If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
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?? |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
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.| |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
human powered flight | patrick timony | Home Built | 10 | September 16th 03 03:38 AM |
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter | Mike Hindle | Home Built | 6 | September 15th 03 03:32 PM |
Pre-Rotator Powered by Compressed Air? | nuke | Home Built | 8 | July 30th 03 12:36 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans | MJC | Home Built | 4 | July 15th 03 07:29 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans- correction | Cy Galley | Home Built | 0 | July 11th 03 03:43 AM |