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