V-8 powered Seabee

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who
wrote:


Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...

No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, I can't top this.
Color me gone. bfg


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

Gee, is that a PROMISE, or just an empty threat??

Whew! Glad that's over with.

You know who wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:43:00 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

BOb,

What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
spin!

What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
What futility it is to deal with you two gems.

Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the
same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not
explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types.

I'm not going to mince any more words over this.
Until you attempt to certify your auto conversion via the FAA
your don't know what got, much less be able to TRUTHFULLY
lay claim to equality/parity with certified engines. In short.....
your position is patently absurd without authoritative data
that is all but an impossibility to collect.

Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
certified types.

Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...

No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, I can't top this.
Color me gone. bfg

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

--
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.|

Corky Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:


Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped

from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.

Drew Dalgleish


Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!

Corky Scott

I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Springer" wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
you know that, Morgue?

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
et...
"Bruce A. Frank" wrote in message
...
I report one incident of
in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions.

Bruce, you too cavalierly ignore the dangers of water cooling due to the
presence of large volumes of Di-Hydrogen Monoxide!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

=D

Eric



You need ethylene glycol with that H2O, half and half. I have absolutely
no argument against flying with a liquid-cooled engine. P-40's with
Allisons, P-51's with Packards, Dick Rutan, and Chris Heintz proved they are
safe. Heintz lost his coolant over Lake Michigan and still made it to
Oshkosh, flying behind a Rotax 912.

You can have the advantage of closer tolerances when you cool with liquid.

I flew behind an 1800cc EA-81 Soob engine with Gates Kevlar Belt redrive 10
or so hours without a burp. Several people flew that airplane, a J-6
Karatoo, a total of over 100 hours before the owner sold the powerplant and
installed a VW engine -- a mistake.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:03:55 -0500, "Larry Smith"
wrote:


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Springer" wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
you know that, Morgue?

The numbers are from the owner of the plane - NOT ther manufacturer.
The owner has the history through 3 engine types, over several decadrs
IIRC.

I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jerry,

"Astonishing" is putting it mildly. g

Some of these auto conversion folks have got "religion".
They are 'true believers" and are as brainwashed as they come.
Nothing concerning the laws of physics need apply.

Fer instance.....
8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.

How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.

If anything they said added up... someone, somewhere
would get one of these 'WONDER' conversions certified
and in the process make such folks very, very wealthy.
It's not even close to happening. The certification process
is something that keeps these black magic artists in the
shadows of reality... on web sites and newsgroups....
beckoning the next rube, guppy, wannabee or whatever.
No question, there is a sucker born every minute. Just
ain't ever gonna me.. or you, from what I have observed.

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:03:55 -0500, "Larry Smith"
wrote:


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Springer" wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers.
Didn't
you know that, Morgue?

The numbers are from the owner of the plane - NOT ther manufacturer.
The owner has the history through 3 engine types, over several decadrs
IIRC.

Well, I wouldn't impugn the owner or suggest he's telling one. I was just
suggesting that even the certified aircraft manufacturers puff their
numbers, and the owners do too. Human nature.

I'm on the side and in the cheering section of the auto engine conversion,
but skeptical too.

You get more accurate results by testing from 3rd parties, like at
well-monitored races and CAFE events.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:49:58 -0800, "Morgans"
wrote:

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sheesh!!!

It's not about lies.
It's all about verifying what is truly factual.
Everything is suspect until proven otherwise.
It's in the nature of the real world.
Should I begin to wonder if you live in La-La Land?

Would you really bet the farm on uncorroborated
numbers from a sole source that has everything
to gain and nothing to lose by publishing such?

DIdn't your mother teach you better?
Does PT Barnum come to mind?

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to good to be true, it is.

"Morgans" wrote:


I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pssst....
Your computer clock is lying, AGAIN.

BTW...
What do you have for horsepower numbers
as produced in these converted Seabees?
Please don't quote GM factory numbers.
They are useless for this question.

FWIW...
Fuel consumption indirectly is quite
telling of what is going on with HP.


Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to good to be true, it is.