Harley engine special

Barnyard BOb wrote:

WHEN/IF auto conversions prove to be equal or better than
the certified stuff, the insurance companies will be the first to
know it...... and the rates to reflect it. As it stands now, aviation
insurance companies, in general, want nothing to do with auto
conversion power at any price.

A bold statement sir, certainly worthy of BOb at his bubble busting
best.

Not bold at all, but....
Bubble busting, for sure, if you get denied insurance
solely because of a questionable engine choice.

Sing your praises of auto conversions to the insurance
companies and see where you get. Probably the same
place as EAA got with Avemco!!!!!

Please don't quibble further on this insurance angle.
Check with 5 aviation insurance companies and then get back
here and report what they FULLY & FACTUALLY have to say
concerning FULL COVERAGE for auto conversions.

That doesn't mean there's no need for conversions, that's being driven
by the extreme prices for certified aviation engines. As long as the
price for such engines remains high, there will always be people
trying to find a different way.

NEED is the worst possible motive.
When need overrules one's ability and finances,
how far behind can disaster be?

It's actually a very American trait to use innovation to solve a
problem.

Ignorance and stupidity are very American, with no shortage in sight.

You've been a prominant naysayer for many many years now, basically
since the beginning of the discussion back in the 80's. While you've
been saying no, more and more auto conversions have taken to the air.
How many have to successfully fly for you to be satisfied that the
auto conversion is a viable alternative?

Your muddleheaded perspective concerning me continues unabated.
I've never ever been against auto conversions. However....
I am stridently REACTIVE to outrageous and unprovable claims
made by hate mongers of Lycoming, et all. Those that cast
certified engines in a bad light while praising how much better
auto conversions are, will most likely hear from me.

If you don't want me fastidiously defending the honor of certified
engines, simply cease and desist the auto conversion bull****.
Reign in the hate mongers. Your beef is with them, if you want
to hear less of me on this subject.

Without certifiable data, anything said against certified engines,
is suspect. Since you cannot prove your case about how
wonderful auto conversions are compared to certified engines,
give it a rest and just build the damn things. Leave the negative
crap out of the sales pitches here and you will not have to whine
about my whining.

What exactly are your criteria?

Corky Scott

Similar to the aviation insurance industry.


Barnyard BOb - figures can lie and liars can figure

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:55:57 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
wrote:

If you don't want me fastidiously defending the honor of certified
engines, simply cease and desist the auto conversion bull****.

Well, vintage BOb. I prefer to say that the auto conversion situation
is ever evolving. Two decades ago there were few to choose from, now
the choices are opening up. Some of the conversions are truly
professional in all ways, others less so. You can pay a lot or a lot
less, depending on your expertise, and resources if you try to do it
yourself. Don't think you've heard too much "bull****" from me, I try
hard to stick to the facts and have admitted when I'd been mistaken in
the past. I think that happened twice. ;-)

For the record, I recognize that the direct drive engines do what they
do just fine. They have inherent limitations which due to the nature
of certification, are insanely expensive to improve upon. That's too
bad, the FAA could help here with less red tape.

But that's why the auto conversions are so exciting, they don't have
the certification limitations so people can and do try anything.
That's why it's called experimental aviation.

Reign in the hate mongers. Your beef is with them, if you want
to hear less of me on this subject.

I think it's likely people are just responding in kind. At any rate,
I doubt I have much influence on them.

Corky Scott

Reign in the hate mongers. Your beef is with them, if you want
to hear less of me on this subject.

I think it's likely people are just responding in kind. At any rate,
I doubt I have much influence on them.

Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One more time....
I'm not referring to RESPONSES to my messages.
Tit for tat is deserved, earned or whatever.

I am referring to those auto conversion/Lycoming
bashers and promoters that START the ****ball ball
rolling whether I be alive or dead.

Agreed, your influence is generally nil to control them.
I was just attempting to ANSWER your question --
why I write, what I write, when I write it....
and what it takes for me to back off.

Once again, I am not against auto conversions.....
just the way they get presented here mostly by
insecure lamebrains that cannot pitch their cause without
bashing and taking cheap shots at Lycoming, etcetera.

Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. g


Barnyard BOb --

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:50:17 -0500, Barnyard BOb
wrote:

Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. g

Speaking of denigrating the established kid on the block, did you
catch the information that was presented by a couple of Aussie
aircraft mechanics who took a very scientific look at the Lycoming?
They were mystified as to why the Lycoming, much more so than the
Continental, kept wearing out valve guides way before TBO.

They disected the engine piece by piece and finally noticed that the
hydraulic lifter was virtually identical to the hydraulic lifter that
was used in flathead engines. That turns out to be a problem because
in the flathead engine, the hydraulic lifter does not pass any oil
through it to the valve because the valve itself sits inside the
engine block and is bathed with an oil mist. In other words, the
valve guide is not only lubricated, it's cooled internally by the oil
that gets splashed on it, without any help from the lifter.

Lycoming took this design and turned it horizontal to operate it's
overhead valves. Since the lifter wasn't designed to pass oil through
it, Lycoming modified it by drilling a hole through it. But now there
was a problem: If Lycoming drilled the hole big enough to pump some
oil through the lifter and through the pushrod to the valve stem, it
robbed oil from the lifter itself, which used the oil pressure to
control valve lash. So the oil passage through the lifter was tiny,
allowing very small amounts of oil to the valve stem.

The article showed every attempt Lycoming made to modify the lifter so
that it would pump more oil to the valve stem. Continental does not
have this problem as they are using a different design of lifter,
patterned after the virtual auto industry standard which pumps plenty
of oil to the overhead valves.

Since the valve guides are getting so little oil, they run hot at the
valve stems. This causes excessive valve guide wear. The two
mechanics took great pains to document that no matter where you ran
your engine and what temps you thought you were seeing, the actual
temperatures at the valves stems was much higher than it should be.

Lycoming recognized the problem and probably has recognized it for a
long time, and designed a fix for a particular engine used in the
Mooney. I think it's an O-540. This fix involved routing external
oil lines to the cylinderheads to bathe the valve stems. But they
made the fix for the Mooney only, claiming that the baffling was too
tight and that the Mooney installation promoted a hot engine. The
problem with this is that Mooney consulted with Lycoming on the baffle
design, again, according the the two mechanics.

Back when Lycoming first designed it's engines, flathead engines were
the norm. But things have moved on since then and Lycoming appears to
be in a bind about correcting the situation. It looks like it's a
damned if they do and damned if they don't issue. If they fix the
situation by adopting an entirely new lifter that mimicks the auto
industry, they'll have all kinds of recertification costs, plus
possible law suits from pilot/owners who've paid for the top end
overhauls all these years. But if they don't fix the problem, they
will continue to have premature valve guide wear.

Anyway, that's how I remember the article. Did you read it? Sorry,
don't have the URL anymore.

Corky Scott

On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:53:58 -0400,
wrote:

Sorry,
don't have the URL anymore.

FOUND IT, Google is your friend:
http://egaa.home.mindspring.com/engine1.htm

I just typed in "lycoming valve guide wear".

Corky Scott

On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:53:58 -0400,
wrote:

Sorry,
don't have the URL anymore.

Wasn't Australia either, don't know where that came from. Written by
Bill Marvel, past president of the American Yankee Association and
Bill Scott, and independent engine overhauler.

Corky Scott

wrote in message
...
. . .
Lycoming recognized the problem and probably has recognized it for a
long time, and designed a fix for a particular engine used in the
Mooney. I think it's an O-540. This fix involved routing external
oil lines to the cylinderheads to bathe the valve stems. But they
made the fix for the Mooney only, claiming that the baffling was too
tight and that the Mooney installation promoted a hot engine. The
problem with this is that Mooney consulted with Lycoming on the baffle
design, again, according the the two mechanics. . .

Corky.........

I seem to remember when Ford first came out with their OHV V-8 in 1954, they
had a problem with the rocker arm shafts wearing out quickly. This was due
to a lack of oil feed to the valve train and could be solved by the addition
of a "Top-Oiler kit".

Not that this has any to do with auto-conversions or Lycomings. You just
tweaked my memory. :-)

Rich "No short-term, lotsa long-term memories" S.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:35:04 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

Not that this has any to do with auto-conversions or Lycomings. You just
tweaked my memory. :-)

I owned a '61 Ford Falcon back in the late 60's. Three speed on the
column, was my commute to college vehical. I was instructed by the
experts to use non detergent oil in it. Bad move. The detergents
were put in oil for a reason, to keep all the bad stuff in suspension.
During one of the 15 hour drives down to Atlanta, the straight six
began to clatter very noisily.

I had to pull off somewhere in South Carolina and found an old timer
who had heard of the problem this engine had with the oil passage to
the rocker arms clogging up. He rigged up an external oil line to the
rocker tube, adjusted all the noisy rockers by feel and sound, then
buttoned it up and recommended using detergent oil from now on. Since
the oil line went through the valve cover, he had to unhook the line,
drill a hole in the valve cover, stick the line through the hole,
reattach the line and tighten down the cover. He used a grommet to
seal the hole around the oil line.

The external oil line worked fine for another two years when I sold
it.

Corky Scott

PS, he didn't charge me much for the fix either.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:50:17 -0500, Barnyard BOb
wrote:

Attempting to improve ones lot by denigrating the established
kid on the block is contemptible and intellectually dishonest.
When no one else cares to answer the cheap shots, here I am.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. g

Speaking of denigrating the established kid on the block, did you
catch the information that was presented by a couple of Aussie
aircraft mechanics who took a very scientific look at the Lycoming?
They were mystified as to why the Lycoming, much more so than the
Continental, kept wearing out valve guides way before TBO.

They disected the engine piece by piece and finally noticed that the
hydraulic lifter was virtually identical to the hydraulic lifter that
was used in flathead engines. That turns out to be a problem because
in the flathead engine, the hydraulic lifter does not pass any oil
through it to the valve because the valve itself sits inside the
engine block and is bathed with an oil mist. In other words, the
valve guide is not only lubricated, it's cooled internally by the oil
that gets splashed on it, without any help from the lifter.

Lycoming took this design and turned it horizontal to operate it's
overhead valves. Since the lifter wasn't designed to pass oil through
it, Lycoming modified it by drilling a hole through it. But now there
was a problem: If Lycoming drilled the hole big enough to pump some
oil through the lifter and through the pushrod to the valve stem, it
robbed oil from the lifter itself, which used the oil pressure to
control valve lash. So the oil passage through the lifter was tiny,
allowing very small amounts of oil to the valve stem.

The article showed every attempt Lycoming made to modify the lifter so
that it would pump more oil to the valve stem. Continental does not
have this problem as they are using a different design of lifter,
patterned after the virtual auto industry standard which pumps plenty
of oil to the overhead valves.

Since the valve guides are getting so little oil, they run hot at the
valve stems. This causes excessive valve guide wear. The two
mechanics took great pains to document that no matter where you ran
your engine and what temps you thought you were seeing, the actual
temperatures at the valves stems was much higher than it should be.

Lycoming recognized the problem and probably has recognized it for a
long time, and designed a fix for a particular engine used in the
Mooney. I think it's an O-540. This fix involved routing external
oil lines to the cylinderheads to bathe the valve stems. But they
made the fix for the Mooney only, claiming that the baffling was too
tight and that the Mooney installation promoted a hot engine. The
problem with this is that Mooney consulted with Lycoming on the baffle
design, again, according the the two mechanics.

Back when Lycoming first designed it's engines, flathead engines were
the norm. But things have moved on since then and Lycoming appears to
be in a bind about correcting the situation. It looks like it's a
damned if they do and damned if they don't issue. If they fix the
situation by adopting an entirely new lifter that mimicks the auto
industry, they'll have all kinds of recertification costs, plus
possible law suits from pilot/owners who've paid for the top end
overhauls all these years. But if they don't fix the problem, they
will continue to have premature valve guide wear.

Anyway, that's how I remember the article. Did you read it? Sorry,
don't have the URL anymore.

Corky Scott

Are Marvel and Scott Aussies? Here's their article about the Lycoming valve
problem:
http://www.prime-mover.com/Engines/Marvel/tbo3.html

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:51:42 -0400, " jls"
wrote:

Are Marvel and Scott Aussies? Here's their article about the Lycoming valve
problem:

No. I'd read the piece several months ago and apparently focused on
the fact that they printed an article for the Aussie AOPA magazine.

My apologies.

Corky Scott