Harley engine special

Barnyard BOb - wrote in message . ..
(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

In the long run it's academic-real airplanes have turbine engines-but
"Lycoming for Life" is such a crock of s*** it makes me want to puke.
The fact is there is a Lycoming religion out there and if I built a
power package and had a hundred of 'em flying for ten years, the
Lyc-kissers would say they'd look at when I had two hundred flying for
twenty years...then, three hundred and thirty, etc.

Just my worthless opinion...;-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Be not so hard on yourself.
Your opinion is far from worthless.

Your perspective demonstrates and personifies what
many before you have bellowed before vanishing
from sight. Your rant serves as a fine model and
example of what kind of perspective the typical
aviation greenhorn spouts to other newbies in a
freewheeling newsgroup like this.

Should you choose to shut your mouth and open
your mind and ears to the wisdom of those that have
gone before you... you may see why things are as they
are, and where they are going. In the meantime, it is
expected that you will continue to foam at the mouth, beat
your breast and gums until you render yourself senseless....
and disappear back in to digital darkness from whence you came.



Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

One thing about this ol fart BOb, he is predictable for sure.... Just
lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is ****". He probably won't
outgrow it either so just ignore his thoughts.

Ben Haas N801BH.

Ben Haas wrote

Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
ignore his thoughts.

I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
and development behind their airplane applications, and
those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
because Lycomings are old."

So far statistics appear to be on his side.

Dave 'Singer' Hyde

Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
EAA Tech Counselor

"Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight"

And hasn't learned a goddamned thing. I know a lot of old opinionated
sumbitches like him-if he had his way cars would still have points
ignition and drum brakes and airplanes would still be covered with
Grade A cotton and nitrate dope. I had an uncle that thought there was
a Communist conspiracy to take lead out of everything, especially
paint, so the gummint could spy on us through the walls with "scalar
heat cameras".

Some change is good and necessary. The direct drive horizontally
opposed engine was a big advance in technology in its day for its
market class-airplanes like the J-3 Cub-that were looked on then just
as ultralights are now by the people with "real airplanes" like
Stagger Beeches. The radials are now gone and it's time for the
Lycoming to follow, in fact it was time in the 80s, but personal
aviation is mostly old guys and middle-age ones with "Daddy Had A Big
One, And I Wasn't Allowed To Touch It, So I Want One Too" mentality.
Leica and McIntosh have marketed to this mentality for decades.

I learned a lot from "the old guys" as a kid so I'm passing on one
thing that they themselves had a hell of a time teaching me. I finally
realized they were right. "There's no fool like an old fool". People
who sit around and ****mouth any attempt to do something new-whether
it's the direction they would have gone or not-just because it's new
are fools, and the older they are the more foolish. They should have
figured out by now change is going to come, ready or not.

As for Hog-Air- I think it's cool he's doing something fresh and
something I'd of never thought of. I hope it works. Personally, I
don't like H-D Motorcycles, wouldn't ride one if it was a gift, and
think the future of air power has to be something that burns Jet A,
but I hope his product proves successful and provides builders with a
reliable cheaper option, both for their own safe aviation and the
satisfaction of seeing another nail pounded in the coffin at 652
Oliver Street.

On 16 May 2004, Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

As for Hog-Air- I think it's cool he's doing something fresh and
something I'd of never thought of. I hope it works.

Jim-Ed, I am a fan of yours!

Are you considering a political career ? You have my vote!

Thanks for expressing you modern thoughts.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage http://bfn.org/~ca266

nauga wrote:

Ben Haas wrote

Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
ignore his thoughts.

I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
and development behind their airplane applications, and
those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
because Lycomings are old."

So far statistics appear to be on his side.

Dave 'Singer' Hyde

Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
EAA Tech Counselor


that's always been my read as well.

No argument with his arguments either.

Even if I do sometimes fly a converted car motor...

Richard

Ben Haas wrote

Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
ignore his thoughts.

I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
and development behind their airplane applications, and
those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
because Lycomings are old."

So far statistics appear to be on his side.

Dave 'Singer' Hyde

Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
EAA Tech Counselor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you, Dave.
You have explained my position fairly accurately.

FWIW....
One need not be a rocket scientist to
realize that enuff "****" will go wrong....
when everything is right. However, doods like Ben,
continue to stedfastly remain simplistic and ignorant.

For those that are new here --
Mr. Haas, the self proclaimed auto engine expert....
has proclaimed with great fanfare that he can produce
a jillion RELIABLE horsepower from nearly zero cubic inches
of auto piston engine or something just as fruity/bizarre.
That might have been about two years ago.
Little wonder that he lashes out with hostilities and unkind
words like "****", given his own failures and frustrations to date.


Barnyard - evolution, not revolution - BOb

Barnyard BOb - wrote in message . ..
Ben Haas wrote

Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
ignore his thoughts.

I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
and development behind their airplane applications, and
those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
because Lycomings are old."

So far statistics appear to be on his side.

Dave 'Singer' Hyde

Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
EAA Tech Counselor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you, Dave.
You have explained my position fairly accurately.

FWIW....
One need not be a rocket scientist to
realize that enuff "****" will go wrong....
when everything is right. However, doods like Ben,
continue to stedfastly remain simplistic and ignorant.

For those that are new here --
Mr. Haas, the self proclaimed auto engine expert....
has proclaimed with great fanfare that he can produce
a jillion RELIABLE horsepower from nearly zero cubic inches
of auto piston engine or something just as fruity/bizarre.
That might have been about two years ago.
Little wonder that he lashes out with hostilities and unkind
words like "****", given his own failures and frustrations to date.


Barnyard - evolution, not revolution - BOb

Well Barnyard BLOb. Your very first posting on this topic contained
all your inner feelings, just look back and any sane guy can see that.
As for my project, I am flying it every day so you might want to look
at some sites on the web to see one really can design and fly an auto
engine in a plane. Brett and I have both built our own planes, we
didn't buy a homebuilt already flying like you. Both of us did
extensive research and developed a working powerplant that's not based
on a 60 year old Lycoming/Cont design. I am surely not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and I don't play one on TV either. You are welcome
to come on out and visit any time to see for yourself a well designed
and flying Auto conversion. My gut feeling is that your mindset is not
gonna change though. Remember, this group is the REC. AVIATION
HOMEBUILT newsgroup, not the certified rec. aviation plane group. We
talk about cutting edge stuff in here. Here are a few links to some
sites,,

http://kolbpilot.com/ch701/Ben_Haas.htm

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/update.html

Hey BOb. If ya really own a plane why don't ya share some pics of it
to all of us in here.

Your truly. Ben Haas. N801BH.

Barnyard BOb - wrote:
Ben Haas wrote


Just lost in the Lycoming lore of " all else is
****". He probably won't outgrow it either so just
ignore his thoughts.

I can't speak for BOb but it's my impression that
he's not against alternative engines in and of themselves,
but alternative engines with less-than-ideal engineering
and development behind their airplane applications, and
those who are lost in the lore of "auto engines are superior
because Lycomings are old."

So far statistics appear to be on his side.

Dave 'Singer' Hyde

Lycoming powered RV-4 in flight test,
EAA Tech Counselor

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

Thank you, Dave.
You have explained my position fairly accurately.

FWIW....
One need not be a rocket scientist to
realize that enuff "****" will go wrong....
when everything is right. However, doods like Ben,
continue to stedfastly remain simplistic and ignorant.


But, Bob, Ben is the one who has done the research, designed and built a
working auto-conversion, while you continue to point out its difficulty
while offering no information on how or why it won't work. Do you have
anything to offer, other than that you have been holding a stick for 50
years? We've all heard that one once or twice.

Logically, remaining simplistic and ignorant would apply to the one in
the same intellectual position as where they started. Can you tell us
anything about engines other than that you like Lycomings and
Continentals, because you've been flying behind them for 50years (again,
anyone who cares has heard that one by now.)?

Barnyard - evolution, not revolution - BOb


--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

But, Bob, Ben is the one who has done the research, designed and built a
working auto-conversion, while you continue to point out its difficulty
while offering no information on how or why it won't work. Do you have
anything to offer, other than that you have been holding a stick for 50
years? We've all heard that one once or twice.

Logically, remaining simplistic and ignorant would apply to the one in
the same intellectual position as where they started. Can you tell us
anything about engines other than that you like Lycomings and
Continentals, because you've been flying behind them for 50years (again,
anyone who cares has heard that one by now.)?


He can't say it won't work because too many are flying. But he, and
people like him, say there's some secret boogeyman (usually it's
torsional resonance) just waiting to kill anyone who dares defy
Lycoming by not bowing down at their temple and paying up. Fly 500
hours without incident and he'll say at 600 the crank will
disintegrate or the drive will blow up and throw the prop.

Or that car engines really only put out 20 horsepower continuous
because that's the average you use in a small car on a flat highway. I
guess all those boats using Chevy and Ford V8s are a figment of
someone's imagination.

I think if you want the safety and assuredness of testing that a
certified engine has, then fly behind one-in a nice certified airframe
that you can buy cheaper than building a homebuilt. A structural
inflight failure will get you killed far more reliably than an engine
failure. If you are opposed to experimenting, you shouldn't be in
experimental aviation.

But he, and
people like him, say there's some secret boogeyman (usually it's
torsional resonance) just waiting to kill anyone who dares defy
Lycoming by not bowing down at their temple and paying up.

I have heard this very line before, unfortunately there is quite a bit of truth
to the boogeyman - LOL. Ask the guys that have been there and done that, and
have paid dearly (financially) in the process. They learned the hard way. Jim
Rahm come to mind very quickly. He poured everything into fighting the
"boogeyman".

I am certainly not saying, don't experiment. Experimentation is the path to
progress. But don't pretend problems don't exist, because they do. And
certainly don't believe that flying with off the shelf stock parts (i.e. Chevy
and Ford V8s) is safe, because it isn't. And last but not least, don't believe
that boat engine operations and aircraft engine operations are the same,
because they aren't, the dynamics are far, far apart.

With all the above being said, I wish you all the luck in the world with the
automotive stuff. But just don't blindly walk down the path, because the path
can end very abruptly.