In his own words - BWB and the OMABP

My thanks to for the three URL's which cover the
subject on which Bill took me to task.

http://tinyurl.com/2kblp
http://tinyurl.com/3fcuj
http://tinyurl.com/245zz

For those avidly following this thread, it started with BWB asking for
information on when the latest Kitplanes magazine will hit the stands
as it includes an article in which Bill's wife took some pictures. He
remarked in the post: "You might recall that I was the test pilot on
that project about 8 years ago and started posting stuff here on the
flights I was making in it each day."

Well, I kind of did remember Bill posting about his time as a test
pilot, but my recollection was that after a couple of interesting
posts about how much fun it was, he began saying some pretty nasty
things about the OMABP and told us he wasn't flying it anymore.

So I asked him in the Kitplanes thread if this was in fact the same
airplane he wrote about. I said: "Is this the same airplane that you
trashed here in this group because of PSRU failures?"

Innocent enough I thought as I really did think I remembered him bad
mouthing the airplane. So I thought that perhaps something had
changed and maybe it was good news. But to be totally honest, I was
fairly certain that the remark was going be be enough to light Bill's
tail and send him ballistic, whether I liked it or not. Understanding
that, I asked my question anyway.

Bill responded pretty much as per usual these days, i.e. creatively
trashing the person he's unhappy with (me), but also questioning if he
actually did badmouth the PSRU, because today, he thinks it's a fine
piece of machinery, excellently designed and very reliable, and he
apparently did not remember saying bad things about it.

He ended up challenging me to find that past article he wrote because
he didn't think he could have written anything so blasphemous. He
said:

So, Corkman, where did I post that anything other than a belt in the
PSRU ever failed? Go find it and repost it here or you're just
another RAHian dork trying to discredit the fine work of a great team
of guys...the guys of the OMABP.

I accepted the challenge, although I did not personally know how to
find the old posts, I thought someone in the group might. I was
correct.

Bill, I am truly sorry to be the messenger, but you did ask, you did
say it and it's shown below in it's entirety.

********Begin message********

I sent you a message by email too Tom, but here's what's happening.
I'm out of the project and on to another one with an RV-6 with an
O-320 160 hp engine. I should be test flying it within a couple
months. I was associated with the OMABP for fun only. I didn't ever
have any interest in promoting auto conversions or selling this idea
for Jess Meyers. I flew it for the first 100 hours and we had a lot
of problems I never exposed. I just sort of wrote a lot of fun things
about the positive portions of the test flying. It got to the point
where I wanted many things changed and I had asked many questions that
were not answered to my satisfaction. The Old Men had no intentions
of changing anything the test pilot wanted. So, in my own mind I felt
that the risk to fly it was excessive and my feelings were clear to
Jess Meyers. When the airplane changed ownership from Glen Smith to
Jess Meyers, I stepped out of the cockpit for good.

If you want my personal feelings about the design this is it. I think
the engine is great. I think GM builds nearly a million of them each
year and if there were any real problems, they would have fixed them
long ago. The engine is not MY problem. It's the rest of it. I
don't trust the PSRU and I don't trust some of the other external
components. I'm worried about the bearings, I'm worried about the
flywheel, I'm worried about the prop, I'm worried about the coolant
system and I'm worried about the electrical wiring since it burned up
once. There were many things I wanted done before I would fly it
anymore and those things simply were not done. I made a big list and
many of those items were ignored. I felt that my life was worth more
than the thrill I got from test flying it and I made it known that I
had serious questions about the safety of the flight-test program.
When Jess bought the airplane, there were no words spoken, that was
just the end. Jess had no intention of modifying anything I wanted
modified and I had no intention of ever flying it unless these things
were done.

I'm not categorically saying that the airplane is dangerous although I
personally feel that it is. In fact I feel that it is terribly
dangerous. What I am saying is that I have questions that have not
been answered concerning the loads and design limitations of various
things which I felt were critical. This thing needs a mechanical
engineer, a structural engineer, a CAD-CAM guy and an aeronautical
engineer to put it on a dyno, measure it, model it, figure out where
the harmonics are, the reverse torsional vibrations are (RPM) and so
on. The OMABP is a garage operation. In my opinion, to do it right
you'd need about 20 million dollars to run a few to destruction and
take millions of data points. This and only this can prove the design
to be safe over a long haul.

If I were spending 3 years of my life to build an RV I would buy the
Lycoming from Van for $18K instead of the Vortec from Jess at $11K or
whatever they quote now. The other hardware for that airplane is
going to cost you $25 to $30K plus three years of your life. I
wouldn't scrimp on the engine to save $6 to $8K. No way.

I've watched this newsgroup for over 2 years now and many have come
and gone touting auto conversions. I think Bruce Frank and the boys
have something worth really looking at. But the OMABP project was
just a bunch of fun loving guys having fun tinkering with a toy that
someone else was paying for. People bitch about the Lycosaurs being
old technology. Well, so is the wheel and I use the wheel everyday.
It isn't that the engines are old, it's that the technology is old.
What improvements have there really been in GA in the last 40 years?
NONE. The problem was solved when they built the Bonanza in the late
forties for the average Joe-Shmo to have his own airplane. That
doesn't mean Bonanzas are no good, just because the technology is old.
There's lots of technology that's old which we use everyday. When the
problem is solved, it's solved, the physics doesn't change like the
style of a car each year.

Anyway. I'm a crazy ******* and I like to do some flight test at
times just to tingle my spine, but I opt for a Lycoming in an RV for
many reasons and safety is the foremost. I could go on all day about
what is wrong with Lycomings. But, I could go on all day long about
what I worry about with that Vortec too. At least the Lycoming has a
few million hours on it and the failure modes are pretty well
understood. I don't understand where that Vortec may fail next at
all.

I hope this clears it up a bit for many of you who followed my posts.
In a couple months I'll be back in the cockpit of an RV-6 with an
O-320 160 hp on it doing some more testing. I'll write it up and post
it here and I hope you all will enjoy it.

BWB

*************End of Quote*************

After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
Kitplanes post?

But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
must be relieved. I think I am.

Corky Scott

wrote snip

Well, I kind of did remember Bill posting about his time as a test
pilot, but my recollection was that after a couple of interesting
posts about how much fun it was, he began saying some pretty nasty
things about the OMABP and told us he wasn't flying it anymore.

So I asked him in the Kitplanes thread if this was in fact the same
airplane he wrote about. I said: "Is this the same airplane that you
trashed here in this group because of PSRU failures?"
snip

Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness. (which is suprising for BWB! ;-) Just
kidding Bill.) Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt? Telling the public truthfull details
about a project after you're gone and you have time to reflect on it
is not being nasty. It's being a hero to some potential widow; and
letting the rest of us consumers know better what's posssibly in store
for us after we read the slick marketing brochures. Your misguided
loyalty to a hunk of metal is odd Corky. Water-cooled, rubber belted
engine's worry me. My hat's off to BWB, for calling a spade what he
thinks a spade is at the time, even if it hurts people's feelings who
are too close to the project. This might not successfully dissuade me
from buying the engine, but after reading Bill's post I don't think
I'd fly it over water or at night.

After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
Kitplanes post?

But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
must be relieved. I think I am.

Corky Scott

This kind of built-in safety conflict vs. profitability with those who
make safety decisions while standing on the ground and counting their
money is a very familiar saga for professional pilots (paid or not.)
What seems significant Corky is the passage of seven years without
high failure or fatalities. Bill's attitudes as a test pilot then,
were quite understandable and prudent considering a low budget test
program like that. Now that time's been built up on the engine and
more is known about the choices they made, I'm sure Bill is proud of
having been part of it. As opposed to certain helicopter programs
where the test pilots signed off on practically anything that
management shoved down their throats. The test pilot's attitudes in
those cases resulted in a lot of missing man formations. The above
are my opinions only.

pacplyer

In article , pacplyer says...

wrote snip
Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness. (which is suprising for BWB! ;-) Just
kidding Bill.)

Your right it takes a gutsy guy to test fly "anything". I don't think Corky was
questioning what BWB said at the time because what BWB said sounded very
legitimate. And from the sound of BWB remarks now ,what was wrong evidently was
fixed. Sounds like it's a good unit now and that's what R and D is all about. No
dog in this race but just my .02 cents worth .

See ya

Chuck (I broke lots of reduction drives )S

On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness.

I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.

Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt?

Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.

I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
machine.

That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
as he requested.

Corky Scott

That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
as he requested.

Corky Scott


Well said..................
Don Lewis n FTW

wrote:

On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:


Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness.


I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.


Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt?


Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.

I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
machine.

That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
as he requested.

Corky Scott



If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.

I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
that I can't remember now.

The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
one.


Matt

Matt,

The GMC 4.3L V-6 engine has been dependable with some minor after market
mods. As built by most it produces about 230 to 240 hp (and one I know
of that is producing 300 hp). The draw back is the weight. It is stock
with cast iron heads (versus the Ford's aluminum heads) and the after
market aluminum heads cost close to $2000 once the machine work is
finished.

The CG of both the Ford and Chevy V-6s, even with the PSRU is closer to
the firewall than the CG of the equivalent power Lycoming. The real
concern of mounting heavier engines is the moment on the mounting points
on the firewall. Overall CG of the plane can be adjusted, usually, with
placement of the battery.

In general, the Chevy, coming along after the development of the Ford
conversion and therefore benefiting from that prior art, manifest fewer
idiosyncrasies. The engine as built by Jess Myers (Belted Air Power) and
Johnny at Northwest Aero have proven to be very good choices for
auto-conversions.

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:

On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:


Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness.


I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.


Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt?


Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.

I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
machine.

That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
as he requested.

Corky Scott



If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.

I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
that I can't remember now.

The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
one.

Matt

--
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.

There is a good article in the latest issue of "Kitplanes" ("Certified
vs. Homebuilt") about the Chevy conversion package.

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:

Matt,

The GMC 4.3L V-6 engine has been dependable with some minor after market
mods. As built by most it produces about 230 to 240 hp (and one I know
of that is producing 300 hp). The draw back is the weight. It is stock
with cast iron heads (versus the Ford's aluminum heads) and the after
market aluminum heads cost close to $2000 once the machine work is
finished.

The CG of both the Ford and Chevy V-6s, even with the PSRU is closer to
the firewall than the CG of the equivalent power Lycoming. The real
concern of mounting heavier engines is the moment on the mounting points
on the firewall. Overall CG of the plane can be adjusted, usually, with
placement of the battery.

In general, the Chevy, coming along after the development of the Ford
conversion and therefore benefiting from that prior art, manifest fewer
idiosyncrasies. The engine as built by Jess Myers (Belted Air Power) and
Johnny at Northwest Aero have proven to be very good choices for
auto-conversions.

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:

On 2 Jul 2004 17:47:44 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:


Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness.


I never claimed it didn't. I was just surprised to hear Bill praising
the airplane recently when I remembered him describing all the
problems he said it had when he'd been the test pilot.


Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt?


Well actually he has aluded to several bad belts that failed but that
really isn't the point. He challenged me in the usual foul mouthed
BWB way to prove that he had at any time said anything negative about
Meyers airplane and/or the OMABP. Luckily for me, a generous
anonymous lurker found the information and made it available.

I wasn't trying to discredit the guys who built the airplane, it's
just not my style and I'm pretty sure everyone here in this group
knows that. What Bill originally stated back in 1997 has apparently
become "Inopperative". Because today he seems to think it's a fine
machine.

That's good because it's better to have Bill's support than to have
him against you. For all I know, the OMABP never even knew of Bill's
comments, not everyone knows about this group after all, so perhaps no
harm was done. But Bill did ask me to find the comment and repost it
for all to see. With the help of my anonymous benefactor, I've done
as he requested.

Corky Scott



If I was building an RV, I'd certainly give this option a serious look.
I do wish there was more data available on this engine as compared to
a similar Lycoming. If you read through the web site, you can find most
of the information such as weight, power, torque, etc, however, it isn't
in a nice tabular comparison that would be much more useful. I also
didn't see fuel consumption anywhere, but may have just missed it. It
would also be nice to see W&B info comparing the Lyc to the Chevy.

I've got a 4.3L Vortec in my 1994 Chevy pickup and it has been pretty
reliable now for 10 years and 85,000 miles. The only serious problem I
had with the engine was at about the 5,200 mile point. It dropped a
cylinder on my way to work one morning and was making an awful clatter.
I called the dealer as it was still under warranty and I figured
they'd want to tow it in to avoid further damage. They asked if I could
drive it. I said "yes", but had to run it hard to keep it up to
cruising speed. They said to just drive it in then. They found that
the intake valve pushrod had come apart and welded itself to the rocker
arm. I don't recall the details now, but I believe it was an aluminum
pushrod and had a steel ball spin welded to it. The ball came loose and
the aluminum pushrod fused itself to the rocker arm. They replaced
that, changed the oil in the engine and it has run fine since. The only
other problems I've had are oil leaks. Simply can't stop this engine
from leaking somewhere. I've replaced the main seals (front and rear),
oil filter adapter gasket, intake manifold gasket, and one other gasket
that I can't remember now.

The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
one.

Matt


--
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.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:52:12 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:

The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
one.


Matt
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THINK you'd be OK?????

Lordy, lordy, lordy.
Never a shortage of nominees for a Darwin Award.

Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
Is BWB correct or what?


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

Barnyard BOb - wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:52:12 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:


The engine has never left me stranded so I think I'd be OK flying behind
one.


Matt

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THINK you'd be OK?????

Think, as in I'd want to do a little more research on the reliability of
the Chevy V-6 as set up for flight by Belted Air Power. Initial
results look promising, but I like a little more than what I've seen so
far. However, my personal experience with the 4.3 is pretty good. It's
only significant failure still left it operational, albeit down probably
40 HP. Had this same thing happened in an airplane, the plane would
have still flown to a nearby airport.


Lordy, lordy, lordy.
Never a shortage of nominees for a Darwin Award.

Wannabies, the clueless... and worse, abound.
Is BWB correct or what?

You old-timers get pretty cranky when your Depends need changing.


Matt