In his own words - BWB and the OMABP

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
I guess this goes to show that when it comes to memories we're all human
and the
net is not :-)

BWB is human?!? Does this mean that I have to disband the church that I
founded or do I merely have to now give BWB half the collection take?

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.

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

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 19:07:56 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

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

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

When it comes to "Kitplanes".....
check out their past coverage of the Mini-500 helicopter.
It could not have published better press.

It the nature of these kinds of magazines for Wannabies
to pump up and inflate whatever comes along or be silent.
It's how they make their living.

They are not "Consumers Reports" - where there is no advertising.


Barnyard BOb - Caveat Emptor

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

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:30:58 -0400,
wrote:

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

I just got in from a trip so I haven't read the other responses to
this thread but I do have a question for you Corkman. Have you lost
your mind?

Here is your quote from a post last week:

__________________________________________________ _____
Is this the same airplane that you trashed here in this group because
of PSRU failures?

Corky Scott
__________________________________________________ ____

Now, since you are obviously too stupid to understand what you even
wrote, I'd like to point out to the rest of the people here who can
read that there were NEVER any failures of the PSRU. If you read what
I said years ago, I said that I was WORRIED about the PSRU, the
bearings and some other things concerning the cooling system. For
Christ's sake, how can even an idiot like you Corky, extrapolate to
"PSRU FAILURES" from what I wrote in that post?

This is typical RAH ****. This is exactly why I hate dealing with a
moron like you. An asshole like you sits in the sidelines, misquotes
what I said, what I did, then cross examines me on it. When I call
you on it, you post what I did say and you are too stupid to even be
able to read it. Jesus, man, are you okay? I think you need a
doctor.

And, guess what, Corkman, the PSRU never did fail. Neither did any of
the other things I was worried about. In fact the old men kept on
making modifications and changes and a lot of the stuff that was on my
list at that time was incorporated into that airplane. And...just
because I was worried about many things I didn't understand as a pilot
at that time, doesn't mean that I was right in being so. It never
failed that I know about. In fact the PSRU turned out to be just
about the most bullet proof part of the thing. There were much bigger
issues like burning 100 octane fuel that caused more problems than the
damn PSRU ever caused.

Then there was some moronic idiot who put jet fuel in it in Utah and
caused Jess to trash the engine. But that wasn't Jess's fault or a
design fault. But, that is the only emergency I ever heard about in
that airplane and it had absolutely nothing to do with Jess, Tom, Bill
Harold, the design or the workmanship.

Nope, the old men of the OMABP did a fine job over the years. I
wouldn't worry a bit about flying that thing cross country IFR at this
point.

Are you so simple minded that you actually extrapolated "PSRU
failures" from that old post? What a moron.

BWB

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



I asked you to find my quote about the PSRU failing. Since it never
did fail, you can't find my quote on that issue. There were a batch
of crappy belts produced by some manufacture at the time and that was
the only problem I was ever aware of concerning that PSRU. Jess found
out what batch numbers those were and avoided them or alerted anyone
he ever sold one to about the belt. In fact I seem to recal that he
sent them exchange belts free of charge he was so worried about it at
the time. But, there was NEVER a PSRU failure. And some of these
experimentals using Jess's PSRU have crashed over the years. But none
of the crashes were do to any PSRU failure.

Saying a PSRU that Belted Air Power built, failed is a serious
allegation. I would never say that unless I knew all the details and
was certain of it. That's why I challenged this idiot to produce my
post (which he obviously couldn't do).

Jess and I aren't kissin' cousins either. We've had our go-arounds.
But, I'm not going to trash Belted Air Power over something that never
happened. As far as I know there are thousands of hours on many
PSRU's that Jess has built and sold to homebuilders out there and I
have NEVER HEARD OF A PSRU FAILURE on one of those drives.

BWB

I've been driving my Chevy Vortec engine around for 7 years in my
Silverado. Yes, it's a V-8, but it's the same thing, just a couple
more cylinders. I've got 80,000 miles on it now and I just drove it
back from Yosemite National Park today. Over the weekend I put
another 775 miles on it according to my new Garmin 296 in it's
"Automobile" mode. That engine has never missed a tick.

I have to refer back to something Bill Harrold said about 8 years ago
when Paul Lamar was in here swinging about auto conversions. Bill
said, "Well, guys like Lamar are touting massive failures but I drive
to Los Angeles all the time and I don't see Chevy S-10 trucks
polluting the sides of the roadways. And don't tell me that the wind
loads on these trucks isn't so high that many people drive them with
the peddal to the metal either."

Bill Harold's words are true. That run from Vegas to L.A. can be
brutal. I know of many occasions that I've run my Vortec engine in my
truck from Baker to Victorville with the throttle all the way open,
i.e. a manifold pressure near 28 inches for long periods of time.
Now, that's demanding full torque. If there were a problem, GM would
have found it after manufacturing literally millions of these vortec
engines.




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.

What you ought to do is come here and take a FREE ride in that
airplane with Jess. Almost everyone who has done that buys one and
builds it. Hell, it's just a bolt on at this point.


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

I may take that thing to Arlington on Wednesday. If you are around,
you might see us there.

BWB