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