V-8 powered Seabee

Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification division
sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the point,
though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
know
how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50
YEARS.

I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
I'm not holding my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde

On 28 Oct 2003 03:49 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
John Stricker wrote:

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
know how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS
AND CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST
50 YEARS. I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
I'm not holding my breath.

I doubt if anybody would be willing to pay the sort of prices that would
be required to give the sugar daddy a decent return on his investment.
Probably cheaper to buy a new lycoming at that point. Also, getting
deep pockets involved would most likely only lead to those pockets being
picked by the lawyers for the grieving widow.

I'd like to be wrong.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

John Stricker wrote:

These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

Del Rawlins wrote:

I doubt if anybody would be willing to pay the sort of prices that would
be required to give the sugar daddy a decent return on his investment.
Probably cheaper to buy a new lycoming at that point.

Dingdingding. So it would seem that we're getting something
for the cost of that new Lycoming. It may be development costs
that were paid out long ago, but the cost of equivalent development,
engineering, and testing in an auto conversion brings it up to the
same level.

Dave 'on par' Hyde

On 28 Oct 2003 05:51 PM, Dave Hyde posted the following:
Del Rawlins wrote:

I doubt if anybody would be willing to pay the sort of prices that
would be required to give the sugar daddy a decent return on his
investment. Probably cheaper to buy a new lycoming at that point.

Dingdingding. So it would seem that we're getting something
for the cost of that new Lycoming. It may be development costs
that were paid out long ago, but the cost of equivalent development,
engineering, and testing in an auto conversion brings it up to the
same level.

Not quite on the same level. Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
lead to CO poisoning).

Then again, I don't want to take the time to develop an auto conversion,
either. If the diesel folks don't come up with something acceptable
before I need an engine, I'll probably buy an O-540 and just inspect the
hell out of the exhaust regularly (on more than an annual basis).

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Dave,

Now you're parsing words, sort of. You can put a certified, new from
Lycoming engine in a homebuilt. Vans sells them all the time. You're
right, though, that once it's in there it's no longer certified in that
aircraft. That's not the point.

The point is that part of that cost is what's left of original R&D as well
as ongoing development of the engine. A lot of it is also maintaining the
standards of parts, assembly, and QA that's required to make it a certified
engine, regardless of whether or not it's certified in that airframe. That
costs money and infers a certain standard of testing and reliability, even
though we all know that machines can and do break at any time. I'll take
the odds on a certified engine over an auto conversion any time.

I didn't infer that a website should be all the research one should do. It
is often the FIRST source of information for those on the list and when it
shows such a one sided view, then your "caveat surfer" tag is definitely in
order.

John Stricker

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

Am I reading you correctly? Has the rule changed? I remember 25 hours
fly-off time on a certified engine in a new experimental and 40 in an
experimental aircraft with a non-certified engine. If the certified engine
later comes out of the experimental, as long as it has been maintained as a
certified engine, it can go back into a certified aircraft, right? But if
you do something to the engine to cause it to lose its certification, like
using non-approved parts, you must remove the data plate.

Back to the FARs.


In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

Where can I get a liquid cooled Lycoming
for my Bearhawk? It's a little bit of extra weight to lug around, but
worth it to me. Others don't seem as bothered by the need to baby their
engine on a descent to avoid shock cooling, or the suicidal heating
system used in most GA aircraft (where a slight undetected crack can
lead to CO poisoning).

Del Rawlins
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I regularly fly above 7500 feet and shock cooling problems
are fiction, NOT fact for me. In my many years of flight, I've
not personally experienced problems attributable to shock cooling.
None in many years of crop dusting, either. Cracked cylinders
are a fact of life, but shock cooling is getting a bum rap, IMO.

Either I'm astronomically lucky... or my rejection of rebuilt
cylinders that are on their umpteenth rebuild have everything
to do with it. Cylinders that have seen more than their fair share
of critical *THERMAL CYCLES* are not for me!!!

AND for me, it's not just the extra weight.
It's also the REAL ADDITIONAL FAILURE MODES.

What flight parameters does one encounter in the boondocks
of Alaska where shock cooling is a greater risk of falling out of
the sky than water pump, radiator and liquid plumbing failures...
that are not at least of equal or greater concern?

Carbon monoxide is a potential heater problem.....
for folks that do not comply with maintenance procedures.
Similar failures to comply with maintenance procedures for
liquid cooled aircraft engines present even greater/more risks.

For me...
It's all about managing risk.
That puts me in the air cooled aircraft engine class for now.
You and the other gamblers are free to pile up the stats and
prove me wrong. Until then, I'm working on my second 50 years
of flight in the least risk manner with the devil I know. g

P.S.
After all of the above ranting....
I believe there are liquid cooled cylinders available for Lycomings.
Go gettem tiger. 8-)


Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keep it simple stupid

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:59 -0600, John Stricker wrote:

Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the
point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
problems are found and fixed.


"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to
know
how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50
YEARS.

I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major GA engine
manufacturers make data on failures *in development* available to the
public? Can we see test-to-failure data on the new engines Lycoming,
Superior, Mattituck, etc. are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy' to put up
big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing. I'm not holding
my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde


--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

Kevin Horton wrote:


Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the
point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
problems are found and fixed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Picking nits are we? g


Barnyard BOb --