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