In his own words - BWB and the OMABP

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:22:33 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
wrote:


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

That's right. Ken Armstrong touted the Mini-500 in an issue that hit
the stands the month they went out of business. That Mini-500 was a
ball of worms but the Kitplanes article didn't point a bit of it out
in their last article on it.

The only way to really figure out what the hell is going on is to look
at the history of whatever it is you are concerned about. Don't rely
on Kitplanes or Custom Planes, or Sport Planes. They are in business
to make a profit and sell advertisement. What you do it get a list of
builders who are flying whatever it is you are interested in building.
Call every single one on that list and see how long they have been
flying, how hard it was to build, how hard it is to maintain, what
idiosyncracies it may have as far as the fuel it uses, or oil or other
things.

Tell the builder your level of experience both as a pilot and a
builder and ask them what they think your problems might be.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm no kissin' cousin of
Jess's either. He and I have gone around and around about many
things. I have no secret allegiance to him or anyone else at the
OMABP either. In fact I have nothing to do with them mostly. I don't
endorse it and I don't NOT endorse it. I'm neutral. But, at the time
I was involved, I had many unanswered questions so I got out of the
project. I thought the risk for my level of knowledge and the number
of unproven parts in that thing just proved too much risk for me to
continue being the test pilot on that project, especially since I was
doing it for FREE to boot.

Over the years, many of my concerns have been proven wrong. The PSRU
has proven to be a damn good unit. It's in many airplanes, it's flown
thousands of hours in them and to my knowledge there's never been a
failure. Also, many of my original concerns are now moot because they
did continue to modify that package over the years and address a great
number of the very things I was uncertain about.

So, my advice to any of you who might like to go this way is to just
get on the phone or the Internet and contact those who have done it
and see how satisfied, or unsatisfied they are. Don't depend upon
some goofy magazine article. All these magazine articles are is a
tiny little snapshot of the whole. I'm sure that Jess, Tom and I
could write up 1000 pages on the things that have happened and have
been modified on that package over the years. That's way too much for
a magazine to publish, and it doesn't tell you what you want to know
anyway.

What you want to know is, "Is it going to kill me?"

When I was a kid just learning to fly back in the early 1960's I used
to wonder if a wing might fall off. I asked my flight instructers and
some builders questions like that. What they told me is that I have
to believe in HISTORY. If there is no history of this Aeronica
Champ's wing falling off, then chances are the one you are flying
won't fall off.

Same thing with these auto engine conversions. At this point in the
game there is a lot of data on the Fords and the Chevy's. The history
looks good to me. I'd have to sort of go along with the
autoconversion freaks and say that they did it. I agree with Juaquin
(Whaa-keen) in his Kitplanes article although he didn't present all
the data. Bill Harold, Tom and Jess pretty much did what they set out
to do and that was to use a Chevy engine in place of a Lycosaur to
make that little airplane perform as well without the expensive
certified engine. Not only have they done it, but many others to whom
Jess has sold that package to over the years have done it too. So,
you have a big data base to look at now in order for you to make your
mind up.

BWB

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:21 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:

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


As I said above. Call Jess, come to Vegas and fly it. Get a list of
all the people who are flying them and do some research. Figure out
what their problems are.
BWB

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 09:39:55 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"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?



You guys can't read. I asked that idiot to point out where I'd made
the statement that the PSRU's failed. Since they never have, I never
made the statement. My concerns were over bearings in the PSRU, but
my concerns were invalid. The bearings are fine. Corky proved
nothing.

BWB

On 3 Jul 2004 06:37:45 -0700, (bryan chaisone)
wrote:

Bigballs Bill? He used to be Bill "The Grump" Phillips. To me he is
just Bigmouth Bill. A friggin A-hole and a half. He has no
memmories. He doesn't know or remembers who is on his side. He will
turn on you in a pinch. It is all about BWB and no one else. When
you question him, he will threaten to hunt you down and bite your head
off. He thinks he is an ex-Navy Seal or Green Baret, I can't remember
which. Half of his stories are wishful thinking anyway. He used to
post pictures of himself flying an R22 and a MD500, landing at various
places. He insinuated that he owned them. I used to be really
impressed. I went to Vegas and rented a R22 out of Silver State
Helicopters and reallized it was the same R22 that he flew and landed
on the bank of Lake Meade. I reallized that then that he didn't own
that helo nor the MD500, but I didn't question him. Then there was
the time when he told stories about the Raven (CIA FAC pilots) flying
out of Vietnam and not being able to fly into Cambodia or Laos.
Couldn't fly into Laos? I happened to know for a fact that the Ravens
were based out of Wat Tai Airport in Vientiane Laos. I also pointed
out the fact that more tonnage of US bombs were dropped on Laos than
both WWI and WWII combined. There's a lot of things going on in his
head, he can't get it all straight, most of it is bits and pieces of
what he's read or watched in a movie. Sometimes he thinks he has
lived them, a lot of it is wishful thinking. I used to like him for
who he was. Now I don't like him for who he is. Naw, I think I still
like him. I think its his old age. He's not taking it well, aging
that is. He forgets a lot now. He can't take a joke like he used to
be able to. Us younger ones have to make allowances for our
elderlies. Sometimes older folks get grouchy.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

You know Bryan, you just about hit me on the head. I'll give you guys
a clue. Just like any other fiction writer, about 80% of it is truth
and about 20% of it is embellishment. If you keep that in mind,
you'll have a better time. Just because I post pictures of myself
standing next to helicopters and airplanes that I fly, that doesn't
mean I own them. If you look closely at all of my posts, I never said
I owned any of these helicopters. The only helicopter I ever owned
was a Mini-500. The government owned the rest, or Silver State, or
Kevin Morris, Chris Hukill and other buddies.

It's you guys who extrapolate to me owning all this stuff and flying
missions into Cambodia. Hell, I've never even been to the South East.
I'm a story writer Bryan. That's all. I rarely get serious about
anything, especially here on this **** for brains ng.

Why don't you just kick back and enjoy the story for what it's worth?
That's all there is to it.

It's not that I'm getting old and can't remember. It's that I'm bull
****ting you and can't remember!

Sure, I've done some real stuff. I did test fly that RV-6A for the
first 100 hours. And, I did test fly Carl Strom's RV-6 with a
Lycoming in it and crash it in the desert. Kind of interesting out of
all the hours I flew Jess's auto conversion I never crashed, but I
crashed the one with the Lycoming in it.

Anyway, some of the stuff I write is true, most is embellished. If
you keep that in mind, you'll be better off. I won't try to embellish
something that has anything to do with safety however. Safety if
paramount to me. But, as far as the stories about Air America and the
crap like that, DON'T believe a word of it.

I get a kick out of some of you here though. It seems that someone
always picks on me about something I really did do. It's always the
wrong thing they pick. Like the years I spent on the EPA projects. I
never mentioned that in detail until recently. I was waiting for
years for someone to call me on that and guess what? All of that was
true and they got creamed when they finally did call me on it.

So, you just never know, do you. I've done enough of it, that I can
hold my own in this "Bar-Room" kind of bull **** session. Some of it
it extremely factual. But it's like any other profession. If you
have been a real professional at times in your life, you can fill in
the gaps with some intersting bull **** too.

The big problem with the average reader here in RAH is that they have
done almost nothing. They can't fly, they can't build, and they are
too lazy to try.

Anybody like me with a few thousand hours in helicopters, airplanes,
balloons, gliders, gyros, hang gliders, etc. and who has rebuilt
airplanes since high school, can just about walk over any of the self
proclaimed know it alls who really comprise the majority of this ng.
It's not even a challenge.

Look at a guy like Pac. He's in the same position. He really does
have the ratings and the flying time. It's no challenge to him when
some Cessna 150 pilot with 30 hours confronts him over something.

Anyway, just sitting in here and telling the facts all the time is
boring. I'm a story teller in real life. I love a good novel and a
good story. And, I have read a lot, so I can write about SE Asia and
Laos if I chose to. I can write about it well enough to fool even you
who lived there.

But, I'm telling you up front Bryan, I'm a story teller first, a pilot
and a builder second. Don't lose track of that and you won't be
trying to research my posts for the past 10 years like Corky did
trying to trip me up.

BWB

Badwater Bill wrote:

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.

I'm not an engine guru, so what is the issue with 100LL fuel? My
recollection when the auto industry converted from leaded fuel to
unleaded, that it was the lack of lead that caused burned valves and
required different valves and valve seats. I do understand that higher
octane means a slower flame front. My guess is that the higher octane
in 100LL is keeping the combustion event ongoing long enough that the
exhaust valve opens while the fire is still pretty hot. Is this what
causes the valve problems? It can't be lack of lead as 100LL still has
lots, even with the "low lead" description.


Matt

Badwater Bill wrote:


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

BWB

I'm on the east coast so I likely won't run across you any time soon and
my RV project will almost certainly be a retirement project with three
kids to put through college and the first just two years from starting.
Hopefully, but then the auto powered RVs will be very well established
and the only question left will be Subaru or Chevy. :-)


Matt

Badwater Bill wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:21 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:


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



As I said above. Call Jess, come to Vegas and fly it. Get a list of
all the people who are flying them and do some research. Figure out
what their problems are.
BWB


That is exactly what I will do when I get ready to build.

Matt

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:19:43 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Badwater Bill wrote:


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

BWB

I'm on the east coast so I likely won't run across you any time soon and
my RV project will almost certainly be a retirement project with three
kids to put through college and the first just two years from starting.
Hopefully, but then the auto powered RVs will be very well established
and the only question left will be Subaru or Chevy. :-)


Matt


To tell you all the truth, in 1997 I didn't believe these guys would
be able to pull it off (but I didn't know anything about it either and
was there to learn). I flew the thing as a test pilot because I like
flying strange and different stuff. I did get concerned about all the
topics that Corkscrew posted in a rehash of my post when I quit the
project. But, over the years, they did fix a lot of stuff and I was
proven wrong. The thing does work and it seems to work well.

I just got off the phone with Tom Jones 10 minutes ago and they read
some of the stuff I just posted this evening. Tom told me that Jess
has bent over backward to replace things that may have not even been
defective when he thought he might have had a problem.

All of the PSRU is all computer cut and/or machined with lasers etc.
Jess found that some gear that was out of spec a few years ago and
went nuts about it. It turned out that all of the ones he'd sent out
were out of this country too. He paid for their returns from all over
the world only to find that he really didn't have a problem. But, he
replaced them all anyway with gears that were within spec. And, the
gear manufacturer who screwed him up didn't pay a nickel of it.

He's been very safety conscious about that product and that's my
primary concern about any of these homebuilder manufacturers.

The belts were a different issue. I actually failed one on the ground
once, when I was doing some really radical tests on it. The whole
team went ballistic about it and looked into that whole series of
belts. It was in 1997 I think. Jess doesn't even use that same type
of belt anymore but he did find that there was a defective batch. He
replaced everyone of them in the field at his expense although there
was never a failure.

Tom just told me that to our knowledge, there has NEVER been any
failure of the PSRU that Belted Air Power builds and sells. NEVER.

That's why it ****es me off to see some **** head like Corky Scott
tell you people that I posted there were PSRU failures. That's not
just bull **** and a bold face lie, it's libel. I think he's got his
head up his ass as usual. Just another sideliner with his head up his
ass making big claims about things he knows nothing about.

BWB

PSRU ever caused.

I'm not an engine guru, so what is the issue with 100LL fuel? My
recollection when the auto industry converted from leaded fuel to
unleaded, that it was the lack of lead that caused burned valves and
required different valves and valve seats. I do understand that higher
octane means a slower flame front. My guess is that the higher octane
in 100LL is keeping the combustion event ongoing long enough that the
exhaust valve opens while the fire is still pretty hot. Is this what
causes the valve problems? It can't be lack of lead as 100LL still has
lots, even with the "low lead" description.


Matt

You are dead on Matt. They Old Men were worried because the fuel
burns slower and burning fuel goes out of the exhaust valve. They
were worried that the valve would burn, so they did some things so
that wouldn't happen. It's in Jack's article in Kitplanes this month
(look on page 46).

I'm not an engine mechanic but what that article says is because of
this worry. They made sure they used a cam with a different profile
because GM provides that engine with six possibilities. You just don't
know what you are going to get.

They used hardened seats and stainless steel valves with chrome plated
stems, plus hard tips with bronze guides so nothing would stick and
freeze up on them using the 100 LL. Tom thinks that was all an over
kill but I have no idea. So, you'll just have to make your own
conclusions.

BWB

I'm not an engine guru, so what is the issue with 100LL fuel?

They used hardened seats and stainless steel valves with chrome plated
stems, plus hard tips with bronze guides so nothing would stick and
freeze up on them using the 100 LL. Tom thinks that was all an over
kill but I have no idea. So, you'll just have to make your own
conclusions.

The other issue is that in conversions that use oxygen sensors, they wipe
out the sensor, in a fairly short period of time.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date: 7/2/2004