came off went back to Japan for analysis - and
> they found out what the problem was, changed the type of sand they
> used for the cores, and the problem went away. In a particular
> production range, replacement level was close to 100% - and I was
> replacing about 6 a day for weeks at a time.
> >
> >
> ><clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "John Stricker"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Clare,
> >> >
> >> >The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the
> >exception
> >> >of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.
> >> >
> >> >John Stricker
> >> >
> >> ><clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >> The Northstar system is VERY daunting.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> The LS6 is lighter, more powerful, and gives better mileage than a
> >> Northstar. It also tends to stay in one peice, and running, much
> >> longer than the Northstar. The LS6 has adaptive shut-down to allow it
> >> to get home without coolant like the Northstar (supposedly) will? ? If
> >> so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was ONLY the northstar and
> >> Aurora engines that had those features.
> >
>

[Morgans]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or BMW,
and
> don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a damn
> fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)? Koni shocks
> being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think not.
> And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between one
of
> those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.
> Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive some
> German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior it
> is.
>
> John Stricker
********************************

chuckle chuckle, snort, chuckle. !

Amen, brother!
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb --]

>
>> I am NOT against auto conversions.
>> I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.
>>
>> *YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>BOb, I think I understand your position , now more than ever. The thing I
>don't understand what about this particular conversion you feel falls short
>of the mark. It seems they have done their homework, are expecting
>realistic power levels of the machine, and have a good start on a number of
>hours on it.
>
>So, if you would, spell it out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not critical of what has been done to date.
They have a good start....

There are issues that I would normally pursue,
but I've had enough of "shoot the messenger"
to last me a while. Especially when I watch
John Stricker unable to get to first base with
some good points. Time to let go until some
jackoff starts flaming Lycoming and
Continental beyond my capacity to resist
once more.

It's a pretty ****ed up world when it's OK to drop the
hammer at will on certified engines with impunity while any
auto conversion that can get airborne gets a free pass.

Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or BMW,
>and
>> don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a damn
>> fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)? Koni shocks
>> being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think not.
>> And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between one
>of
>> those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.
>> Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive some
>> German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior it
>> is.
>>
>> John Stricker
>********************************
>
> chuckle chuckle, snort, chuckle. !
>
>Amen, brother!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've never known John Stricker NOT to
have his ducks lined up in a nice neat row.

What he has to say is waaay over
every Wannbee pin head. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Morgans]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
>
> I'm not critical of what has been done to date.
> They have a good start....
>
> There are issues that I would normally pursue,
> but I've had enough of "shoot the messenger"
> to last me a while. Especially when I watch
> John Stricker unable to get to first base with
> some good points. Time to let go until some
> jackoff starts flaming Lycoming and
> Continental beyond my capacity to resist
> once more.
>
> It's a pretty ****ed up world when it's OK to drop the
> hammer at will on certified engines with impunity while any
> auto conversion that can get airborne gets a free pass.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

But it WILL be fun, when the hammer does fall, and I Know you will be ready
to defend the lycosaurs, to the last!

I think some would place your cautious pessimism, as you shooting the
messenger. Of course, some are not rational enough to even respond to. A
comment like you posted above, about them having a good start, might serve
to place your standing more clearly. On the other hand, if the subject is
totally off base, I'm sure you won't hesitate to let everyone know where you
stand with that! <g>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:17:09 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>Clare,
>
>Yep, they really stink. That's why, for the last 6 or 7 years, they've been
>the basis of every IRL car. Not most. All. I'm sure that full girdle
>surrounding the crank was so much weaker than the old style main bearing
>caps.
>
>Cracks between the cylinders? Show me the SB. Better yet, just give me the
>number, I have all of them. You've obviously never seen how a Northstar
>block is designed and built. They may crack somewhere, but I'd be amazed to
>find one crack between the cylinders.
>
The northstar is built in the same manner as most of the rest of the
world's top engines. The full girdle main caps are common to Toyota's
ZZ 4 cyl and their V6. I suspect the Lexus 8 is built the same way.
Many other engines are built the same way. However, unlike most other
"world class" engines,the Northstar is designated by GM as a
non-rebuildable engine. No undersize crank bearings are supplied. The
iron sleeves cannot be replaced OR rebored. The early model Northstars
had pourous castings, which caused oil leakage THROUGH the lower
crankcase. The rear main seals were problematic and have been
retrofitted with a new press-in seal. The extended drain intervals
recommended by GM (don't change oil until the oil condition indicator
says so - 8-12,000 miles) has caused 2 serious problems with the
engines. Seized oil control rings, which cause serious oil burning,
and sticking oil pressure regulators (relief valves) which prevent the
engine from producing oil pressure. The fix for the stuck rings is
basically filling the cyls with carbon solvent, letting it sit for
several hours, and vacuuming it out through the plug holes. Then you
pray the cyl walls have not been scuffed by the stuck rings, or you
are in for an engine replacement.
The oil pump has to come off the front of the engine to repair the no
oil pressure problem - assuming it was cought in time.
According to GM, the cyl heads are also "disposable" as the hard
powdered metal valve guides are reportedly non replaceable.
Head gasket leaks are also not uncommon, and GM has revised the head
torque spec and sequence.
It's an interference engine too - and with overhead cams - I'm not a
great fan of LONG timing chains after the 2.6 Mitso****ty fiasco.
If repairing or replacing an engine, GM deems it MANDATORY to replace
the composite intake manifold, as it is virtually impossible to
effectively clean it and be sure there is no debris in it that will
get sucked in and damage the new or repaired engine. The harmonic
balancers on the early engine had a tendancy to shift, causing rough
running. If and when a head cracks, or a gasket blows, the head bolts
MUST be replaced (not sure if it is just because they are torque to
yield, or some other phenomenon) and stripped threads are not at all
uncommon.. On both head bolts and main saddle bolts.
The starter, buried in the bowels of the engine, commonly succums to
the heat, requiring removal of the entire intake system.
One of my customers (in my current business- no longer automotive) is
on his 3rd or 4th Caddy in the last 5 or six years. He has had at
least 2 engine replacements under warranty and was joking with the
service manager they were going to have to give him a researved
parking space - the car spent as much time at the dealers as in his
driveway. He's a died in the wool Caddy man, so just kept trading them
in hoping to get a good one. Got an Escalade now.
>$8,000 CDN for a good used engine? Why not just shop EBay and take your
>choice of low mileage complete cars for the same amount?
May as well go to the casino - it's a crapshoot - enough of a risk
buying from wreckers who give a warranty on the engine (1 year for
personal use, 90 days commercial) and there are NO rebuilt Northstars
available in Canada. The major rebuilders won't touch them.
> How on earth did I
>ever find my two engines (one with a 4T80E attached) with wiring and
>computer for about $500 each? Maybe I should sell them to the Canadian
>market.
>
Even a blind pig will find the occaisional acorn.

>As far as engine replacement if major repairs are needed goes, that's been a
>CADILLAC policy for almost 20 years, long before the Northstar came on the
>scene. It's a way to maintain high customer loyalty.

Yea, make them think they are the ONLY one with a problem - and, look,
we're giving (or selling, if you are off warranty) you a brand new
engine!!. Not like those other guys that put in a rebuilt.. Ha!!
>
>Obviously, someone you know hasn't had good luck with them. That happens.
>Ask Unka Bob what kind of luck he has with GM products. That doesn't make
>them a bad engine and they're far more advanced technologically than the
>LS6. I like them so I play with them. You don't care for them, I'd suggest
>you stay away from them.
Over the years I have not been a great GM fan - nothing against them -
but I've had Mopars, Toyotas, AMCs, other assorted oddballs, and a
couple of Fords. I had a 28 Chevy and a 35 Chevy, a '57 Chevy, and a
'67 Nova. Now I've got a '94 TransSport 3800 and an '88 Chrysler 3.9
(Mitso****ty). The 3800 is a great little engine - pulls a WHOLE lot
better than the 3.0 Ford, and appears to be at least as good as Ford's
4.0. Miserable son-of-a gun to work on though. (due to location and
packaging - the engine itself is dead simple)
I'm of the KISS persuasion. If I'm not racing, 2 valves are as good
as 4, one cam as good as 4.
>
>Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or BMW, and
>don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a damn
>fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)?

How about several hundred dollars for a replacement fuel rail for a
SEFI 3800 GM? A lot of other insane prices too - like the automatic
level control compressor for the TransSport? Or the front sway bar? Or
the MAF sensor? I get sticker shock every time I need a part for the
Pontiac - I thought the Chryco parts were expensive. Every part I have
required for both of them has been more expensive than for my old RWD
Ford, or any of my Toyotas. They Toys all went over 300,00km without
opening the engine. Or the transmission.

> Koni shocks
>being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think not.
>And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between one of
>those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.

Nothing beats an american 8 for smoothness and "Grunt"
>Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive some
>German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior it
>is.
For the price of a Caddy I can drive some pretty nice Japanese
machinery. Not as fancy as the caddy, and not as powerful, but gets me
from place to place in comfort, and with a measure of reliability I
have not experienced with any of my American cars - of any vintage.
Now the Japs build some AWFULL junk too. I won't touch another Mitsu
engined vehicle - The 1600 Colt, then the 2600 Chrysler LeBaron, and
now the current 3.0 New Yorker have all had serious head and valve
train problems. Never hit 120,000 KM with either of them without a
serious infusion of time and cash. Pushing 250,000 km on the New
Yorker now, on third set of heads. A Caddy may well have outdone this
one, but I couldn't replace the heads on the Caddy for less than $300
Canadian. Wouldn't do it in an afternoon on my driveway either.
Caddy was about the same price as the New Yorker when new - if the
caddy wasn't fully loaded (and my Chrysler was). (didn't buy the
Chrysler new, either)
>

[John Stricker]

Unk,

I can be convincing. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
with bull****. Hey, I got you to buy that Buick!! I rest my case.

John "running as fast as I fricking can now...." Stricker

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or
BMW,
> >and
> >> don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a
damn
> >> fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)? Koni
shocks
> >> being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think
not.
> >> And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between
one
> >of
> >> those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.
> >> Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive
some
> >> German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior
it
> >> is.
> >>
> >> John Stricker
> >********************************
> >
> > chuckle chuckle, snort, chuckle. !
> >
> >Amen, brother!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I've never known John Stricker NOT to
> have his ducks lined up in a nice neat row.
>
> What he has to say is waaay over
> every Wannbee pin head. <g>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

[John Stricker]

Clare,

I appreciate your take on this, but some of what you think you know is just
plain wrong.

> non-rebuildable engine. No undersize crank bearings are supplied. The

Not from GM. Federal Mogul offers them, though, and numerous places will
rebuild the cranks for about $200 US, exchange. There's a reason GM doesn't
recommend undersize bearings and that is the cranks are not grindable
without being heat-treated, which most won't do. What's economical for a
rebuilder to do is different than what's economical for GM to do. If it
costs them $200 in manufacturing costs to make a new crank, how can they
afford to offer a rebuilt one? (no, they don't sell them for $200). Every
component to rebuild the engine is available from GM. The cylinders can be
bored slightly (.010" or 3mm, IIRC, but I'd have to look that up). Mostly,
they don't get bored but they get honed oversized. BTW, give me one GM or
Chrysler engine that the FACTORY offers a REBUILT crankshaft for. I don't
know of any.

> iron sleeves cannot be replaced OR rebored.

Just like 99% of the cast in place hardened sleeve designed alloy blocks
available now. Again, not from GM, but the aftermarket can fill the bill
quite nicely. Again, that's not true. They also almost never NEED to be
bored. The engine I'm building now had 120,000 miles on it, showed 0 taper
and 0 ridge. The factory hone marks were still visible. I had them cleaned
up and put the block through the washer, spent a day with the dial indicator
verifying straightness, and it's good to go. This is NOT unusual for a
Northstar block, this is the norm from what I've heard from the guys that
actually build these engines (one of them worked on the Cadillac LMP cars
that used the 4.0L version of the engine). You can also get forged pistons
from Arias and forged aluminum or steel rods from Eagle, if you like, at a
cost that's comparable to other engines. They're not really necessary,
though, unless you're running something over a 150 horse shot of nitrous or
more than 8-10 pounds of boost from a supercharger or Turbos. BTW, the
first year Northstar came from the factory with forged rods and crank, but
the following engines used powdered metal rods (like the LS6) and a vacuum
cast crank.

> The early model Northstars had pourous castings, which caused oil leakage
THROUGH the
> lower crankcase.
> crankcase. The rear main seals were problematic and have been
> retrofitted with a new press-in seal.

Not exactly. The girdles themselves were porous and when that was a
problem, the entire engine was replaced. Also, they have changed the
sealing procedures between the girdle and block as well as between the
girdle and pan because many of the "porous casting" complaints were actually
improperly sealed components from the factory. As you pointed out, though,
those were the early models before '95. That was almost a decade ago, in
model years. The rear seal changed designs because it was very difficult to
get them to seal during a service replacement, they didn't leak from new. A
new seal was designed that sealed better during a service installation.

> The extended drain intervals
> recommended by GM (don't change oil until the oil condition indicator
> says so - 8-12,000 miles) has caused 2 serious problems with the
> engines. Seized oil control rings, which cause serious oil burning,
> and sticking oil pressure regulators (relief valves) which prevent the
> engine from producing oil pressure. The fix for the stuck rings is
> basically filling the cyls with carbon solvent, letting it sit for
> several hours, and vacuuming it out through the plug holes. Then you
> pray the cyl walls have not been scuffed by the stuck rings, or you
> are in for an engine replacement.

This was addressed by recalibrating the PCM to shorten the engine oil life.
If the engines were used for primarily highway driving, there were few
problems. City stop and go driving, which the engineers thought they
compensated for with the software in the PCM, did cause the problems you're
talking about. BTW, the ONLY time you got that kind of mileage on the oil
indicator WAS if you were doing almost all highway driving. The computer
compensated life times based on engine temperature, engine speed, calendar
life, etc. I think there are 8 parameters involved and they simply got the
programming wrong. The change oil indicator could come on at anytime
between 2,500 miles and a maximum of 12,000 miles based on the parameters in
the software.

Another problem was that people use various quality grades of oil. Yes,
technically they all meet a minimum standard. The Northstar is NOT a
minimum standard engine, though, and, again, they got the programming wrong.

Your description of freeing the stuck oil rings is correct, although a bit
exaggerated, as far as it goes. (there was never enough top end cleaner
used to "fill the cylinders". It would be impossible to do in any case
given the layout of the Northstar intake.) What you failed to mention was
that if the service procedure didn't fix the problem, the customer got a new
engine. Virtually ALL of these failures happened while still under
warranty. Again, you're talking about the early engines. The computer has
since been reprogrammed with shorter oil service intervals.

You're also only partially right on the oil pump relief valve. Yes, the
service interval may have been a factor, but they also decided the relief
valve was not robust enough and came out with a replacement oil pump. That
pump, BTW, can be changed in the vehicle by removing the balancer and front
cover, then four bolts and the oil pump comes out from the front. Pan
removal is not required. The timing chains do have to come off, but if you
follow the factory service manual you can remove and return them for service
without re-timing the system.

There is also a procedure in the service bulletin to free the stuck relief
valve without removing any components, and it works about 1/2 the time. But
the oil pump really should be upgraded to the new style since it has other
improvements as well. That oil pump, BTW, costs about $85 at gmpartsdirect.
Would you like to compare oil pump prices to some of the other makes you
mentioned?

> According to GM, the cyl heads are also "disposable" as the hard
> powdered metal valve guides are reportedly non replaceable.

This is true, but also not unique to the Northstar. Most any of the makes
you already mentioned with DOHC direct actuation have the same limitations.

> If repairing or replacing an engine, GM deems it MANDATORY to replace
> the composite intake manifold, as it is virtually impossible to
> effectively clean it and be sure there is no debris in it that will
> get sucked in and damage the new or repaired engine.

That's not true. Replacement is only called for if the technician has
reason to believe foreign matter has entered the intake system. I just took
mine apart and put it back together, but it's the early design that uses a
magnesium housing with plastic, internal runners. These are not tuned as
well as the later versions, but superior for my application because the all
plastic manifolds have a large "soft plug" type design at the back that's
made to blow out in case of a backfire. (also to be able to remove it to
clean the manifold). These are problematic for engines that are going to be
used in a boosted application, though, as the boost may cause them to leak
or blow out, so the early ones are superior for my use.

> Head gasket leaks are also not uncommon, and GM has revised the head
> torque spec and sequence.

Leaking head gaskets are quite uncommon, but they have changed design and
composition to make them almost unheard of. The torque specifications were
changed because technicians were pulling the threads out of the aluminum
blocks. Head gaskets seem outrageously priced until you realize they come
only with a new set of head bolts since those bolts are torque to yield,
again, pretty much standard with aluminum block/head construction now. The
pulled thread problem is there in ANY aluminum engine, even Lycoming and
Continental. The Northstar, though, has a factory thread repair system
available for the inevitable occurrence.

> The harmonic
> balancers on the early engine had a tendancy to shift, causing rough
> running.

Wrong. There is a new harmonic balancer and it addresses what I consider to
be one of the few design flaws of the engine. The harmonic balancer is held
onto the crankshaft with a key and bolt arrangement like most all other
engines. What's unusual is that the balancer pulls against a sleeve that is
the actual operator for the gearotor oil pump, which is NOT keyed to the
crankshaft in any way. The crank timing sprocket is between the two. You
torque the bolt down, pulling the balancer in, clamping the sprocket and the
sleeve with clamp pressure alone. What happened with the old style balancer
is that sometimes it would not hold the proper clamp force and would allow
the sleeve to slip. A new design balancer was released, with a new bolt and
torque spec to address the problem. The balancer cost me about $48, IIRC.

> It's an interference engine too - and with overhead cams - I'm not a
> great fan of LONG timing chains after the 2.6 Mitso****ty fiasco.

Nearly all high performance DOHC engines are interference engines. It's
hard not to have one with a 4 valve, hemi head, running 10:1 compression and
have reasonable valve lifts. The math just doesn't work any other way. Now
tell me how many Northstars you can recall, or have your friends recall,
that EVER had a failed timing chain that caused a problem? I won't hold my
breath while you're looking, because it has a very simple and robust system
that simply doesn't break.

> The starter, buried in the bowels of the engine, commonly succums to
> the heat, requiring removal of the entire intake system.

Buried? It's in the vee below the intake. It takes a competent mechanic
less than 30 minutes to remove a Northstar intake. On top of that, the
starter is surrounded by the engine which runs at a fairly sedate 200°F as
opposed to being on the side of a block within inches of 1300°F exhaust
pipes. They're also protected from road debris, salt, and water. The
starter location was a conscious decision by GM to avoid service problems to
begin with. I can change a Northstar starter faster than I can change one
on a small block Chevy, in most cases. Again, how many Northstars have you
heard of that have had to have the starter replaced?

> May as well go to the casino - it's a crapshoot - enough of a risk
> buying from wreckers who give a warranty on the engine (1 year for
> personal use, 90 days commercial)

And this differs from other engines just how, again??

> and there are NO rebuilt Northstars
> available in Canada. The major rebuilders won't touch them.

Maybe not from GM, but there are rebuilders here that offer them. If
they're available here, they're available in Canada as imports.

> Even a blind pig will find the occaisional acorn.

Should I comment on that, Clare, or are you relating your own personal
experiences?

> Over the years I have not been a great GM fan - nothing against them -
> but I've had Mopars, Toyotas, AMCs, other assorted oddballs, and a
> couple of Fords. I had a 28 Chevy and a 35 Chevy, a '57 Chevy, and a
> '67 Nova.

Not been a great fan of GM's, but you have nothing against them. At the
same time you're pointing out as weaknesses of the Northstar things that are
now industry common items, like having to replace the head bolts every time
they're torqued (you forgot to mention the rod bolts in the Northstar are
also torque to yield), interference design of the valves, etc.

> I'm of the KISS persuasion. If I'm not racing, 2 valves are as good
> as 4, one cam as good as 4.

That's why you're not able to get 65-70hp per liter, unless you're racing.
The Northstar does it in a car grandma can drive.

> For the price of a Caddy I can drive some pretty nice Japanese
> machinery.

Different strokes for different folks. I personally drive a Riviera. To
me, though, "pretty nice Japanese machinery" is an oxymoron. Especially
when you have to go to the parts counter and pay the piper.

> How about several hundred dollars for a replacement fuel rail for a
> SEFI 3800 GM? A lot of other insane prices too - like the automatic
> level control compressor for the TransSport? Or the front sway bar? Or
> the MAF sensor? I get sticker shock every time I need a part for the
> Pontiac - I thought the Chryco parts were expensive. Every part I have
> required for both of them has been more expensive than for my old RWD
> Ford, or any of my Toyotas. They Toys all went over 300,00km without
> opening the engine. Or the transmission.

Nest time, go to http://www.gmpartsdirect.com and order your parts. They
ship to Canada.

Fuel rail is $284.09 + frt (although I don't know why you wouldn't find one
of THOSE at a salvage yard). They didn't show the sway bar, but any parts
you can't find there you can email them for a quote. The ALC compressor is
$262.18 + frt. The MAF is $102.79 + frt. I realize you're dealing in
Canadian $$, but that's not as big a difference as it was 6 months ago
(unfortunately for us). I don't know how those prices compare to other
makes, but I know a Ford MAF is more than that for their light trucks.

Some parts cost a lot, others don't. Specialty parts from GM often cost
unless they're the subject of a service bulletin, then they're pretty
reasonable as I've shown above. OTOH, how about pricing things like routine
maintenance items for the imports and the GM/Ford/Chryslers? That's where
they hang it in your butt, and if you've driven them you know it just as
well as I do.

300,000 km? That's about 187,000 miles. I'm not impressed. My GM vehicles
are just getting broken in at 150,000. My '83 service truck has over
500,000 miles (800,000 km) on it and we just had to put a rebuilt engine in
it last year at 480,000. It still ran, but was lacking some power and
starting harder than it used to. This is a 6.2L diesel that many deride as
being powerless and unreliable.

The Northstar is not a perfect engine. I've never found a perfect engine.
It is the most technologically advanced engine available at the moment from
a US manufacturer of US design. I can point out at least a half a dozen
potential trouble spots on the engine that you didn't touch on, but that
isn't the point.

I've come to the conclusion that people generally get what they expect out
of a vehicle or engine. Sometimes not, but most times. Take my old LeSabre
for instance. We had it for several years. The wife drove it almost daily
putting over 150K miles on it. We had to put a transmission in it at around
120K. Other than routine maintenance and a fuel pump, that was it.

When we got a new car we sold the Buick to Unka Bob. Now Bob isn't shy
about telling you that he and GM have never gotten along. Never. But both
he and I thought that the Buck (not a mis-spell, the "i" fell off at some
point in time and it was affectionately known as the Buck from that day
forward) would be fine for him, based on it's past history with me. A
friend and I drove it to KC to take it to him and pick up a POS Cherokee to
fly home for an annual on a ferry permit. We went to Unks house and he took
us to the airport.

He literally did not make it the 20 miles home before the a/c compressor
flew to hell. From that point on, it has been one thing after another that
has failed on the car. I don't think he's been able to drive it 500 miles.
I even offered to buy it back. We even talked about if I bought it back,
we'd get it running long enough to take it to the auto auction, sell it, and
use the money to get drunk for as long as the money held out.

But Bob's on a quest now. He's going to find out what's wrong with it if
it's the last thing he does. Then he'll sell it. I think it's a matter at
this point of not letting the rotten SOB beat him. There's certainly no
financial reason for him to keep after it, but he does.

You might have noticed he's a little stubborn that way.

You seem to think the Northstar is a greatly inferior engine and I think
you're mistaken. But you're certainly entitled to your wrong opinion. 8-)
It is NOT, and I repeat NOT, a suitable engine for aircraft conversion,
IMHO, so I think I'll just let this thread die now without further comment.

John Stricker

[Del Rawlins]

On 23 Oct 2003 08:32 PM, John Stricker posted the following:

> But Bob's on a quest now. He's going to find out what's wrong with it
> if it's the last thing he does. Then he'll sell it. I think it's a
> matter at this point of not letting the rotten SOB beat him. There's
> certainly no financial reason for him to keep after it, but he does.
>
> You might have noticed he's a little stubborn that way.

Apparently, the Buck stops there... repeatedly.

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

"John Stricker" > wrote:

>Unk,
>
>I can be convincing. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
>with bull****. Hey, I got you to buy that Buick!! I rest my case.
>
>John "running as fast as I fricking can now...." Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BULL**** RULEZ... is the motto of the
lunatic fringe of auto conversion Wannabees
that absolutely thrive on it here in RAH.

From what I have observed, The "real deals" link up
here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
real experimentation takes place. They know that
alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
and images.


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

[Jay]

> Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?
>
> Corky Scott

Ya, thats how the nose got so long. That part is easy with the
modeling software. I'm a little concerned because the design will
have a very large moment of inertia in pitch and yaw, which on one
hand will make it stable, and on the other hand will make spin
recovery a challenge. Definitely a XC design. If you're interested,
I'll e-mail you the model and you can fly it.

BTW, thanks for reposting my message, it got lost in the car brand
debate.

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:19:14 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>"John Stricker" > wrote:
>
>>Unk,
>>
>>I can be convincing. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
>>with bull****. Hey, I got you to buy that Buick!! I rest my case.
>>
>>John "running as fast as I fricking can now...." Stricker
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>BULL**** RULEZ... is the motto of the
>lunatic fringe of auto conversion Wannabees
>that absolutely thrive on it here in RAH.
>
>From what I have observed, The "real deals" link up
>here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
>real experimentation takes place. They know that
>alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
>or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
>****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
>and images.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

BOb, this is what I don't understand: No one, to my knowledge, is
saying anything other than that alternative engines are just that,
alternatives.

Why you persist in smearing any and all discussion or examples is a
mystery to me. If this group were titled something other than
Recreational Aviation Homebuilt, perhaps you'd have a valid argument,
but it's not. Experimental homebuilders have been using auto
conversions pretty much from the very beginning of the homebuilt
movement. There is no technical reason why a modified auto engine
can't or shouldn't be used as a replacement for a certified aircraft
engine. The proof is in the many examples that are flying. Have
there been bumps in the road? Sure. But does this mean that we
should all just give up? Are you really advocating that?

Not sure what you mean by the "real deals" who link up here and then
move on, can you give an example?

And as to the "BULL**** RULEZ", the subject heading refers to a V-8
conversion for a Seabee. It's a flying example of a successfull
conversion and now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. Exactly
what is bull**** about that?

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:38:23 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>
>>> I am NOT against auto conversions.
>>> I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.
>>>
>>> *YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".
>>>
>>>
>>> Barnyard BOb --
>>
>>BOb, I think I understand your position , now more than ever. The thing I
>>don't understand what about this particular conversion you feel falls short
>>of the mark. It seems they have done their homework, are expecting
>>realistic power levels of the machine, and have a good start on a number of
>>hours on it.
>>
>>So, if you would, spell it out.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>I'm not critical of what has been done to date.
>They have a good start....
>
>There are issues that I would normally pursue,
>but I've had enough of "shoot the messenger"
>to last me a while. Especially when I watch
>John Stricker unable to get to first base with
>some good points.

What exactly were those good points? And what's first base? My
impression is that he asked some questions and the people who
engineered the conversion responded with precise answers. Then
somehow the subject got sidetracked to Cadilacs and the Northstar
system, like that had anything to do with Seabee's flying with a Chevy
LS1 engine.

>Time to let go until some
>jackoff starts flaming Lycoming and
>Continental beyond my capacity to resist
>once more.

BOb, lest you forget, **I** was the messenger in this case. I posted
the link to the converted Seabee's.

>It's a pretty ****ed up world when it's OK to drop the
>hammer at will on certified engines with impunity while any
>auto conversion that can get airborne gets a free pass.

>Barnyard BOb --

What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
and tempermental? <BIG grin here>

Auto conversions don't get free passes here but they do get discussed.
May I respectfully direct your attention once again to the subject
heading for the group in which you are reading this: Recreational
Aviation Homebuilt.

Corky Scott

[Russell Kent]

John Stricker wrote:

> 1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
> three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
> and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
> time and it will put things in perspective.

Ahem. I think we can all agree that those "MILLIONS" of Lycoming and
Continental hours were far from "trouble-free".

Russell Kent

[Russell Kent]

Jay wrote:

> There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
> plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
> about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
> idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

I think you're talking about Ken Welter's old Coot. It burned last year
(Jun 2002 IIRC). Ken has since completed a 4-place Coot, although it is
currently single-engine Wankel-only.

Ken Welter wrote on 13-Mar-2002:

> Yes I have here is a photo of my twin pack that will go on the 4
> place coot that I am starting to build, I installed this pack on my
> present coot and tested it for 11 hrs and was a bit heavy for it but
> should work on the bigger one, the front engine is a 670 Rotax
> snowmobile engine that puts out 125 hp but there is no reason that it
> should not work with two rotary's however part of the design to stop
> resonant vibration is to run two very different rpm's so you would
> run two different gear ratios and I would suggest running a 12a and a
> 13b, the spag clutches that I used were made by SSK and sold by Morse.


Russell Kent

[Russell Kent]

CORRECTION: the quote from Ken was written 13-Mar-2003.

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

> Jay wrote:
>
> > There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
> > plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
> > about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
> > idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.
>
> I think you're talking about Ken Welter's old Coot. It burned last year
> (Jun 2002 IIRC). Ken has since completed a 4-place Coot, although it is
> currently single-engine Wankel-only.
>
> Ken Welter wrote on 13-Mar-2003:
>
> > Yes I have here is a photo of my twin pack that will go on the 4
> > place coot that I am starting to build, I installed this pack on my
> > present coot and tested it for 11 hrs and was a bit heavy for it but
> > should work on the bigger one, the front engine is a 670 Rotax
> > snowmobile engine that puts out 125 hp but there is no reason that it
> > should not work with two rotary's however part of the design to stop
> > resonant vibration is to run two very different rpm's so you would
> > run two different gear ratios and I would suggest running a 12a and a
> > 13b, the spag clutches that I used were made by SSK and sold by Morse.
>
> Russell Kent

[Barnyard BOb --]

>What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
>seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
>and tempermental? <BIG grin here>
>
>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does the <BIG grin> imply that you do not believe this?
Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
I no longer care what you think or do.

Plonk.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
>>seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
>>and tempermental? <BIG grin here>
>>
>>Corky Scott
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Does the <BIG grin> imply that you do not believe this?
>Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
>I no longer care what you think or do.
>
>Plonk.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

BOb Urban, I_am_hurt! You mean after years of gratuitous insults and
nearly automatic acerbic comments to me, you leave the field?

And here I thought your lack of personal attacks against me lately
were a sign that at last I was gaining your respect because so many
auto coversions had been successful lately.

I guess not.

Corky (who wants my tattered battle flag) Scott

PS, you mean you think that certified aircraft engines AREN'T
anachronistic, overpriced and tempermental? Lordy, I thought that was
something everyone could agree on.

[Model Flyer]

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

> here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
> real experimentation takes place. They know that
> alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
> or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
> ****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
> and images.
>

Old aero engines never die they just slowly fade away.:-) Wish there
were more of them around - here in Ireland - and they didn't cost as
much, "Hey Mister", Gimmey two of them
things...................................
--

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


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

[John Stricker]

Corky,

Here's my problem with the Bull****.

I have a '98 Buick Riviera. It has a series 2 3800 supercharged GM engine
in it. This series is one of the most popular in terms of units on the
road, most highly refined, and most reliable engines in the US today. They
just rarely break.

I've put (or my wife has) 123,000 miles on the car. In that time, I've had
to replace one set of plug wires, two accessory drive belt idlers, one set
of spark plugs, and 2 fuel filters. Figuring an average speed of about 65
mph, that's about 1900 hours, more or less.

I consider that to be remarkably reliable. I do NOT consider that to be
trouble free. Parts broke and parts needed to be replaced.

You may claim those were maintenance items yet you consider it a negative if
a mag needs replacing on a Lycoming, which is also a maintenance item. It
reminds me of Clare claiming a weak spot of the Northstar was that threads
got pulled from an aluminum block when ANY aluminum threaded casting can
suffer the same fate.

When I read that these guys have three engines out there, with an
accumulated 1100+ hours on them and they have been "trouble-free", the
Bull**** flag flies high.

Have they been reliable? I suppose, or they wouldn't be happy with them. So
why not just state the facts? Why not say that after 300 hours, we had a
coil failure on one cylinder (something that happens on the LS6 with
remarkable regularity). Why not just say that they had a few problems
getting the cooling system bled. Why not just present the facts without the
hyperbole?

I don't know if they had any of the problems I mentioned, I haven't gotten a
response to the email I sent one of the guys. But I *DO* know that they did
not do three experimental conversions on two different engines on those
SeaBees and after they bolted them up, closed the cowls, started them up and
flew away into the sunset, never having to put a wrench on them again.

I know that for a fact and so do you, so instead of claiming they've been
"trouble free", why not just present what problems they experienced, however
minor, as a caveat to those wanting to follow in their footsteps?

Do you want to know why, Corky? I'll tell you. They want to sell their
conversions. Like all manufacturers, they want to sell the good points and
gloss over the bad. I don't blame them for that, it's the way of life.
Just quit peeing down my neck while you're telling me its raining.

John Stricker



"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> BOb, this is what I don't understand: No one, to my knowledge, is
> saying anything other than that alternative engines are just that,
> alternatives.
>
> Why you persist in smearing any and all discussion or examples is a
> mystery to me. If this group were titled something other than
> Recreational Aviation Homebuilt, perhaps you'd have a valid argument,
> but it's not. Experimental homebuilders have been using auto
> conversions pretty much from the very beginning of the homebuilt
> movement. There is no technical reason why a modified auto engine
> can't or shouldn't be used as a replacement for a certified aircraft
> engine. The proof is in the many examples that are flying. Have
> there been bumps in the road? Sure. But does this mean that we
> should all just give up? Are you really advocating that?
>
> Not sure what you mean by the "real deals" who link up here and then
> move on, can you give an example?
>
> And as to the "BULL**** RULEZ", the subject heading refers to a V-8
> conversion for a Seabee. It's a flying example of a successfull
> conversion and now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. Exactly
> what is bull**** about that?
>
> Corky Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Barnyard BOb --]

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:


>Know why they call him "barnyard" Bob?
>Cause he's both a S**t disturber, and full of S**t.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clare...
I thought you were above this sort of cheap s**t.
Shame, shame, shame on you.

FWIW --
I embrace "Barnyard BOb" because of the low collective
animalistic behavior that the RAH BARNYARD exhibits from time
to time. Your vitriolic fomenting exhibition here proves the point
far too sadly. Begone with the rest of the auto conversion loons.
You too, have begun to serve your cause quite poorly. Future
rants from you will be filtered out.

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

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:15:44 -0500, "John Stricker"
> wrote:


>I know that for a fact and so do you, so instead of claiming they've been
>"trouble free", why not just present what problems they experienced, however
>minor, as a caveat to those wanting to follow in their footsteps?
>
>Do you want to know why, Corky? I'll tell you. They want to sell their
>conversions. Like all manufacturers, they want to sell the good points and
>gloss over the bad. I don't blame them for that, it's the way of life.
>Just quit peeing down my neck while you're telling me its raining.
>
>John Stricker

I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
they ran into.

I do know that many have seen them flying.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the "peeing down your neck while
saying it's raining" analogy. What does that mean?

I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:00:13 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>FWIW --
>I embrace "Barnyard BOb" because of the low collective
>animalistic behavior that the RAH BARNYARD exhibits from time
>to time. Your vitriolic fomenting exhibition here proves the point
>far too sadly. Begone with the rest of the auto conversion loons.
>You too, have begun to serve your cause quite poorly. Future
>rants from you will be filtered out.
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>The more people I meet,
>the more I love my dog....
>and George Carlin humor.
>

BOb, it's really a shame you feel that way. It becomes a kind of self
fullfilling proficy: You expect the worst of people and darned if you
don't get it.

Is that really why you reply to so many people in so caustic a manner?

I've maintained for a long time that the disturbingly acidic responses
that we see in this group so often are causing many people to stay
away. These are people who could contribute in many ways, if the
atmosphere here were more encouraging.

Corky Scott

[John Stricker]

> I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
> been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
> they ran into.

My point exactly. This was a very large project. You know it and I know
it. They had to hand build the first PSRU. They had to have a custom
wiring harness made. They had to use a non-stock memcal. They had to fab
dozens, if not hundreds, of brackets, mounts, controls and so on.

IIRC, you used to be a mechanic in a Soob dealership. In your entire
mechanical experience, can you EVER envision a project of that magnitude
truly being "trouble-free"? I've been in on a lot of projects much less
involved than that, and I can't envision it. Things you never thought of,
that never occurred to you, come up and bite you in the butt at places you
never envisioned. That's my point. I do not believe that any project like
this can be trouble free. Can it be successful? Yes, depending on your
criteria. But not trouble free.

> I do know that many have seen them flying.

That fact alone is not enough to convince me that it's trouble free, or even
successful. Many BD's flew with the Hirth, and that was neither. Mini
500's flew stock as Dennis sent them out, were they successful (or trouble
free)?

> I'm sorry but I don't understand the "peeing down your neck while
> saying it's raining" analogy. What does that mean?

Then I'll explain it. Don't tell me one thing when you and I both know it's
another.

> I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
> conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Appearances can be deceiving and sometimes things can be as they appear.
Anytime something is presented as ALL positive with NONE of the negatives
displayed, as in this case, my bull**** flag goes up.

John Stricker

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
>> conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.
>
>Appearances can be deceiving and sometimes things can be as they appear.
>Anytime something is presented as ALL positive with NONE of the negatives
>displayed, as in this case, my bull**** flag goes up.
>
>John Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. <g>


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[David O]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
>I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
>at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. <g>

I expect that a large percentage of "quiet" rah readers have
sufficiently accurate BS flags. They simply choose to not get
involved. Such involvement seems even more pointless when one
considers that a number of auto-conversion proponents here have yet to
even build and fly an auto-conversion. One of them has repeatedly
demonstrated technical ignorance on fundamental engine issues. When
such people have walked the walk for a while, then perhaps more people
will pay attention to their pro auto-conversion arguments. Until
then, I expect many people are just "clicking through" and rolling
their eyes.

David "clicking through" O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:54 -0600, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>> I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
>> been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
>> they ran into.
>
>My point exactly. This was a very large project. You know it and I know
>it. They had to hand build the first PSRU. They had to have a custom
>wiring harness made. They had to use a non-stock memcal. They had to fab
>dozens, if not hundreds, of brackets, mounts, controls and so on.
>
>IIRC, you used to be a mechanic in a Soob dealership. In your entire
>mechanical experience, can you EVER envision a project of that magnitude
>truly being "trouble-free"? I've been in on a lot of projects much less
>involved than that, and I can't envision it. Things you never thought of,
>that never occurred to you, come up and bite you in the butt at places you
>never envisioned. That's my point. I do not believe that any project like
>this can be trouble free. Can it be successful? Yes, depending on your
>criteria. But not trouble free.

I'd expect that there might be changes made, configurations tried and
possibly modified, all prior to the extended test period. If they
encountered cooling problems during the initial rigging phase, I'd
assume that they would make the necessary changes and then continue
with the testing.

It's a fairly basic setup, the engine is not running at full capacity
so it is not overstressed. The ignition and fuel injection are
operating within normal parameters. The only unknowns are the PSRU
and cooling. The cooling is obvious and if inadaquate, will make that
fact known immediately. The airplanes are flying wherever and
whenever they want to so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that
cooling appears adaquate.

That leaves just the PSRU as an unknown (to me). They now have over
800 hours on the initial airplane. That's not a lifetime but it's
sure not bad for starters.

It seems all auto conversions have a built in conundrum: None of them
have enough hours to satisfy those who feel auto conversions are
risky. Yet the only way to build those hours is to continue to fly
them. But flying them draws the ire of those who say they are unsafe.

What to do?

How long must auto conversions fly to fly to prove their viability?
500 hours? 1000 hours? 1500 hours? Were the original Lycomings and
Continentals tested for that long? Should all experimenting stop
because some appear inadaquately thought through or improperly
assembled? Or should we learn from the failures of those who tried
ahead of us? In other words, should we seek solutions to known
problems, or give up?

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:
>
>>If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
>>I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
>>at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. <g>
>
>I expect that a large percentage of "quiet" rah readers have
>sufficiently accurate BS flags. They simply choose to not get
>involved. Such involvement seems even more pointless when one
>considers that a number of auto-conversion proponents here have yet to
>even build and fly an auto-conversion.

I would very much expect your expectation to be spot on.
I wuz using a bit of 'drama' above. <g>

For all my BS'ing here, I don't underestimate the 'silent majority'.

The wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot
at the microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even
if it is pointless. If that is the worst I do here, I'm in good shape!
However, 'tis my aim to reduce some of my more 'colorful' antics,
but no one should hold their breath. <g>

>One of them has repeatedly
>demonstrated technical ignorance on fundamental engine issues. When
>such people have walked the walk for a while, then perhaps more people
>will pay attention to their pro auto-conversion arguments. Until
>then, I expect many people are just "clicking through" and rolling
>their eyes.
>
>David "clicking through" O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

Just "clicking through"?


Barnyard BOb - feel free to roll you eyes

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:49:53 -0600, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>For all my BS'ing here, I don't underestimate the 'silent majority'.
>
>The wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot
>at the microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even
>if it is pointless. If that is the worst I do here, I'm in good shape!
>However, 'tis my aim to reduce some of my more 'colorful' antics,
>but no one should hold their breath. <g>

>Just "clicking through"?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - feel free to roll you eyes

The "wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks" would include such
poseurs as Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema, Ray Geschwender, Bernie
Pietenpol, Ray Ward, Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
Camp. Some of the afore mentioned people designed auto conversions,
some designed entire airplanes, but all of the flew behind auto
conversions at one time or another. You might recognize a couple of
the names.

Corky (rolling my eyes) Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>The wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot
>>at the microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even
>>if it is pointless. If that is the worst I do here, I'm in good shape!
>>However, 'tis my aim to reduce some of my more 'colorful' antics,
>>but no one should hold their breath. <g>
>
>>Just "clicking through"?
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb - feel free to roll you eyes
>
>The "wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks" would include such
>poseurs as Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema, Ray Geschwender, Bernie
>Pietenpol, Ray Ward, Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
>Camp. Some of the afore mentioned people designed auto conversions,
>some designed entire airplanes, but all of the flew behind auto
>conversions at one time or another. You might recognize a couple of
>the names.
>
>Corky (rolling my eyes) Scott
=====================================

Enough of your brand of distortion, Corky.
Cease twisting my words to your agenda.

I do not consider Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema,
Ray Geschwender, Bernie Pietenpol, Ray Ward,
Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
Camp in YOUR class of activity. FAR from it, sir.
SO...quit flattering yourself right now !!!!!

In conclusion...
It appears impossible for you to comprehend where
I stand on auto conversions given your incredulous
level of naivete and other factors. You are about the
most clueless dood in RAH to accurately represent,
interpret or depict my true position. PLEEZ, spin no
more on my behalf. You only embarrass yourself.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[John Stricker]

What's this "we" crap?

I've been very clear in the past many years I've been on this group that if
I had $150,000, a year, and an engine dyno, I'd build an auto conversion
that was turnkey and reliable. That $$$ would include testing at least 3 or
4 to engine destruction. THAT'S how you find out what's weak and what's
not.

Herein lies the rub.

I would have no problems whatsoever with the flying Corkymobile as long as
whatever information he presented was factual, full, and complete.
Successes AND failures.

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to know
how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.

I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

I don't want to be flying and suddenly find that there's a cooling issue, or
a heat related failing issue on the ignition or electronics, or an oiling
issue on climbout only to call the people and have them tell me (as I've
heard so many times before with so many products) "Gee, nobody's EVER had
that problem before". Then, when you ask around with people that do have
that product, they say "yep, I've been through 3 of those Frizzens on the
Fratzit in the last year".

I want disclosure on how things go bad, not just how they work Corky,
because they might go bad while I'm at 150' on takeoff with trees 1300'
ahead. I want to decide what risk level I'm taking, I don't want others to
decide it for me. If I don't know what problems they've had, I can't make
an informed decision.

Again, this might be the best conversion since sliced bread. They surely
portray it as such. But they don't give enough information to decide that
on the website and my email has gone curiously unanswered.

Do they only respond to supporters and not people with critical questions?
I think that Bull**** flag just went up a little higher.

John Stricker

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Should all experimenting stop
> because some appear inadaquately thought through or improperly
> assembled? Or should we learn from the failures of those who tried
> ahead of us? In other words, should we seek solutions to known
> problems, or give up?
>
> Corky Scott

[Dave Hyde]

John Stricker wrote:

> If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to know
> how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
> CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.
>
> I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
I'm not holding my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde

[John Stricker]

Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification division
sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the point,
though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> John Stricker wrote:
>
> > If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
know
> > how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
> > CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50
YEARS.
> >
> > I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)
>
> Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
> GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
> available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
> on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
> are putting out for homebuilts? Where?
>
> Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
> to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde
>

[Del Rawlins]

On 28 Oct 2003 03:49 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
> John Stricker wrote:
>
>> If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
>> know how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS
>> AND CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST
>> 50 YEARS. I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)
>
> Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
> GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
> available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
> on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
> are putting out for homebuilts? Where?
>
> Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
> to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
> I'm not holding my breath.

I doubt if anybody would be willing to pay the sort of prices that would
be required to give the sugar daddy a decent return on his investment.
Probably cheaper to buy a new lycoming at that point. Also, getting
deep pockets involved would most likely only lead to those pockets being
picked by the lawyers for the grieving widow.

I'd like to be wrong.

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

[Dave Hyde]

John Stricker wrote:

> These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

> In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
> responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
> with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

[Dave Hyde]

Del Rawlins wrote:

> I doubt if anybody would be willing to pay the sort of prices that would
> be required to give the sugar daddy a decent return on his investment.
> Probably cheaper to buy a new lycoming at that point.

Dingdingding. So it would seem that we're getting something
for the cost of that new Lycoming. It may be development costs
that were paid out long ago, but the cost of equivalent development,
engineering, and testing in an auto conversion brings it up to the
same level.

Dave 'on par' Hyde

[Del Rawlins]

On 28 Oct 2003 05:51 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
> Del Rawlins wrote:
>
>> I doubt if anybody would be willing to pay the sort of prices that
>> would be required to give the sugar daddy a decent return on his
>> investment. Probably cheaper to buy a new lycoming at that point.
>
> Dingdingding. So it would seem that we're getting something
> for the cost of that new Lycoming. It may be development costs
> that were paid out long ago, but the cost of equivalent development,
> engineering, and testing in an auto conversion brings it up to the
> same level.

Not quite on the same level. Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
lead to CO poisoning).

Then again, I don't want to take the time to develop an auto conversion,
either. If the diesel folks don't come up with something acceptable
before I need an engine, I'll probably buy an O-540 and just inspect the
hell out of the exhaust regularly (on more than an annual basis).

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

[John Stricker]

Dave,

Now you're parsing words, sort of. You can put a certified, new from
Lycoming engine in a homebuilt. Vans sells them all the time. You're
right, though, that once it's in there it's no longer certified in that
aircraft. That's not the point.

The point is that part of that cost is what's left of original R&D as well
as ongoing development of the engine. A lot of it is also maintaining the
standards of parts, assembly, and QA that's required to make it a certified
engine, regardless of whether or not it's certified in that airframe. That
costs money and infers a certain standard of testing and reliability, even
though we all know that machines can and do break at any time. I'll take
the odds on a certified engine over an auto conversion any time.

I didn't infer that a website should be all the research one should do. It
is often the FIRST source of information for those on the list and when it
shows such a one sided view, then your "caveat surfer" tag is definitely in
order.

John Stricker

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> John Stricker wrote:
>
> > These conversions AREN'T certified.
>
> No engine installed in a homebuilt is.
>
> > In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
> > responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
> > with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.
>
> I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
> the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
> is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
> buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
> without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
> the first to buy or fly.
>
> Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde
>
> Lycoming-powered RV-4

[Larry Smith]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> John Stricker wrote:
>
> > These conversions AREN'T certified.
>
> No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

Am I reading you correctly? Has the rule changed? I remember 25 hours
fly-off time on a certified engine in a new experimental and 40 in an
experimental aircraft with a non-certified engine. If the certified engine
later comes out of the experimental, as long as it has been maintained as a
certified engine, it can go back into a certified aircraft, right? But if
you do something to the engine to cause it to lose its certification, like
using non-approved parts, you must remove the data plate.

Back to the FARs.

>
> > In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
> > responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
> > with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.
>
> I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
> the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
> is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
> buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
> without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
> the first to buy or fly.
>
> Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde
>
> Lycoming-powered RV-4

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
>for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
>worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
>engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
>system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
>lead to CO poisoning).

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

I regularly fly above 7500 feet and shock cooling problems
are fiction, NOT fact for me. In my many years of flight, I've
not personally experienced problems attributable to shock cooling.
None in many years of crop dusting, either. Cracked cylinders
are a fact of life, but shock cooling is getting a bum rap, IMO.

Either I'm astronomically lucky... or my rejection of rebuilt
cylinders that are on their umpteenth rebuild have everything
to do with it. Cylinders that have seen more than their fair share
of critical *THERMAL CYCLES* are not for me!!!

AND for me, it's not just the extra weight.
It's also the REAL ADDITIONAL FAILURE MODES.

What flight parameters does one encounter in the boondocks
of Alaska where shock cooling is a greater risk of falling out of
the sky than water pump, radiator and liquid plumbing failures...
that are not at least of equal or greater concern?

Carbon monoxide is a potential heater problem.....
for folks that do not comply with maintenance procedures.
Similar failures to comply with maintenance procedures for
liquid cooled aircraft engines present even greater/more risks.

For me...
It's all about managing risk.
That puts me in the air cooled aircraft engine class for now.
You and the other gamblers are free to pile up the stats and
prove me wrong. Until then, I'm working on my second 50 years
of flight in the least risk manner with the devil I know. <g>

P.S.
After all of the above ranting....
I believe there are liquid cooled cylinders available for Lycomings.
Go gettem tiger. 8-)


Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keep it simple stupid

[Kevin Horton]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:59 -0600, John Stricker wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
> division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the
> point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
> certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
> make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.
>
> John Stricker
>
If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
problems are found and fixed.


> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Stricker wrote:
>>
>> > If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
> know
>> > how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
>> > CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50
> YEARS.
>> >
>> > I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)
>>
>> Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major GA engine
>> manufacturers make data on failures *in development* available to the
>> public? Can we see test-to-failure data on the new engines Lycoming,
>> Superior, Mattituck, etc. are putting out for homebuilts? Where?
>>
>> Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy' to put up
>> big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing. I'm not holding
>> my breath.
>>
>> Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde
>>

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

Kevin Horton > wrote:


>> Dave,
>>
>> Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
>> division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the
>> point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
>> certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
>> make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.
>>
>> John Stricker
>>
>If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
>address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
>certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
>FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
>are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
>definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
>problems are found and fixed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Picking nits are we? <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:43:58 -0600, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>>The "wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks" would include such
>>poseurs as Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema, Ray Geschwender, Bernie
>>Pietenpol, Ray Ward, Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
>>Camp. Some of the afore mentioned people designed auto conversions,
>>some designed entire airplanes, but all of the flew behind auto
>>conversions at one time or another. You might recognize a couple of
>>the names.
>>
>>Corky (rolling my eyes) Scott
>=====================================
>
>Enough of your brand of distortion, Corky.
>Cease twisting my words to your agenda.

Pardon? I twisted your words? See below.
>
>I do not consider Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema,
>Ray Geschwender, Bernie Pietenpol, Ray Ward,
>Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
>Camp in YOUR class of activity. FAR from it, sir.

Neither do I.

>SO...quit flattering yourself right now !!!!!

Here are the words you typed, presumably you meant them: "The
wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot at the
microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even if it is
pointless."

What I pointed out is that better men that me (as you said and to
which I agree) have chosen to fly behind auto engine conversions,
none of whom were flakes or wannabees. What I'm doing is attempting
to follow in their footsteps. I take full responsibility for the path
I'm following.

I'm in the process of fabricating an engine test stand as you read
this. I fully intend to run the engine for many hours (with a prop
installed) prior to installing it in the engine compartment for good.

Corky Scott

[John Stricker]

That's a valid point. Let's say we have a couple of early versions break
crankshafts. The cranks are changed, or maybe the balance is changed and
all appears to be well. The article is submitted with test results for
certification. It is certified. A couple dozen are placed into service.
Crankshafts start breaking.

Think the FAA will have any problems getting those pre-presentation test
results? Not if that manufacturer ever wants to sell anything as certified
again, they won't.

Certified Manufacturers are that way and charge what they do for a reason.
That reason IS the certification. If it was easy to be certified, their
SeaBee conversion would be certified, but it's not an easy thing to do or
maintain.

John Stricker

"Kevin Horton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:59 -0600, John Stricker wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
> > division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's
the
> > point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are
the
> > certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we
can't
> > make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.
> >
> > John Stricker
> >
> If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
> address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
> certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
> FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
> are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
> definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
> problems are found and fixed.
>
>
> > "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> John Stricker wrote:
> >>
> >> > If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
> > know
> >> > how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
> >> > CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50
> > YEARS.
> >> >
> >> > I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)
> >>
> >> Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major GA engine
> >> manufacturers make data on failures *in development* available to the
> >> public? Can we see test-to-failure data on the new engines Lycoming,
> >> Superior, Mattituck, etc. are putting out for homebuilts? Where?
> >>
> >> Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy' to put up
> >> big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing. I'm not
holding
> >> my breath.
> >>
> >> Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde
> >>
>
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
> e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com
>

[Big John]

Del

A true story that probably could be included under shock cooling.

In the P-51/Merlin (liquid cooled) we used to pitch off the deck (50
--100 feet -- 250 mph +/-) into the landing pattern. As we pitched up
we pulled the throttle to idle and the Merlin would go 'poppety pop'
out the short stacks all the way around the pattern (wonderful sound
to listen to <G>)

Some one got to investigating warped exhaust valves and found that the
valve timing was such that the engine sucked a lot of outside air
(cold) into the cylinder thru the exhaust valves at idle and with the
valves being 'hot' from cruise power, the cold air being sucked by
warped them.

Solution.

They let us only pull the throttle back to 10 --12 inches on pitch. If
you went 'poppety pop' in pattaern the Ops Officer would hear and chew
A**. As we flew around the pattern at the low power setting the
valves cooled and on final we went to idle for the touchdown.

Voila, no more warped valves.

So, Liquid cooling of an aircraft engine didn't eliminate all of the
'shock' cooling problems.

Big John


On 29 Oct 2003 03:22:42 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>On 28 Oct 2003 05:51 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
>> Del Rawlins wrote:
>>
> ----clip----

>Not quite on the same level. Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
>for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
>worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
>engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
>system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
>lead to CO poisoning).
>
----clip----

[Jim Stockton]

Big John wrote:
>
> Del
>
> A true story that probably could be included under shock cooling.
>
> In the P-51/Merlin (liquid cooled) we used to pitch off the deck (50
> --100 feet -- 250 mph +/-) into the landing pattern. As we pitched up
> we pulled the throttle to idle and the Merlin would go 'poppety pop'
> out the short stacks all the way around the pattern (wonderful sound
> to listen to <G>)
>
> Some one got to investigating warped exhaust valves and found that the
> valve timing was such that the engine sucked a lot of outside air
> (cold) into the cylinder thru the exhaust valves at idle and with the
> valves being 'hot' from cruise power, the cold air being sucked by
> warped them.
>
> Solution.
>
> They let us only pull the throttle back to 10 --12 inches on pitch. If
> you went 'poppety pop' in pattaern the Ops Officer would hear and chew
> A**. As we flew around the pattern at the low power setting the
> valves cooled and on final we went to idle for the touchdown.
>
> Voila, no more warped valves.
>
> So, Liquid cooling of an aircraft engine didn't eliminate all of the
> 'shock' cooling problems.
>
> Big John
>
> On 29 Oct 2003 03:22:42 GMT, Del Rawlins
> > wrote:
>
> >On 28 Oct 2003 05:51 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
> >> Del Rawlins wrote:
> >>
> > ----clip----
>
> >Not quite on the same level. Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
> >for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
> >worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
> >engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
> >system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
> >lead to CO poisoning).
> >
> ----clip----

John
The mufflers on this conversion would probably go a long way to
eliminate the problem of valve warping as compared to the short open
stacks on the mustang.
Jim Stockton

[Big John]

Jim

I only posted a bit of triva. Am sure no one on thread had ever heard
of the problem.

Your right, long stacks or a muffler would prevent the valve warping,
like on the Merlin, today either with an air or liquid cooled
engine.???

Big John

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:44:44 -0600, Jim Stockton >
wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>>
>> Del
>>
>> A true story that probably could be included under shock cooling.
>>
>> In the P-51/Merlin (liquid cooled) we used to pitch off the deck (50
>> --100 feet -- 250 mph +/-) into the landing pattern. As we pitched up
>> we pulled the throttle to idle and the Merlin would go 'poppety pop'
>> out the short stacks all the way around the pattern (wonderful sound
>> to listen to <G>)
>>
>> Some one got to investigating warped exhaust valves and found that the
>> valve timing was such that the engine sucked a lot of outside air
>> (cold) into the cylinder thru the exhaust valves at idle and with the
>> valves being 'hot' from cruise power, the cold air being sucked by
>> warped them.
>>
>> Solution.
>>
>> They let us only pull the throttle back to 10 --12 inches on pitch. If
>> you went 'poppety pop' in pattaern the Ops Officer would hear and chew
>> A**. As we flew around the pattern at the low power setting the
>> valves cooled and on final we went to idle for the touchdown.
>>
>> Voila, no more warped valves.
>>
>> So, Liquid cooling of an aircraft engine didn't eliminate all of the
>> 'shock' cooling problems.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2003 03:22:42 GMT, Del Rawlins
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 28 Oct 2003 05:51 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
>> >> Del Rawlins wrote:
>> >>
>> > ----clip----
>>
>> >Not quite on the same level. Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
>> >for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
>> >worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
>> >engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
>> >system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
>> >lead to CO poisoning).
>> >
>> ----clip----
>
>John
>The mufflers on this conversion would probably go a long way to
>eliminate the problem of valve warping as compared to the short open
>stacks on the mustang.
>Jim Stockton

[Bruce A. Frank]

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> >>Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
> >>flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
> >>auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type.
>
> But look at the bright side: With this one, if the SeaBee engine fails,
> you get to shoot the dead-stick landing in air-conditioned comfort. :-)
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0700, "Bart D. Hull" >
> wrote:
>
> >I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
> >Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.
>
> But Continental and Lycoming had to convince a *very* skeptical FAA about
> the reliability of the FADEC. They had to prove that the FADEC is at least
> as reliable as two magnetos.
>
> I remember an article, years ago, about what Porsche had to do to certify
> the PFM engine for the Mooney. They had to prove the two independent
> ignition systems *were* completely independent. I think they even had to
> apply a sudden dead short across one, just to prove the other one would
> keep running.
>
> >I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
> >auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
> >install.
>
> A good goal, and worthy of discussion. With one exception, the failures I
> hear about have been fairly random, mostly related to the subsystems rather
> than the core engine.
>
> I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
> *should* be two completely independent ignition systems. Two batteries,
> two electronics boxes, two sets of plug wires, two plugs per cylinder. The
> second should be solely a backup, connected to *nothing* in common with the
> primary system. If the primary system uses the distributor drive to time
> the ignition, the backup system should run off a hall effect sensor on the
> flywheel.
>
> Buy a drycell battery and run it directly to the backup ignition
> electronics...no connection to the primary bus. I say a drycell simply
> because of their ability to hold a charge a long time. Test the ignition
> momentarily during runup and slap a charger on the backup system every week
> or so.
>
> That way if your electrical system goes to hellandgone, you've got a
> completely independent backup. The drycell should be sized to give you at
> least a half-hour of flight time...I'm basing that on the required VFR fuel
> reserve.
>
> Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
> cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
> properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
> to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
> probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
> spews oil everywhere, of course).
>
> You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
> have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
> thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
> the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
> the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
> plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
> rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
> able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
> sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
> a fading gauge.
>
> I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
> emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
> makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
> Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
> engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
> and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?
>
> The PSRU is another single point failure item. I don't know what one could
> do to increase redundancy, but plenty of design margin would be a good
> start. Regular, in-depth inspections would be another...guy across from me
> just found a crack in one plate of his gyro's PSRU.
>
> Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
> A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
> tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
> ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
> half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
> engine. Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
> systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
> fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
> thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
> to fill. :-)
>
> I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
> want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
> details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
> into information sources to build the safest engine possible.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
>homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
>a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
>30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
>When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
>started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
>engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
>the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
>the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.
>
>Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

[Eric Miller]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
> >homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
> >a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
> >30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
> >When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
> >started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
> >engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
> >the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
> >the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.
> >
> >Bruce A. Frank
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> What RPM?
> What power level?
>
> Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
> is there value in this exercise beyond PR?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
wrote:

>"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
>> >homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
>> >a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
>> >30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
>> >When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
>> >started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
>> >engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
>> >the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
>> >the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.
>> >
>> >Bruce A. Frank
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> What RPM?
>> What power level?
>>
>> Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
>> is there value in this exercise beyond PR?
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
>enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.
>
>Eric

So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
in both instances noticed them.

The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
pilot's attention.

When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.

When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> >Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
>> >homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
>> >a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
>> >30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
>> >When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
>> >started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
>> >engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
>> >the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
>> >the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.
>> >
>> >Bruce A. Frank
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> What RPM?
>> What power level?
>>
>> Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
>> is there value in this exercise beyond PR?
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
>enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.
>
>Eric
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I sincerely and most humbly apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Eric Miller]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote> I sincerely and most humbly
apologize.
> My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
> However, I have no problem seeing it your way. <g>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

Eric

[Eric Miller]

"Corky Scott" > wrote
> "Eric Miller" > wrote:
> >
> >What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
> >enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.
> >
> >Eric
>
> So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
> the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
> two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
> This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
> in both instances noticed them.
>
> The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
> gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
> distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
> much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
> pilot's attention.
>
> When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
> and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
> things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
> very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
> for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.
>
> When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
> hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
> do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.
>
> Corky Scott

I wasn't implying that a catastrophic coolant failure was a likely event,
but rather that this was an unlikely PR angle.

Eric

[Russell Kent]

Eric Miller wrote:

> "Barnyard BOb --" > wrote> I sincerely and most humbly
> apologize.
> > My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
> > However, I have no problem seeing it your way. <g>
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb --
>
> I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

[Bruce A. Frank]

There has been one incident where there was a sudden and complete loss
of coolant. The builder had capped an unused hose connection on the
block by folding a short length of heater hose in half and hose clamping
everything in place. Though the engine's head gaskets had not been set
up as recommended the plane had more than 800 hours on the meter. The
builder had no problems to this point because of his procedure of fully
bring the engine to temp before requiring take off power. This day he
neglected his own warm up rules and took off before full saturation. The
head gasket blew pressuring the coolant system. The pressure peak blew
the clamped hose plug and instantly emptied the coolant from the engine.

After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.

This incident is the only instantaneous loss of coolant of which I am
aware. Point is that sudden loss of coolant does not suddenly stop the
engines power making capability ....as would loss of fuel or loss of oil
in this or any other engine.

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
> >> >homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
> >> >a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
> >> >30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
> >> >When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
> >> >started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
> >> >engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
> >> >the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
> >> >the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.
> >> >
> >> >Bruce A. Frank
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> What RPM?
> >> What power level?
> >>
> >> Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
> >> is there value in this exercise beyond PR?
> >>
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb --
> >
> >What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
> >enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.
> >
> >Eric
>
> So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
> the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
> two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
> This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
> in both instances noticed them.
>
> The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
> gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
> distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
> much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
> pilot's attention.
>
> When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
> and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
> things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
> very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
> for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.
>
> When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
> hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
> do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.
>
> Corky Scott

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

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:52:33 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:


>After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
>pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
>when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
>was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
>of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
>water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
>structure he and his passenger walked away.
>
>The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
>disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
>in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
>finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
>ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.


Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:22:14 -0600, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:52:33 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:
>
>
>>After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
>>pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
>>when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
>>was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
>>of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
>>water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
>>structure he and his passenger walked away.
>>
>>The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
>>disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
>>in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
>>finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
>>ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>And my counterpoint is....
>If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
>the failure could not possibly happen.
>
>Keep on spinning away...
>with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --

>Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

I recall Bill Phillips posting a story about test flying an RV (6 I
think) on it's initial flight. Bill agreed to make the flight for the
builder. The builder went with Bill on the flight, if I remember
correctly, although that fact doesn't matter in terms of the story.

The engine was a brand new Lycoming, again, if I remember correctly.

It blew out the front seal of the engine while in flight and emptied
all the oil everywhere, including the windshield.

Bill managed to get it down amidst a rock strewn opening in the
desert, with minimal damage to the airplane and engine.

This was an air cooled engine, he did not have 15 minutes to get it
down.

Corky Scott

PS, I don't see Bruce's post as a "spin" on the subject. Applying a
spin to a story implies twisting the facts to better suit an agenda or
to explain away ill thought through utterances. What Bruce was doing
was showing that yes in fact there had been a sudden and catastrophic
loss of coolant in a Ford powered airplane, after I'd said I did not
know of such an incident. That the engine was not damaged, even after
flying for 15 additional minutes after loosing all it's coolant isn't
"spin". It's what actually happened.

[Eric Miller]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Miller wrote:
> > I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D
>
> N.B. the above should read "feint praise"
>
> feint:
> (n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
> take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
> (vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack
>
> This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.
>
> Russell Kent

The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/faintpraise.asp
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faint

Eric

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> > I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D
>>
>> N.B. the above should read "feint praise"
>>
>> feint:
>> (n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
>> take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
>> (vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack
>>
>> This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.
>>
>> Russell Kent
>
>The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
>false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
>Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.
>
>Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Could this be characterized as...

1. A battle of nits by wits
2. Vice versa
3, or, who cares about wit nits
4. or, vice versa <g>


Barnyard BOb -- phaking a phaint pheint

[Bruce A. Frank]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> And my counterpoint is....
> If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
> the failure could not possibly happen.
>
> Keep on spinning away...
> with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
> but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
> and occupants do not walk away when
> forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
> it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
> take their share of traffic innocents with them.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:

>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>> And my counterpoint is....
>> If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
>> the failure could not possibly happen.
>>
>> Keep on spinning away...
>> with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
>> but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
>> and occupants do not walk away when
>> forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
>> it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
>> take their share of traffic innocents with them.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid
>
>Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
>the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
>hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
>fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
>you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
>wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
>besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
>I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
>I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
>while.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.

IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.

Worth YOUR indulgence?
Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?

When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
....IF you survive your follies and your egos.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bruce A. Frank" of the no spin zone wrote:

>>wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
>>besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No smiley?


Merriam-Webster Dictionary

--- DASTARDLY ---

1 : COWARDLY
2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery


WoW....
You really have lost it, Bruce.



Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Russell Kent]

Eric Miller wrote:

> "Russell Kent" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Eric Miller wrote:
> > > I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D
> >
> > N.B. the above should read "feint praise"
> >
> > feint:
> > (n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
> > take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
> > (vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack
> >
> > This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.
> >
> > Russell Kent
>
> The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
> false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
> Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.
>
> http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/faintpraise.asp
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faint

Interesting. I'm now equally uncertain as to which is the proper phrase. I
can see where one might use "faint (weak) praise" or "feint (false or
deceptive) praise". A brief Google search failed to turn up a definitive
page. Numerous usages exist for both forms.

> Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.

Irrelevant. Red is a noun. What part of speech does "red" play in the phrase
"roll out the red carpet"? It's an adjective, or more properly an adjectival
noun. So "feint" would be functioning as an adjectival noun for "praise".

As I am uncertain which form is the proper one, I retract my earlier
correction.

Russell Kent

[Bruce A. Frank]

Gotcha!

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> >
> >> And my counterpoint is....
> >> If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
> >> the failure could not possibly happen.
> >>
> >> Keep on spinning away...
> >> with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
> >> but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
> >> and occupants do not walk away when
> >> forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
> >> it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
> >> take their share of traffic innocents with them.
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid
> >
> >Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
> >the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
> >hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
> >fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
> >you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
> >wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
> >besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
> >I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
> >I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
> >while.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
> Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.
>
> IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
> maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
> So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
> and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
> you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
> criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
> If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.
>
> Worth YOUR indulgence?
> Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
> While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
> I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
> Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?
>
> When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
> AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
> ...IF you survive your follies and your egos.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

--
Bruce A. Frank

[Bruce A. Frank]

Last time I used a "smiley" with you BOb it still took six subsequent
posts to convince you I was joking. Obviously if you are besting me you
are doing something "dastardly." B^)

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" of the no spin zone wrote:
>
> >>wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
> >>besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> No smiley?
>
> Merriam-Webster Dictionary
>
> --- DASTARDLY ---
>
> 1 : COWARDLY
> 2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery
>
> WoW....
> You really have lost it, Bruce.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

--
Bruce A. Frank

[Dave Hyde]

Russell Kent wrote:

> Irrelevant. Red is a noun. What part of speech does "red" play in the phrase
> "roll out the red carpet"? It's an adjective, or more properly an adjectival
> noun. So "feint" would be functioning as an adjectival noun for "praise".

And everyone knows that no air-cooled noun has ever suffered
a catastrophic loss of coolant. Water-cooled nouns are killers,
however, and should never be used in the same sentence as an
aviation-related noun. To do so tempts fate...and BOb.

Dave 'but can you say it in Klingonese?' Hyde

[Drew Dalgleish]

Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
Drew Dalgleish

[David O]

Russell Kent > wrote:

>Interesting. I'm now equally uncertain as to which is the proper phrase. I
>can see where one might use "faint (weak) praise" or "feint (false or
>deceptive) praise". A brief Google search failed to turn up a definitive
>page. Numerous usages exist for both forms.

AltaVista shows 96 occurrences of "feint praise" and 10,447
occurrences of "faint praise" across the web. While popular usage is
certainly not always an accurate measure of correctness, it can
sometimes provide reasonable clues when authoritative sources are
lacking. The adjectival form of "feint", meaning "feigned", is
archaic (1). Many expressions, however, use archaic words.
The best clue in this particular case is in the phrase itself. While
one could "damn" with faint (weak) praise, one would likely only
"deceive" with feigned (false) praise. IMO, the phrase just doesn't
make much sense using "feint". It could be argued that one could damn
with excessive or effusive feint (feigned) praise, but that is more
than the phrase in question suggests. Bartlett's Familiar Quotes has
this,

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer;
-- Alexander Pope, Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot [1734]. Prologue to
Imitations of Horace, l. 193

>> Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.
>
>Irrelevant. Red is a noun. What part of speech does "red" play in the phrase
>"roll out the red carpet"? It's an adjective, or more properly an adjectival
>noun. So "feint" would be functioning as an adjectival noun for "praise".

All my dictionaries show red as both a noun and an adjective. Your
use of "red" simply uses its common adjective form. An example of an
adjectival noun would be the word "village" in the phrase "village
idiot". I expect Barnyard Bob could have a field day with that
opening. :)

As a last resort in resolving such issues, I have found the newsgroup
alt.usage.english quite helpful.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

1: Webster's Third New International Dictionary - Unabridged

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote:

>Last time I used a "smiley" with you BOb it still took six subsequent
>posts to convince you I was joking. Obviously if you are besting me you
>are doing something "dastardly." B^)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ONLY SIX?

I'm slipping.


Barnyard BOb - not into counting

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:


>> And my counterpoint is....
>> If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
>> the failure could not possibly happen.
>>
>> Keep on spinning away...
>> with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
>> but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
>> and occupants do not walk away when
>> forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
>> it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
>> take their share of traffic innocents with them.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid
>
>Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
>the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
>hurt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Flying is an especially unforgiving activity. No one alive is more
keenly aware that Lycoming and Continental have yet to produce
the perfect piston engine. Once again you miss the point and insult
me with your bias, naivete, arrogance, inexperience and verbal
gymnastics.

It is not from a lack of concentrated, concerted and systematic
efforts over the last 50 years that the perfect aircraft engine has
not been born of the aircraft engine industry. However, for you to
continue denying or inferring that these certified engines and their
marvelous records do not currently blow away anything you are
producing in your backyard is to deny reality and is the epitome
of arrogance and "dastardly" in its own right.

If you want to experiment with auto conversions
and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.

LET ME REPEAT....
If you want to experiment with auto conversions
and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

In article >, Russell Kent > wrote:
>
>
>Eric Miller wrote:
>
>> "Russell Kent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Eric Miller wrote:
>> > > I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D
>> >
>> > N.B. the above should read "feint praise"
>> >
>> > feint:
>> > (n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
>> > take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
>> > (vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack
>> >
>> > This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.
>> >
>> > Russell Kent
>>
>> The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
>> false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
>> Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.
>>
>> http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/faintpraise.asp
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faint
>
>Interesting. I'm now equally uncertain as to which is the proper phrase. I
>can see where one might use "faint (weak) praise" or "feint (false or
>deceptive) praise". A brief Google search failed to turn up a definitive
>page. Numerous usages exist for both forms.

The correct form *is* "faint praise". With faint having the meaning of
'lacking in conviction'.

A 'feint' is a deception that is *intended*to*be*believed*. Something that
is intended to mis-direct, distract, draw attention _away_ from the real
issue. What Juan Jiminez routinely does. <grin>

'Faint praise' is issued with the intent that it *NOT* be believed. The
intent is that you believe the _opposite_ of what was actually said. By
stating it with a market 'lack of conviction', one calls attention to the
falsity of the statement.

Marc Anthony's speech on the death of Caesar is the archtypical example
of 'damning with faint praise' -- "..For Brutus is an _honorable_man_.
So are they *all*, _honorable_men_...."

The _last_ thing Marc Anthony wanted was for people to "believe him".
He _is_ 'praising' them, with the _intent_ of being 'not believed'.

[Richard Isakson]

> wrote ...
>By
> stating it with a market 'lack of conviction', one calls attention to the
> falsity of the statement.

Market: a gathering of people buying and selling livestock

Marked: noticeable; obvious; appreciable; distinct; conspicuous.


Usenet Rule #12: any posting that complains about someone's spelling must
itself contain at least one misspeling.

Rich

[Corky Scott]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
>planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
>he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
>the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
>trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
>sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
>origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
>ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
>climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
>performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
>increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
>100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
>from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
>Drew Dalgleish

Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:26:44 -0600, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>>
>>> And my counterpoint is....
>>> If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
>>> the failure could not possibly happen.
>>>
>>> Keep on spinning away...
>>> with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
>>> but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
>>> and occupants do not walk away when
>>> forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
>>> it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
>>> take their share of traffic innocents with them.
>>>
>>> Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid
>>
>>Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
>>the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
>>hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
>>fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
>>you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
>>wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
>>besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
>>I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
>>I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
>>while.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
>Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.
>
>IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
>maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
>So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
>and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
>you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
>criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
>If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.
>
>Worth YOUR indulgence?
>Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
>While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
>I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
>Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?
>
>When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
>AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
>...IF you survive your follies and your egos.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

BOb, you continually amaze me. What's the problem with citing those
who have flown prior to Bruce and me? Aren't you continually
demanding that we prove the viability of the auto conversion by
listing how many have flown and for how many hours?

Does the fate of the auto conversion rest soley on the shoulders of
Bruce and me? You cannot look at the success of others as
confirmation that if one does the job correctly, one can successfully
fly behind an auto conversion?

I'm afraid if you wait for me, it will be several years yet. I have a
long way to go before I'm ready to fly and will not be bullied into
rushing.

Corky Scott

[Russell Kent]

David O wrote:

> All my dictionaries show red as both a noun and an adjective. Your
> use of "red" simply uses its common adjective form. An example of an
> adjectival noun would be the word "village" in the phrase "village
> idiot". I expect Barnyard Bob could have a field day with that
> opening. :)

Oy. Touche', touche'. I should've chosen a *correct* example of my point.

> As a last resort in resolving such issues, I have found the newsgroup
> alt.usage.english quite helpful.

Your subtle, and Dave Hyde's less so :-), point taken. I'm happy to let this
sub-thread die.

Russell Kent

In article >,
Richard Isakson > wrote:
>
>
> wrote ...
>>By
>> stating it with a market 'lack of conviction', one calls attention to the
>> falsity of the statement.
>
>Market: a gathering of people buying and selling livestock

Not just livestock, but 'anything'. Though I've always had difficulty
figuring out how you take delivery in a "cellars market". <grin>

>
>Marked: noticeable; obvious; appreciable; distinct; conspicuous.
>
>
>Usenet Rule #12: any posting that complains about someone's spelling must
>itself contain at least one misspeling.

[Bruce A. Frank]

BOb,

What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
spin!

I have nothing against Lycomings or Continentals other than the very
high cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance. And unlike many, I
actually understand why those prices are so high and destined to never
change. Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the
same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not
explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types.
Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
certified types. Rantings and personal attacks from some bring about a
shut down of the necessary public information exchange on the subject.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> > wrote:
>
> >> And my counterpoint is....
> >> If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
> >> the failure could not possibly happen.
> >>
> >> Keep on spinning away...
> >> with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
> >> but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
> >> and occupants do not walk away when
> >> forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
> >> it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
> >> take their share of traffic innocents with them.
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid
> >
> >Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
> >the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
> >hurt.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Flying is an especially unforgiving activity. No one alive is more
> keenly aware that Lycoming and Continental have yet to produce
> the perfect piston engine. Once again you miss the point and insult
> me with your bias, naivete, arrogance, inexperience and verbal
> gymnastics.
>
> It is not from a lack of concentrated, concerted and systematic
> efforts over the last 50 years that the perfect aircraft engine has
> not been born of the aircraft engine industry. However, for you to
> continue denying or inferring that these certified engines and their
> marvelous records do not currently blow away anything you are
> producing in your backyard is to deny reality and is the epitome
> of arrogance and "dastardly" in its own right.
>
> If you want to experiment with auto conversions
> and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
> Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
> By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
> to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.
>
> LET ME REPEAT....
> If you want to experiment with auto conversions
> and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
> Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
> By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
> to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

[Eric Miller]

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> I report one incident of
> in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
> dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions.

Bruce, you too cavalierly ignore the dangers of water cooling due to the
presence of large volumes of Di-Hydrogen Monoxide!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

=D

Eric

[Bruce A. Frank]

Eric,

If I can ignore the dangers of flying, homebuilt or commercial, and do
it anyway, I certainly can ignore the likelihood of coming under the
fatal influence of H2O.

Eric Miller wrote:
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I report one incident of
> > in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
> > dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions.
>
> Bruce, you too cavalierly ignore the dangers of water cooling due to the
> presence of large volumes of Di-Hydrogen Monoxide!
>
> http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
>
> =D
>
> Eric

--
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.|

[You know who]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:43:00 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:

>BOb,
>
>What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
>sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
>exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
>in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
>dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
>spin!

What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
What futility it is to deal with you two gems.

> Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the
>same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not
>explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types.

I'm not going to mince any more words over this.
Until you attempt to certify your auto conversion via the FAA
your don't know what got, much less be able to TRUTHFULLY
lay claim to equality/parity with certified engines. In short.....
your position is patently absurd without authoritative data
that is all but an impossibility to collect.

>Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
>eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
>certified types.

Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...

No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, I can't top this.
Color me gone. <bfg>


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Eric Miller]

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> Eric,
>
> If I can ignore the dangers of flying, homebuilt or commercial, and do
> it anyway, I certainly can ignore the likelihood of coming under the
> fatal influence of H2O.

<big grin>

Eric

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who >
wrote:


>Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...
>
>No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>But, I can't top this.
>Color me gone. <bfg>
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

Gee, is that a PROMISE, or just an empty threat??

[Bruce A. Frank]

Whew! Glad that's over with.

You know who wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:43:00 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> > wrote:
>
> >BOb,
> >
> >What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
> >sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
> >exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
> >in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
> >dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
> >spin!
>
> What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
> Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
> Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
> The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
> What futility it is to deal with you two gems.
>
> > Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the
> >same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not
> >explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types.
>
> I'm not going to mince any more words over this.
> Until you attempt to certify your auto conversion via the FAA
> your don't know what got, much less be able to TRUTHFULLY
> lay claim to equality/parity with certified engines. In short.....
> your position is patently absurd without authoritative data
> that is all but an impossibility to collect.
>
> >Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
> >eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
> >certified types.
>
> Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...
>
> No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> But, I can't top this.
> Color me gone. <bfg>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

[Jerry Springer]

Corky Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
> Dalgleish) wrote:
>
>
>>Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
>>planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
>>he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
>>the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
>>trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
>>sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
>>origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
>>ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
>>climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
>>performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
>>increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
>>100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
>
>>from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
>
>>Drew Dalgleish
>
>
> Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
> actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
> predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!
>
> Corky Scott

I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

[Larry Smith]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
> > 1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
believe.
> Also
> > from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
believe.
> I
> > think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
> unbelieving
> > they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
> >
> > Jerry
>
> So basicly, you are calling this lies?
> --
> Jim in NC

No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
you know that, Morgue?

[Larry Smith]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
et...
> "Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I report one incident of
> > in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
> > dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions.
>
> Bruce, you too cavalierly ignore the dangers of water cooling due to the
> presence of large volumes of Di-Hydrogen Monoxide!
>
> http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
>
> =D
>
> Eric
>
>

You need ethylene glycol with that H2O, half and half. I have absolutely
no argument against flying with a liquid-cooled engine. P-40's with
Allisons, P-51's with Packards, Dick Rutan, and Chris Heintz proved they are
safe. Heintz lost his coolant over Lake Michigan and still made it to
Oshkosh, flying behind a Rotax 912.

You can have the advantage of closer tolerances when you cool with liquid.

I flew behind an 1800cc EA-81 Soob engine with Gates Kevlar Belt redrive 10
or so hours without a burp. Several people flew that airplane, a J-6
Karatoo, a total of over 100 hours before the owner sold the powerplant and
installed a VW engine -- a mistake.

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:03:55 -0500, "Larry Smith"
> wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>>
>> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>> > 1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
>believe.
>> Also
>> > from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
>believe.
>> I
>> > think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
>> unbelieving
>> > they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>> >
>> > Jerry
>>
>> So basicly, you are calling this lies?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
>suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
>you know that, Morgue?
>
The numbers are from the owner of the plane - NOT ther manufacturer.
The owner has the history through 3 engine types, over several decadrs
IIRC.

[You know who]

>I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
>about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
>engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
>facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
>What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>
>Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jerry,

"Astonishing" is putting it mildly. <g>

Some of these auto conversion folks have got "religion".
They are 'true believers" and are as brainwashed as they come.
Nothing concerning the laws of physics need apply.

Fer instance.....
8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.

How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.

If anything they said added up... someone, somewhere
would get one of these 'WONDER' conversions certified
and in the process make such folks very, very wealthy.
It's not even close to happening. The certification process
is something that keeps these black magic artists in the
shadows of reality... on web sites and newsgroups....
beckoning the next rube, guppy, wannabee or whatever.
No question, there is a sucker born every minute. Just
ain't ever gonna me.. or you, from what I have observed.

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

[Larry Smith]

<clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:03:55 -0500, "Larry Smith"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
> >>
> >> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
> >> > 1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
> >believe.
> >> Also
> >> > from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
> >believe.
> >> I
> >> > think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
> >> unbelieving
> >> > they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
> >> >
> >> > Jerry
> >>
> >> So basicly, you are calling this lies?
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
> >
> >No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
> >suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers.
Didn't
> >you know that, Morgue?
> >
> The numbers are from the owner of the plane - NOT ther manufacturer.
> The owner has the history through 3 engine types, over several decadrs
> IIRC.

Well, I wouldn't impugn the owner or suggest he's telling one. I was just
suggesting that even the certified aircraft manufacturers puff their
numbers, and the owners do too. Human nature.

I'm on the side and in the cheering section of the auto engine conversion,
but skeptical too.

You get more accurate results by testing from 3rd parties, like at
well-monitored races and CAFE events.

[You know who]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:49:58 -0800, "Morgans"
> wrote:

> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>> 1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
>Also
>> from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
>I
>> think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
>unbelieving
>> they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>So basicly, you are calling this lies?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sheesh!!!

It's not about lies.
It's all about verifying what is truly factual.
Everything is suspect until proven otherwise.
It's in the nature of the real world.
Should I begin to wonder if you live in La-La Land?

Would you really bet the farm on uncorroborated
numbers from a sole source that has everything
to gain and nothing to lose by publishing such?

DIdn't your mother teach you better?
Does PT Barnum come to mind?

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to good to be true, it is.

[Bob U.]

"Morgans" > wrote:


> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>> 1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
>Also
>> from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
>I
>> think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
>unbelieving
>> they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>So basicly, you are calling this lies?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pssst....
Your computer clock is lying, AGAIN.

BTW...
What do you have for horsepower numbers
as produced in these converted Seabees?
Please don't quote GM factory numbers.
They are useless for this question.

FWIW...
Fuel consumption indirectly is quite
telling of what is going on with HP.


Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to good to be true, it is.

[Morgans]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
> 1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
Also
> from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
I
> think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
> they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>
> Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

[Jerry Springer]

Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the
horsepower and weight and prop comparisons.

Jerry

Morgans wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>
>>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
>
> Also
>
>>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
>
> I
>
>>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
>
> unbelieving
>
>>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>
> So basicly, you are calling this lies?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

Larry Smith wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>>
>> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>>
>>>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
>
> believe.
>
>>Also
>>
>>>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
>
> believe.
>
>>I
>>
>>>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
>>
>>unbelieving
>>
>>>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>
>>So basicly, you are calling this lies?
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>
>
> No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
> suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
> you know that, Morgue?
>
>
Larry you and I on the same side of the fence for a change, now that is
astonishing. :-)

[Bob U.]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:02:27 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>
>
>>>So basicly, you are calling this lies?
>>>--
>>>Jim in NC
>>
>>
>> No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
>> suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
>> you know that, Morgue?
>>
>>
>Larry you and I on the same side of the fence for a change, now that is
>astonishing. :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Less astonishing...

I'll take a bit of a different slant. <g>

The "numbers" published for certified aircraft are legitimate.
They can be duplicated.... *IF* one duplicates the specific
conditions that were used to generate them in the first place.
This could include a number of conditions and parameters
that are impractical for us to duplicate/measure accurately
from under our cozy shade tree.

CAVEAT
IMO, any numbers published by manufacturers, while
accurate, may not be particularly useful and possibly
misleading to the mere mortals that dare apply them in
the real world.

The irony here is....
We have some dumb bunnies that will unduly question
"numbers" from legitimate sources with everything to lose,
but will bend over backwards to accommodate any struggling
backyard operation without qualification. Go figure!!!

Perhaps this goofy behavior needs be labeled...

*UNDERDAWG SYNDROME*


Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to be too good to be true, it is.

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who >
wrote:

Bruce says:
>>BOb,
>>
>>What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
>>sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
>>exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
>>in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
>>dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
>>spin!

BOb says:
>What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
>Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
>Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
>The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
>What futility it is to deal with you two gems.

Actually, Bruce is correct here, he does not attack certified engines.
He has stated previously numerous times, that if certified engines
were reasonably priced, he'd have no problem using one. The same goes
for me. They are cranky, balky and awkward to start and prone to
early overhaul, but do have an enviable safety record.

Bruce says:
>> Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the
>>same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not
>>explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types.

BOb says:
>I'm not going to mince any more words over this.

Ha ha, good joke. Folks, when has BOb ever minced words?

>Until you attempt to certify your auto conversion via the FAA
>your don't know what got, much less be able to TRUTHFULLY
>lay claim to equality/parity with certified engines. In short.....
>your position is patently absurd without authoritative data
>that is all but an impossibility to collect.
>
>>Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
>>eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
>>certified types.
>
>Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...
>
>No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>But, I can't top this.
>Color me gone. <bfg>

We can only hope.

>Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful f(r)ight (little bit of Corky editing here)

Here's the problem: BOb keeps moving the target. At no time in any of
the discussions I've seen in this group, since before the group was
this group, has anyone suggested that for an auto conversion to be
viable it had to be certified. In fact the reality is exactly
opposite this concept: the FAA allows us to use alternative engines
without needing certification. But what's good enough, and legal for
the FAA isn't good enough for BOb Urban. He now demands that in
addition to testing the engine in flight to what, 500, 1,000, 1,500,
2,000 hours (who knows, he don't say) anyone who converts an auto
engine to airplane engine must also go through the impossibly
expensive process of certifying it. Not so that the FAA accepts it as
a viable engine, no, this is only for BOb Urban.

All I can say is that's pretty cheeky, given that it's not necessary.

You've threatened to leave before BOb, are you really going or just
tantalizing again?

Corky Scott

PS, do you re-read what you write before you post?

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:56:07 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

> Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the
>horsepower and weight and prop comparisons.
>
>Jerry

FWIR, the prop is the same one used on the Franklin and Lycoming, but
I could be wrong.
>
>Morgans wrote:
>> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>>
>> I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>>
>>>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
>>
>> Also
>>
>>>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
>>
>> I
>>
>>>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
>>
>> unbelieving
>>
>>>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>
>>
>> So basicly, you are calling this lies?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:16:54 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who >
>wrote:
>
>Bruce says:
>>>BOb,
>>>
>>>What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
>>>sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
>>>exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
>>>in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
>>>dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
>>>spin!
>
>BOb says:
>>What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
>>Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
>>Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
>>The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
>>What futility it is to deal with you two gems.
>
>Actually, Bruce is correct here, he does not attack certified engines.
>He has stated previously numerous times, that if certified engines
>were reasonably priced, he'd have no problem using one. The same goes
>for me. They are cranky, balky and awkward to start and prone to
>early overhaul, but do have an enviable safety record.
>
>Bruce says:
>>> Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the
>>>same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not
>>>explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types.
>
>BOb says:
>>I'm not going to mince any more words over this.
>
>Ha ha, good joke. Folks, when has BOb ever minced words?
>
>>Until you attempt to certify your auto conversion via the FAA
>>your don't know what got, much less be able to TRUTHFULLY
>>lay claim to equality/parity with certified engines. In short.....
>>your position is patently absurd without authoritative data
>>that is all but an impossibility to collect.
>>
>>>Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
>>>eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
>>>certified types.
>>
>>Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...
>>
>>No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>But, I can't top this.
>>Color me gone. <bfg>
>
>We can only hope.
>
>>Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful f(r)ight (little bit of Corky editing here)
>
>Here's the problem: BOb keeps moving the target. At no time in any of
>the discussions I've seen in this group, since before the group was
>this group, has anyone suggested that for an auto conversion to be
>viable it had to be certified. In fact the reality is exactly
>opposite this concept: the FAA allows us to use alternative engines
>without needing certification. But what's good enough, and legal for
>the FAA isn't good enough for BOb Urban. He now demands that in
>addition to testing the engine in flight to what, 500, 1,000, 1,500,
>2,000 hours (who knows, he don't say) anyone who converts an auto
>engine to airplane engine must also go through the impossibly
>expensive process of certifying it. Not so that the FAA accepts it as
>a viable engine, no, this is only for BOb Urban.
>
>All I can say is that's pretty cheeky, given that it's not necessary.
>
>You've threatened to leave before BOb, are you really going or just
>tantalizing again?
>
>Corky Scott
>
>PS, do you re-read what you write before you post?

What do you mean RE read, it's obvious from a lot of his posts he
doesn't even read what he's responding to.

[Bob U.]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>The 1500 FPM was probably on an optimum day, but it could also be because of
>the PSRU, that the prop is bigger, and being turned with more torque,
>allowing a bit more pitch.

Some folks wanna bee-lieve anything.
It would take a thermal to hoist this boat anchor at 1500 fpm.
Horsepower is horsepower is horsepower....
and so far, we don't have a clue what it is, do we?
Geejus H. Chryst, fella.

>It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the
>Lycosarus.

Ah ****, doofus.
Do some homework...
or are teachers exempt.

Wake up and smell...
the *FRANKLIN*.


Barnyard BOb -- if it sound to good to be true, it is.

[Russell Kent]

BOb wrote:

> Fer instance.....
> 8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
> 12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.
>
> How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
> and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
> a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.

I cannot speak for this *particular* case, but in general one "goes 5 mph faster on
40 less horsepower" by reducing the drag (parasitic and/or induced).

<speculation mode=wild>
Perhaps the water-cooled auto conversion has less parasitic cooling drag than the
original air-cooled engine.
</speculation>

Russell Kent

[Morgans]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the
> horsepower and weight and prop comparisons.
>
> Jerry

I really don't want to give the impression that I believe all of the numbers
are accurate. I imagine that a complete and scientific POH may be lacking,
but although the numbers may be "slightly enhanced", I believe the owner
believes them.

The 1500 FPM was probably on an optimum day, but it could also be because of
the PSRU, that the prop is bigger, and being turned with more torque,
allowing a bit more pitch.

It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the
Lycosarus.

I agree. I would love to see a full accounting given. It sounds as though
the people have done some good work, and are more than some of BOb's wanna
bees.

A big V-8 can work. I site Orenda, or however it is spelled. After all, it
is just 2/3rds of a V-12, and we all know they can work.
--
Jim in NC

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:30:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>
>
>Corky Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
>> Dalgleish) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
>>>planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
>>>he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
>>>the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
>>>trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
>>>sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
>>>origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
>>>ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
>>>climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
>>>performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
>>>increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
>>>100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
>>
>>>from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
>>
>>>Drew Dalgleish
>>
>>
>> Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
>> actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
>> predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!
>>
>> Corky Scott
>
>I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
>about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
>engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
>facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
>What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>
>Jerry
>
I lurk here pretty much daily and was following this thread. So when I
had my medical I asked the doctor about his plane and reported what he
told me. I don't have any reason to believe he would lie about his
numbers. He's not the one selling the engines he's just one outwardly
very satisfied customer. I'm sure the 100fpm climb was fully loaded on
the hottest day of the year and 1500fpm came when it was a little
cooler and lighter.
Drew

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:35:45 -0600, You know who >
wrote:

>
>
>>I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
>>about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
>>engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
>>facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
>>What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
>>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
>>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
>>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>
>>Jerry
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Jerry,
>
>"Astonishing" is putting it mildly. <g>
>
>Some of these auto conversion folks have got "religion".
>They are 'true believers" and are as brainwashed as they come.
>Nothing concerning the laws of physics need apply.
>
>Fer instance.....
>8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
>12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.
>
>How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
>and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
>a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.
>
>If anything they said added up... someone, somewhere
>would get one of these 'WONDER' conversions certified
>and in the process make such folks very, very wealthy.
>It's not even close to happening. The certification process
>is something that keeps these black magic artists in the
>shadows of reality... on web sites and newsgroups....
>beckoning the next rube, guppy, wannabee or whatever.
>No question, there is a sucker born every minute. Just
>ain't ever gonna me.. or you, from what I have observed.
>
>Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds too good to be true, it is.
>
>
>
>
>
Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed
advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water
cooled engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition? It's quite
possible that the doctor was talking in imperial gallons as thats what
we used to use in Canada before being saved by the metric system. I
don't think there's a big enough market for engines to justify the
expense of certification. I believe Toyota certified an auto engine
conversion and then shelved the project because of the small numbers
of engines they could hope to sell. Thielert has a certified Mercedes
deisel auto conversion that they're selling now.
Drew

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:16:54 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who >
>wrote:
>
>Bruce says:
>>>BOb,
>>>
>>>What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
>>>sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
>>>exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
>>>in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
>>>dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
>>>spin!
>
>BOb says:
>>What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
>>Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
>>Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
>>The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
>>What futility it is to deal with you two gems.
>
>Actually, Bruce is correct here, he does not attack certified engines.
>He has stated previously numerous times, that if certified engines
>were reasonably priced, he'd have no problem using one. The same goes
>for me. They are cranky, balky and awkward to start and prone to
>early overhaul, but do have an enviable safety record.
>
Well you won't saveany money using this conversion Corky. I think The
owner could have bought a 300hp lycoming brand new and had enough
money left over for a new instrument panel for what he spent on his
plane. Plus he would have been in the air way sooner with little or no
troubleshooting.
Drew

[Felger Carbon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than
the
> Lycosarus.

Mak thet "Lycosaurus".

> I site Orenda, or however it is spelled.

Its spelt "I cite Orenda". ;-)

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:52:42 -0600, Bob U. > wrote:

>
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>>The 1500 FPM was probably on an optimum day, but it could also be because of
>>the PSRU, that the prop is bigger, and being turned with more torque,
>>allowing a bit more pitch.
>
>Some folks wanna bee-lieve anything.
>It would take a thermal to hoist this boat anchor at 1500 fpm.
>Horsepower is horsepower is horsepower....
>and so far, we don't have a clue what it is, do we?
>Geejus H. Chryst, fella.
>
>>It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the
>>Lycosarus.
>
>Ah ****, doofus.
>Do some homework...
>or are teachers exempt.
>
>Wake up and smell...
>the *FRANKLIN*.
>

Read, SubUrban Bob
The plane in question has flown with both Lyco and Franklin power in
it's lifetime, from what has been stated here.

Now - as for efficiency. If the stock aircraft engine (any make) has
basically fixed timing (an impulse magneto to retard for starting) it
is optimized for only one combination of throttle position, mixture,
RPM, and load. That particular combination MAY never be realized.
The computer controlled system on even the lowliest of current
production automobiles optimizes the fuel mixture and ignition timing
for virtually all possible combinations of load, throttle opening,
RPM, as well as temperature and atmospheric conditions.
I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
my '75 Pacer did - and the van has a larger frontal area, weighs
several hundredweight more, and has air conditioning and an automatic
transmission. It is also capable of significantly higher cruising
speed, and accelerates MUCH more quickly - and the 232 inch AMC was
much more sophisticated in the control department than an old Franklin
or Lycosaur.
To go back just a bit farther, the 232 overhead valve engine in the
Pacer gave better mileage and performance than the low compression L
Head 231 in a '49 Dodge, of about the same weight.
Higher compression ratio, advanced combustion chamber design,
optimized fuel mixtures, and variable, closely controlled ignition
timing make a HUGE difference in engine efficiency and power output.

I know, Bob, you are going to say the optimized fuel mixtures and
closely controlled ignition timing are thrown out the window because
they are not running closed loop, having removed the O2 sensors.
Well, 14.7:1, or whatever the O2 sensor forces the engine to run at is
NOT the optimum for either power output or efficiency. It is simply
the mixture required for the catalytic converter to do it's job. By
removing the cat, and allowing the engine to run with a pre-plotted
mixture and timing map it can actually be MORE efficient, and more
powerful, than when constrained by the cat and O2 sensor.

The engine that was installed in the Republic SeaBee from the factory
was about equivalent, in technology and efficiency, with a 1932 Ford -
or even closer to a Model A.

The 60 hp Ford Flattie was about 209 cu inches displacement. It ran
6.6:1 compression ratio. That is basically a 3.5 liter engine.
In 1976, Ford's 200 cu inch six, with 8.7:1 compression put out 84
hp.
A 3 liter engine today can put out 200 HP - and at the same RPM as the
old Flattie still put out in excess of 160 ft lbs, at 3200 RPM,
roughly 100 HP.
The specific fuel consumption of the new engine is significantly lower
than the old engine,while producing almost double the horsepower.

In other words, SubUrban Bob, You are blowing smoke.
>
>Barnyard BOb -- if it sound to good to be true, it is.
>

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:15:21 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:30:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Corky Scott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
>>> Dalgleish) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
>>>>planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
>>>>he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
>>>>the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
>>>>trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
>>>>sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
>>>>origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
>>>>ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
>>>>climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
>>>>performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
>>>>increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
>>>>100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
>>>
>>>>from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
>>>
>>>>Drew Dalgleish
>>>
>>>
>>> Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
>>> actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
>>> predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!
>>>
>>> Corky Scott
>>
>>I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
>>about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
>>engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
>>facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
>>What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
>>1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
>>from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
>>think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
>>they need to at least give honest and true numbers.
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>I lurk here pretty much daily and was following this thread. So when I
>had my medical I asked the doctor about his plane and reported what he
>told me. I don't have any reason to believe he would lie about his
>numbers. He's not the one selling the engines he's just one outwardly
>very satisfied customer. I'm sure the 100fpm climb was fully loaded on
>the hottest day of the year and 1500fpm came when it was a little
>cooler and lighter.
>Drew
I'm not so sure it isn't head to head - same conditions, knowing the
condition the old Franklin was in!!!
It was a case of get a REAL engine in the bird, or park it. I know
the climb and cruise were down a bit from original spec, and the
margin for error on the old Republic was pretty fine to start with.
Like the BumbleBee, it really should not fly.
Like an old friend of mine used to say, they were so ugly the earth
repelled them, or they'd never get off the ground.
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the old Bee kind a grows
on ya - But then I owned a Terraplane and a Pacer and liked the looks
of both, so wat do I know.

[Holger Stephan]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:39:14 +0000, Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> of engines they could hope to sell. Thielert has a certified Mercedes
> deisel auto conversion that they're selling now.

Not to us though.

For Diesel the best shot may be the DeltaHawk:
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/

- Holger

[Del Rawlins]

On 04 Nov 2003 05:48 PM, clare @ snyder.on .ca posted the following:

> I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
> vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
> over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
> my '75 Pacer did - and the van has a larger frontal area, weighs
> several hundredweight more, and has air conditioning and an automatic
> transmission. It is also capable of significantly higher cruising
> speed, and accelerates MUCH more quickly - and the 232 inch AMC was
> much more sophisticated in the control department than an old Franklin
> or Lycosaur.

My 1973 Chevrolet pickup truck with a carbureted 350 V-8 and automatic
transmission gets between 10 and 11 mpg, city, highway, loaded, unloaded,
uphill, downhill, tailwind, headwind, whatever. A newer Chevrolet with
the same engine and fuel injection can be expected to get around 20 mpg
on the highway. Part of that is due to the better transmissions that
are used today, but mostly due to the efficiency of EFI. In addition,
modern fuel injection offers advantages in cold starting (my '94 S-10
would start instantly at 40 below zero with no preheat, though it was
normally kept plugged in when it was below zero), and operation at
extreme angles which would give a float carburetor fits (more of an
issue offroading in my Jeep). I LOVE fuel injection. But I am not
ready to fly behind an automotive based EFI system, not yet anyway.

A little over a year ago, my less than 2 year old Jeep (which uses a
descendant of your 232) coasted to a halt at mile 87 on the Parks
Highway between Fairbanks and Anchorage. The cause was a seizure of the
mechanical drive which operates the camshaft position sensor, a hall
effect module which supplies engine speed information to the computer
for the fuel injection. This single point failure instantly shut down
the fuel injection system and required around a 150 mile tow to
Anchorage, which luckily was covered under the vehicle's warranty (
particularly when you consider that I had been in the middle of Yukon,
Canada two days previously).

I would consider using an EFI with redundant sensors for required
computer inputs, but until such a beast is available, I'll have to pass.

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

[Bob U.]

>> Fer instance.....
>> 8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
>> 12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.
>>
>> How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
>> and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
>> a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.
>
>I cannot speak for this *particular* case, but in general one "goes 5 mph faster on
>40 less horsepower" by reducing the drag (parasitic and/or induced).
>
><speculation mode=wild>
>Perhaps the water-cooled auto conversion has less parasitic cooling drag than the
>original air-cooled engine.
></speculation>
>
>Russell Kent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps....
Santa Claus will bring me a new Cessna Citation
fer Xmas and the funds to operate it, too. <g>


Barnyard BOb -- If it sounds to go to be true.....

[Bob U.]

>> I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
>> vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
>> over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
>> my '75 Pacer did -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 30% improvement disappears when operating
hour after hour at a 75% to 100% power setting
to duplicate aircraft performance requirements.

Run both on the German Autobahn wide open
until destruction and get back with the data that
may hint of some practical use and application.

Pacer???
A bad joke perpetrated on clueless consumers...
if it's not a classic and revered Lycoming powered Piper aircraft.


Barnyard BOb -- unfair to compare apples and oranges

[Bob U.]

>>> I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
>>> vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
>>> over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
>>> my '75 Pacer did -
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>The 30% improvement disappears when operating
>hour after hour at a 75% to 100% power setting
>to duplicate aircraft performance requirements.

Let me rephrase...

The 30% improvement is only do-able/practical for automotive
generally low end power, street applications, loads and conditions.

When operating at 75% to 100% power settings demanded by aircraft...
The 30% improvement disappears unless the test conditions and
comparisons are fatally flawed or rigged for such an outcome.

P.S.
The Pacer is still a sick joke of a car for testing or otherwise.


Barnyard BOb -- unfair to mix apples and Pacers

[Ben Haas]

Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!


(Drew Dalgleish) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:16:54 GMT,
> (Corky Scott) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who >
> >wrote:
> >
> >Bruce says:
> >>>BOb,
> >>>
> >>>What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
> >>>sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
> >>>exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
> >>>in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
> >>>dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
> >>>spin!
> >
> >BOb says:
> >>What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
> >>Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
> >>Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
> >>The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
> >>What futility it is to deal with you two gems.
> >
> >Actually, Bruce is correct here, he does not attack certified engines.
> >He has stated previously numerous times, that if certified engines
> >were reasonably priced, he'd have no problem using one. The same goes
> >for me. They are cranky, balky and awkward to start and prone to
> >early overhaul, but do have an enviable safety record.
> >
> Well you won't saveany money using this conversion Corky. I think The
> owner could have bought a 300hp lycoming brand new and had enough
> money left over for a new instrument panel for what he spent on his
> plane. Plus he would have been in the air way sooner with little or no
> troubleshooting.
> Drew

[Me again]

On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:

>Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
>crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
>the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
>by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
>rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
>YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
>ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
>PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
>like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben,
You need flowers...
Stuck up your assinine arse.
You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.

Any reasonable person knows...
Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
They also know that **** happens under the best of
conditions and controls even where the most qualified
folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
at the mouth here in RAH.

My record of 50 years and nearly 9000 hours speaks
well of certified engines. I've learn in that time to respect
and trust the engines that I have flown behind over vast
open waters, western deserts, the Rocky Mountains,
crop dusting and IFR charters that would have you ****ting
in your britches.

What have you got to offer to date in your OWN behalf?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but derogatory crap and very cheap talk.

Each and every home brewed conversion carries UNKNOWN risks...
and only a flying fool would think he has better odds gambling on
**** that the average shade tree dood has cobbled together.
I'm not against you or your conversion endeavors, but I am
against any horse**** posted here laying claim that auto
conversions in general remotely measure up to the finest
and most reliable piston aircraft engines ever produced by man.

Anyone with an IQ over two digits should realize this...
but guys like you have to learn it the hard way.
So be it.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[[email protected]]

Drew Dalgleish > wrote:
: Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed :
advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water : cooled
engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition?

Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline
engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned
for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you
describe are:

1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd
engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with
computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient
performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control
doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does.

2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded.
Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you
anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the
ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel
(much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic
efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read:
efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so
much as an airframe issue.

3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise,
since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow
you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly
affect BSFC.

While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled,
fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline
engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not
inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel
economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360.

-Cory

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

[Me again]

>: Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed :
>advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water : cooled
>engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition?
>
> Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline
>engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned
>for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you
>describe are:
>
>1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd
>engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with
>computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient
>performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control
>doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does.
>
>2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded.
>Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you
>anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the
>ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel
>(much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic
>efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read:
>efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so
>much as an airframe issue.
>
>3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise,
>since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow
>you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly
>affect BSFC.
>
> While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled,
>fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline
>engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not
>inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel
>economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360.
>
>-Cory
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BINGO.

Thanx, Cory


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:54:00 -0600, Me again > wrote:

>Any reasonable person knows...
>Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
>They also know that **** happens under the best of
>conditions and controls even where the most qualified
>folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
>risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
>not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
>from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
>the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
>at the mouth here in RAH.

>Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight
>
>
Wow.

Corky Scott

[Ken Bauman]

Just thought I'd throw out a point for contention. (As if any more are
needed)

The O2 sensor as used in a NB Speed Density system is of little value at the
power levels used in aircraft. My understanding is that the NB O2 sensor is
mainly an emissions device. 14.7 AFR is neither best power nor is it best
economy. What it is is best emissions when combined with the proper cat. All
NB Speed Density systems that I am aware of ignore the O2 sensor at full
power.

Removing the NBO2 sensor from the engines made perfect sense when taking the
operating environment into account. In this situation (as in the car when at
full power) the computer uses preprogrammed lookup tables based on operating
and environmental considerations. A properly tuned engine can and will make
full power without an NB O2 sensor. Nothing whatsoever is given up except
emissions, but since no cat...

The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with making max power. So why include it
on an aircraft?

The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with max economy. So why include it on an
aircraft?

A WB O2 sensor is a different story. And there are other compromises at play
that have not been addressed here.

Regards
Ken Bauman

[Ben Haas]

Me again > wrote in message >...
> On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:
>
> >Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
> >crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
> >the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
> >by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
> >rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
> >YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
> >ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
> >PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
> >like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ben,
> You need flowers...
> Stuck up your assinine arse.
> You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.
>
> Any reasonable person knows...
> Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
> They also know that **** happens under the best of
> conditions and controls even where the most qualified
> folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
> risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
> not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
> from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
> the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
> at the mouth here in RAH.
> Is this the same old man who just a few months ago claimed he was
50 years of accident free flight until I invited him to visit me at me
private strip if he could prove it was really accident free. Seems to
me some serious back peddling was done. I will dredge up that thread
and repost it for all the new people that cannot figure out your real
motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group
was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger. If ya want to keep ranting
about Lycoming please go to the CERTIFIED group, The jist of this room
it to EXPERIMENT with all realms of flight, be it airframe or
powerplant. You seem to be a very intelligent man so tell us all
reading this.... What is the defination of EXPERIMENTAL in your book
???????

PS, anyone out there that has a little free time would you go into the
archives and dredge up the last line of BULL**** BOb tried to pull
off about 50 years of accident free flight and repost it, BOb's not
worth my time. Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes
a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives,
agenda and stuff...

Ben Haas N801BH.
> My record of 50 years and nearly 9000 hours speaks
> well of certified engines. I've learn in that time to respect
> and trust the engines that I have flown behind over vast
> open waters, western deserts, the Rocky Mountains,
> crop dusting and IFR charters that would have you ****ting
> in your britches.
>
> What have you got to offer to date in your OWN behalf?
> N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but derogatory crap and very cheap talk.
>
> Each and every home brewed conversion carries UNKNOWN risks...
> and only a flying fool would think he has better odds gambling on
> **** that the average shade tree dood has cobbled together.
> I'm not against you or your conversion endeavors, but I am
> against any horse**** posted here laying claim that auto
> conversions in general remotely measure up to the finest
> and most reliable piston aircraft engines ever produced by man.
>
> Anyone with an IQ over two digits should realize this...
> but guys like you have to learn it the hard way.
> So be it.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Just for HA HAAS]

On 6 Nov 2003 03:31:40 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:

>motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group
>was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben,
You continue to prove yourself the unmitigated and irascible fool.
This is a NEWSGROUP outside of YAHOO and it is known as.....

>>>---> rec.aviation.homebuilt <---<<<

Since you have no idea where you are, there is little reason to
take stock in the rest of your character assassination foments.

>Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes
>a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives,
>agenda and stuff...

I have signed "Barnyard BOb" in every post of which you complain.
I'm hardly anonymous or deceptive on this count. Only a jerk like
you with an ax to grind would so blatantly be looking for trouble in
this regard and every other PETTY manner possible. Seems I am
"besting" you to the point you will try anything and do anything to
muddy the waters that I address. For your "dastardly" behavior,
I will no longer address you in this forum. However, I reserve the
right to address your online indiscretions and stupidity as it
pleases me in the future.

<PLONK>

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Jerry Springer]

Ben Haas wrote:
> Me again > wrote in message >...
>
>>On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
>>>crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
>>>the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
>>>by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
>>>rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
>>>YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
>>>ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
>>>PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
>>>like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!
>>
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Ben,
>>You need flowers...
>>Stuck up your assinine arse.
>>You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.
>>
>>Any reasonable person knows...
>>Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
>>They also know that **** happens under the best of
>>conditions and controls even where the most qualified
>>folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
>>risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
>>not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
>>from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
>>the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
>>at the mouth here in RAH.
>> Is this the same old man who just a few months ago claimed he was
>
> 50 years of accident free flight until I invited him to visit me at me
> private strip if he could prove it was really accident free. Seems to
> me some serious back peddling was done. I will dredge up that thread
> and repost it for all the new people that cannot figure out your real
> motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group
> was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger. If ya want to keep ranting
> about Lycoming please go to the CERTIFIED group, The jist of this room
> it to EXPERIMENT with all realms of flight, be it airframe or
> powerplant. You seem to be a very intelligent man so tell us all
> reading this.... What is the defination of EXPERIMENTAL in your book
> ???????
>
> PS, anyone out there that has a little free time would you go into the
> archives and dredge up the last line of BULL**** BOb tried to pull
> off about 50 years of accident free flight and repost it, BOb's not
> worth my time. Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes
> a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives,
> agenda and stuff...
>
> Ben Haas N801BH.
>
>
Ben,
Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.

Jerry

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Ben Haas N801BH.
>>
>>
>Ben,
>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
>
>Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:22 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
> wrote:

>
>>> Ben Haas N801BH.
>>>
>>>
>>Ben,
>>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
>>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
>>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
>>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
>>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
>>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
>>
>>Jerry
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight

Definition of a successful landing - one where you walk away.
Definition of an EXCELLENT landing - one where the plane can be flown
out without repairs.

So 50 years of SUCCESSFUL flight does not need to mean accident free,
or incident free flight.

[Jay]

I don't remember seeing BOb say he'd flown 9000 hours without
accident. In fact he quite admirably fessed up in this very NG that
he'd had some certified accidents that apparently he survived in one
piece.

But anyway, this is the group for experimental aviation discussion so
we should be discussing experiments and new ways to look at old
problems. The only thing constant is change, as much as some people
hate to see it.

[Ben Haas]

Yes, It was late and I got Yahoo mixed up with Google. BOb just
admitted to 50 years of non accident free flight. Thanks BOb for
saving me the hassle of reposting your back peddling. Just a
reminder,, not all of us Auto engine guys are using JUNKYARD motors.
And this is the HOMEBUILT list, which to my knowledge is as good as an
EXPERIMENTAL list cause one goes with the other. BOb is the only guy
with a CERTIFIED RV-4, we hope....

Ben Haas.

are @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:22 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Ben Haas N801BH.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Ben,
> >>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
> >>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
> >>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
> >>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
> >>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
> >>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
> >>
> >>Jerry
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.
> >
> >
> >Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight
>
> Definition of a successful landing - one where you walk away.
> Definition of an EXCELLENT landing - one where the plane can be flown
> out without repairs.
>
> So 50 years of SUCCESSFUL flight does not need to mean accident free,
> or incident free flight.

[Bart D. Hull]

Bob's just certifiable.

Ignore him and he'll just go away...

It's not like he contributes anything useful to this group.

Bart

--
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:
> Yes, It was late and I got Yahoo mixed up with Google. BOb just
> admitted to 50 years of non accident free flight. Thanks BOb for
> saving me the hassle of reposting your back peddling. Just a
> reminder,, not all of us Auto engine guys are using JUNKYARD motors.
> And this is the HOMEBUILT list, which to my knowledge is as good as an
> EXPERIMENTAL list cause one goes with the other. BOb is the only guy
> with a CERTIFIED RV-4, we hope....
>
> Ben Haas.
>
> are @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message >...
>
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:22 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Ben Haas N801BH.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ben,
>>>>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
>>>>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
>>>>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
>>>>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
>>>>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
>>>>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
>>>>
>>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight
>>
>>Definition of a successful landing - one where you walk away.
>>Definition of an EXCELLENT landing - one where the plane can be flown
>>out without repairs.
>>
>>So 50 years of SUCCESSFUL flight does not need to mean accident free,
>>or incident free flight.

[Jerry Springer]

You are still confused Ben, this is not Google either.

Jerry

Ben Haas wrote:
> Yes, It was late and I got Yahoo mixed up with Google. BOb just
> admitted to 50 years of non accident free flight. Thanks BOb for
> saving me the hassle of reposting your back peddling. Just a
> reminder,, not all of us Auto engine guys are using JUNKYARD motors.
> And this is the HOMEBUILT list, which to my knowledge is as good as an
> EXPERIMENTAL list cause one goes with the other. BOb is the only guy
> with a CERTIFIED RV-4, we hope....
>
> Ben Haas.
>
> are @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message >...
>
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:22 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Ben Haas N801BH.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ben,
>>>>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
>>>>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
>>>>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
>>>>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
>>>>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
>>>>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
>>>>
>>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight
>>
>>Definition of a successful landing - one where you walk away.
>>Definition of an EXCELLENT landing - one where the plane can be flown
>>out without repairs.
>>
>>So 50 years of SUCCESSFUL flight does not need to mean accident free,
>>or incident free flight.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>You are still confused Ben, this is not Google either.
>
>Jerry
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben grows more like juan with every post.
Dodge, accuse, bluff, change the subect, etcetera.

Ben has not and will not address your direct questions.
At this point, Ben cannot afford be honest and forthright.
The day he does, he will be left with nothing more to say.
Ben Haas is past the point of no return, IMO.

Confused or not - Ben has been purposely vindictive, evasive
and mean spirited; therefore, no longer worth one's time.

YMMV, but I doubt it.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successfull flight.

[Ha Haa-s]

> Yes, It was late and I got Yahoo mixed up with Google. BOb just
> admitted to 50 years of non accident free flight.
>
> Ben Haas.
>

> Yes, It was late and I got Yahoo mixed up with Google. BOb just
> admitted to 50 years of non accident free flight. Thanks BOb for
> saving me the hassle of reposting your back peddling.
>
> Ben Haas.


>You are still confused Ben, this is not Google either.
>
>Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Unless I'm confused as badly as Ben....
Ben is the guy that some time ago told us how he had developed an
auto conversion that would develop more horsepower at less RPM
than any other auto engine on earth. One secret ingredient was a
new fangled cam, IIRC. When I asked him to start walking his talk...
all that has been forthcoming is more heat and vitriol concerning me -
NOTHING on his fabulous world class engine. To date, his agenda
remains the same..... shoot the messenger. Discredit the messenger.
Deflect attention from his engine project's failures and... successes?

Although Ben remains CLUELESS about where he is at...
even when informed, he does keep harping on how this group
is about 'EXPERIMENTING'. I wonder when Ben is going to get off
my case and on to posting something topical and of substance.
When will Ben bare his soul and come clean on how what I and
others have been saying for some time? Never, is my guess.

However, since Hass appears to be bashful, one might write....

>>>>>Ben Haas N801BH.

FAA public record.....

Registered Owner

Name HAAS POWER AIR INC
Street 700 PONDEROSA DR
City JACKSON
State WYOMING
Zip Code 83001-9379


N801BH is Assigned

Assigned/Registered Aircraft
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 8-4419
Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name HAAS POWER AIR INC
Certificate Issue Date 05/19/2003
Model HAAS 801
Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine
Type Engine Reciprocating

[Ben Haas]

Really. the top of this page says GOOGLE I think. Lets get BOb's opinion..
Jerry Springer > wrote in message >...
> You are still confused Ben, this is not Google either.
>
> Jerry
> > > Ben Haas.
> > REALLY. WOW, must be my puter saying GOOGLE on the header for no reason...
> > are @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message >...
> >
> >>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:22 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Ben Haas N801BH.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Ben,
> >>>>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
> >>>>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
> >>>>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
> >>>>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
> >>>>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
> >>>>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jerry
> >>>
> >>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>
> >>>Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight
> >>
> >>Definition of a successful landing - one where you walk away.
> >>Definition of an EXCELLENT landing - one where the plane can be flown
> >>out without repairs.
> >>
> >>So 50 years of SUCCESSFUL flight does not need to mean accident free,
> >>or incident free flight.

[Jerry Springer]

You may be using Google to read and post to RAH but Google is only a means to
access the newsgroups.

Jerry

Ben Haas wrote:
> Really. the top of this page says GOOGLE I think. Lets get BOb's opinion..
> Jerry Springer > wrote in message >...
>
>>You are still confused Ben, this is not Google either.
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>>>Ben Haas.
>>>
>>>REALLY. WOW, must be my puter saying GOOGLE on the header for no reason...
>>>are @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:22 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Ben Haas N801BH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ben,
>>>>>>Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
>>>>>>this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
>>>>>>really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
>>>>>>into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
>>>>>>accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
>>>>>>that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>
>>>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>>Write him off like you would Jaun Jimenez.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of successful flight
>>>>
>>>>Definition of a successful landing - one where you walk away.
>>>>Definition of an EXCELLENT landing - one where the plane can be flown
>>>>out without repairs.
>>>>
>>>>So 50 years of SUCCESSFUL flight does not need to mean accident free,
>>>>or incident free flight.

[Del Rawlins]

On 07 Nov 2003 04:56 AM, Ben Haas posted the following:
> Really. the top of this page says GOOGLE I think. Lets get BOb's
> opinion..

Dude, you need to get some remedial usenet lessons. Google is just an
outfit which provides a free means (one of many) of accessing these
groups, and they keep an archive of old posts, but the newsgroups ain't
run by Google.

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

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Ben Haas) wrote:

> Really. the top of this page says GOOGLE I think.

That's because you are using the free Google Usenet interface to read
the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. I use Google too, most of the
time. But Google sure as heck isn't the only way to read Usenet
newsgroups.

Also, Google has no control over the moderation or content of Usenet
newsgroups. That would be like trying to hold your TV manufacturer
responsible for the fact that your set is capable of displaying
pornographic material.

I suggest the following document for a brief introduction to Usenet,
and some handy pointers as to what it is and what it is not:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/

My favorite part of that FAQ is:

> 3. Usenet is not fair.
>
> After all, who shall decide what's
> fair? For that matter, if someone
> is behaving unfairly, who's going
> to stop him? Neither you nor I,
> that's certain.

If you don't like what Bob Urban writes, your best bets are to either
ignore it or to refute it with logic and reason. But remember that the
plural of anecdote is not data.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Ben Haas]

Thanks, I learned something today. Life is good in Paradise ...
(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message >...
> Earlier, (Ben Haas) wrote:
>
> > Really. the top of this page says GOOGLE I think.
>
> That's because you are using the free Google Usenet interface to read
> the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. I use Google too, most of the
> time. But Google sure as heck isn't the only way to read Usenet
> newsgroups.
>
> Also, Google has no control over the moderation or content of Usenet
> newsgroups. That would be like trying to hold your TV manufacturer
> responsible for the fact that your set is capable of displaying
> pornographic material.
>
> I suggest the following document for a brief introduction to Usenet,
> and some handy pointers as to what it is and what it is not:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
>
> My favorite part of that FAQ is:
>
> > 3. Usenet is not fair.
> >
> > After all, who shall decide what's
> > fair? For that matter, if someone
> > is behaving unfairly, who's going
> > to stop him? Neither you nor I,
> > that's certain.
>
> If you don't like what Bob Urban writes, your best bets are to either
> ignore it or to refute it with logic and reason. But remember that the
> plural of anecdote is not data.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Ben Haas]

Hey, Thanks BOb for the plug. You forgot to tell them all about my
private Airport, 2WY3. I am sure BOb will look that one up too and
post it for all you readers. Now it's time for an adult beverage, a
dip in the hot tub and Dinner. Life is GOOD in Paradise.
> Unless I'm confused as badly as Ben....
> Ben is the guy that some time ago told us how he had developed an
> auto conversion that would develop more horsepower at less RPM
> than any other auto engine on earth. One secret ingredient was a
> new fangled cam, IIRC. When I asked him to start walking his talk...
> all that has been forthcoming is more heat and vitriol concerning me -
> NOTHING on his fabulous world class engine. To date, his agenda
> remains the same..... shoot the messenger. Discredit the messenger.
> Deflect attention from his engine project's failures and... successes?
>
> Although Ben remains CLUELESS about where he is at...
> even when informed, he does keep harping on how this group
> is about 'EXPERIMENTING'. I wonder when Ben is going to get off
> my case and on to posting something topical and of substance.
> When will Ben bare his soul and come clean on how what I and
> others have been saying for some time? Never, is my guess.
>
> However, since Hass appears to be bashful, one might write....
>
> >>>>>Ben Haas N801BH.
>
> FAA public record.....
>
> Registered Owner
>
> Name HAAS POWER AIR INC
> Street 700 PONDEROSA DR
> City JACKSON
> State WYOMING
> Zip Code 83001-9379
>
>
> N801BH is Assigned
>
> Assigned/Registered Aircraft
> Aircraft Description
> Serial Number 8-4419
> Type Registration Corporation
> Manufacturer Name HAAS POWER AIR INC
> Certificate Issue Date 05/19/2003
> Model HAAS 801
> Status Valid
> Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine
> Type Engine Reciprocating

[Ben Haas]

Me again > wrote in message >...
> On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:
>
> >Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
> >crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
> >the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
> >by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
> >rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
> >YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
> >ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
> >PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
> >like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ben,
> You need flowers...
> Stuck up your assinine arse.
> You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.
>
> Any reasonable person knows...
> Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
> They also know that **** happens under the best of
> conditions and controls even where the most qualified
> folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
> risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
> not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
> from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
> the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
> at the mouth here in RAH.

> Wow. 50 years of flight. You must have a ton of money saved up
after all those IFR charters mortal men would have been killed doing.
Ya know,the high risk missions get the high risk dollars. Why don't ya
share with all of us the location of your few hundred acres where your
private airport is located. Surely a man of your means has one of
those??. Oh yeah, I forgot. You didn't even build the RV you are
flying, you just bought one to be cool and honor us with your imput. I
live to see ya rant and rave about others when you are the bottom
feeder in this group....

Ben Haas. 50 years at laughing at OLD fools.....

> My record of 50 years and nearly 9000 hours speaks
> well of certified engines. I've learn in that time to respect
> and trust the engines that I have flown behind over vast
> open waters, western deserts, the Rocky Mountains,
> crop dusting and IFR charters that would have you ****ting
> in your britches.
>
> What have you got to offer to date in your OWN behalf?
> N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but derogatory crap and very cheap talk.
>
> Each and every home brewed conversion carries UNKNOWN risks...
> and only a flying fool would think he has better odds gambling on
> **** that the average shade tree dood has cobbled together.
> I'm not against you or your conversion endeavors, but I am
> against any horse**** posted here laying claim that auto
> conversions in general remotely measure up to the finest
> and most reliable piston aircraft engines ever produced by man.
>
> Anyone with an IQ over two digits should realize this...
> but guys like you have to learn it the hard way.
> So be it.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Dave Hyde]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> But remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Just goes to show you, if you're willing to wade
through the muck, you'll usually find something
worthwhile <g>

Thanks, Bob.

Dave 'Henny Youngman' Hyde

[*Barnyard BOb*]

>Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>> But remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.
>
>Just goes to show you, if you're willing to wade
>through the muck, you'll usually find something
>worthwhile <g>
>
>Thanks, Bob.
>
>Dave 'Henny Youngman' Hyde
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When your right, your right, Henny.


Barnyard BOb -- take my wife, please

[*Barnyard BOb*]

>>Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>
>>> But remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.
>>
>>Just goes to show you, if you're willing to wade
>>through the muck, you'll usually find something
>>worthwhile <g>
>>
>>Thanks, Bob.
>>
>>Dave 'Henny Youngman' Hyde
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>When your right, your right, Henny.
>
>Barnyard BOb -- take my wife, please



When you're right, you're right , Henny.

Barnyard BOb - awaiting the Spelling/Grammar Police

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:33:02 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
>>>seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
>>>and tempermental? <BIG grin here>
>>>
>>>Corky Scott
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Does the <BIG grin> imply that you do not believe this?
>>Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
>>I no longer care what you think or do.
>>
>>Plonk.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight
>
>BOb Urban, I_am_hurt! You mean after years of gratuitous insults and
>nearly automatic acerbic comments to me, you leave the field?
>
>And here I thought your lack of personal attacks against me lately
>were a sign that at last I was gaining your respect because so many
>auto coversions had been successful lately.
>
>I guess not.
>
>Corky (who wants my tattered battle flag) Scott
>
>PS, you mean you think that certified aircraft engines AREN'T
>anachronistic, overpriced and tempermental? Lordy, I thought that was
>something everyone could agree on.


I talked with the man behind the V8 SeaBee last saterday.
Over 1000 trouble free hours on the LT1 in his own plane.
Several hundred on the doc's LT6.

The LT1 has had the drive apart several times checking for wear - none
found. Engine has not changed compression, oil pressure, oil temp, or
oil consumption since first 20 hour of break-in.

And that "trouble free" IS trouble free. No changes required.
The LT6 has needed some changes in code for theO2 sensors from what I
remember. (2 sensor vs 4 sensor vs no sensor)

[Drew Dalgleish]

Snip other stuff
>I talked with the man behind the V8 SeaBee last saterday.
>Over 1000 trouble free hours on the LT1 in his own plane.
>Several hundred on the doc's LT6.
>
>The LT1 has had the drive apart several times checking for wear - none
>found. Engine has not changed compression, oil pressure, oil temp, or
>oil consumption since first 20 hour of break-in.
>
>And that "trouble free" IS trouble free. No changes required.
>The LT6 has needed some changes in code for theO2 sensors from what I
>remember. (2 sensor vs 4 sensor vs no sensor)

The problem with the doc's engine was as soon as he went over 2/3
throttle the computer went to full rich. The problem was solved by
changing to an overseas computer or program for an engine that didn't
have a catalytic converter. Since the change the engine has been
trouble free. before the change the only problem was high fuel
consumption and less power. If I remember all from my visit with the
doc this spring. There's another Sea-Bee getting converted in
centralia this winter.

[NW_PILOT]

I seen one of them Seabee's come in to 59S one day very interesting sight
very loud also not sure what power plant it had in it he has a for sale sign
on the bulletin board at the Simi-FBO on the field.


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:33:02 GMT,
> (Corky Scott) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
> >>>seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
> >>>and tempermental? <BIG grin here>
> >>>
> >>>Corky Scott
> >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >>Does the <BIG grin> imply that you do not believe this?
> >>Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
> >>I no longer care what you think or do.
> >>
> >>Plonk.
> >>
> >>
> >>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight
> >
> >BOb Urban, I_am_hurt! You mean after years of gratuitous insults and
> >nearly automatic acerbic comments to me, you leave the field?
> >
> >And here I thought your lack of personal attacks against me lately
> >were a sign that at last I was gaining your respect because so many
> >auto coversions had been successful lately.
> >
> >I guess not.
> >
> >Corky (who wants my tattered battle flag) Scott
> >
> >PS, you mean you think that certified aircraft engines AREN'T
> >anachronistic, overpriced and tempermental? Lordy, I thought that was
> >something everyone could agree on.
>
>
> I talked with the man behind the V8 SeaBee last saterday.
> Over 1000 trouble free hours on the LT1 in his own plane.
> Several hundred on the doc's LT6.
>
> The LT1 has had the drive apart several times checking for wear - none
> found. Engine has not changed compression, oil pressure, oil temp, or
> oil consumption since first 20 hour of break-in.
>
> And that "trouble free" IS trouble free. No changes required.
> The LT6 has needed some changes in code for theO2 sensors from what I
> remember. (2 sensor vs 4 sensor vs no sensor)

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:59:57 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:

>I seen one of them Seabee's come in to 59S one day very interesting sight
>very loud also not sure what power plant it had in it he has a for sale sign
>on the bulletin board at the Simi-FBO on the field.
>
>

99.9% sure it will be a Franklion six. Virtually impossible to keep
100% legal as traceability of Franklin parts dissapeared a decade or
so ago when the last Franklin parts stock changed hands.

The subject engine, by the way, is an LS1, not an LT1 - my mystake,
and the LS6 is also going into a big Murphy.
> wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:33:02 GMT,
>> (Corky Scott) wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
>> >>>seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
>> >>>and tempermental? <BIG grin here>
>> >>>
>> >>>Corky Scott
>> >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>
>> >>Does the <BIG grin> imply that you do not believe this?
>> >>Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
>> >>I no longer care what you think or do.
>> >>
>> >>Plonk.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight
>> >
>> >BOb Urban, I_am_hurt! You mean after years of gratuitous insults and
>> >nearly automatic acerbic comments to me, you leave the field?
>> >
>> >And here I thought your lack of personal attacks against me lately
>> >were a sign that at last I was gaining your respect because so many
>> >auto coversions had been successful lately.
>> >
>> >I guess not.
>> >
>> >Corky (who wants my tattered battle flag) Scott
>> >
>> >PS, you mean you think that certified aircraft engines AREN'T
>> >anachronistic, overpriced and tempermental? Lordy, I thought that was
>> >something everyone could agree on.
>>
>>
>> I talked with the man behind the V8 SeaBee last saterday.
>> Over 1000 trouble free hours on the LT1 in his own plane.
>> Several hundred on the doc's LT6.
>>
>> The LT1 has had the drive apart several times checking for wear - none
>> found. Engine has not changed compression, oil pressure, oil temp, or
>> oil consumption since first 20 hour of break-in.
>>
>> And that "trouble free" IS trouble free. No changes required.
>> The LT6 has needed some changes in code for theO2 sensors from what I
>> remember. (2 sensor vs 4 sensor vs no sensor)
>

[Ted Azito]

The bottom line is not that the noncertified engines get a free pass,
or they shouldn't, but that:

1. Certification of the engine, is not required of aircraft with
Experimental/Amateur-Built C of A:

2.Is of no benefit except you get a shorter fly off period:

3.The commonly available choices of certificated engine <unless you
can buy a new PT6A-34> are simply ridiculous from any reasonable
standpoint.

I believe if you want a certified engine perhaps you ought to have a
certified airframe to go with it. If type certification improves
powerplants, doesn't it improve airframes as well? To think otherwise
is schizoid, particularly in a world where you can buy easily
rebuildable certificated aircraft and an overhauled museum piece and
prop to match for less than a lot of people are putting into kit
planes.

And as far as the electronic issues go, I don't want FADEC on any
engine, certified or not. I would rather have mechanical FI or a float
bowl carb and a one mag one electric system (like Franklin so
intelligently used as did Shaky Jakes). Actually the most reliable
engine control system in the world is PT Cummins Diesel injection but
that's another story entirely. All hydromechanical.