Auto Fuel STC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:23:15 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

No one is accusing anyone of having their head in the sand,
but given the millions of hours Lycoming and Continental have
been flown and tracked over the years, any backyard data base
by a couple of conversion enthusiasts is insignificant and quite
suspect in the scheme of things. The FAA and the AD system
far exceeds anything you or Bruce can begin to track regarding
auto conversion world faux pas.

My sincere apologies if I implied that you accused anyone of having
their heads in the sand. That was intended as my reference to myself
and anyone else who would rather charge ahead with a project without
first ascertaining what, if anything, has gone before and where the
failure modes are. That just seemed logical to me.

Further...
The Ford engine is but one conversion and not a popular one.
Whatever its record is, or can be... it ain't good enough for the
majority of folks interested in converting auto engines today.
As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse
and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity.

It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only
reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that
we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then
what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals?

I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket
parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy
an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still
be heavier.


Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base,
if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot.

Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.

The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that.
But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one
time too, back when they were first introduced.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the concept of using an
auto conversion. An engine is an engine as long is it's run within
it's design parameters. But you can't just bolt a prop to Mom's
salvaged grocery shuttle V-6 and expect it to work like an IO-360-L2A.


The devil is in the details. That's why the subject keeps being
discussed, that's why Bruce and others persist in printing
newsletters, a thankless task by the way. People need to know the
latest information.

Corky Scott

The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
project.

Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You're ready for a better teacher.
Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.

I hope she doesn't kill you.

The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I
choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be alright.

Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Really?

Who are you listening to in Alaska that would
prefer to bet their lives on auto conversions
in the middle of rugged Alaska wilderness?

Barnyard BOb --

As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse
and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity.

It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only
reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that
we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then
what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals?

If form still follows function....
Lycoming and Continental are definitely here to stay.
The economics of this small industry makes it very likely.

One thing for sure, no shade tree artists are going to put them
out of business. Further, when diesels become economically viable,
look for Lycoming and Continental to lead the pack.

I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket
parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy
an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still
be heavier.

It still belongs in a car, if form still follows function.

Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base,
if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot.

Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight.

The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that.
But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one
time too, back when they were first introduced.

Corky Scott

Are you kidding yourself? How can your database grow past more
than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?


Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb wrote in message How can your database grow past more
than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?

I dunno BOb- Take a look at this little jewel.
It just begs to be in an airplane like a Mooney Mite.
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/to...dex.html#2cddi

D. (stirring the pot)

Barnyard BOb wrote in message How can your database grow past more
than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action
and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market?

I dunno BOb- Take a look at this little jewel.
It just begs to be in an airplane like a Mooney Mite.
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/to...dex.html#2cddi

D. (stirring the pot)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Nah...
You're not stirring my pot
until you put some money in it. g

Remember...
Money talks.
Bull**** walks.


Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb wrote in message You're not stirring my pot
until you put some money in it. g

Problem is that 50 hp isn't enough. I need 450 hp with a max of 2 lbs/hp for
my VTOL.

D. (reality is over-rated)

On 18 Sep 2003 02:55 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:

One thing for sure, no shade tree artists are going to put them
out of business. Further, when diesels become economically viable,
look for Lycoming and Continental to lead the pack.

When diesels become widely available, Lycoming and Continental will very
likely continue much as they are right now, selling a few (relatively
speaking) new engines each year as replacements and new engines for
homebuilders/manufacturers, and selling parts to support their existing
engines. The availability of diesels won't immediately reduce the need
for support for existing engine designs.

My personal conspiracy theory on the subject is that after winning the
NASA grants to develop a diesel engine, Continental made enough progress
on it to fulfill their oblications for taking the money. In doing that,
they accomplished mainly 2 things. They were able to give their R&D
people valuable practice on developing a totally new engine with other
people's money, and they kept anybody else from getting that development
money. It was worth doing even if they never sell a single one, which
would likely only eat into their existing market. Assuming the engine
is any good, they will only bring it out when forced to by competition
from other diesel manufacturers. Contrary to what other people have
spouted, diesel engines aren't going to revitalize the GA market and
lead to increased production, so they would just be attacking their own
core market. What diesel engines will do is give us a better powerplant
for the same money. Due to the small market this is taking some time.

As far as Lycomings go, they seem to have had too much trouble in recent
years building their existing designs (i.e. O-540 crankshaft AD) to be
considered a threat to whoever brings out the first commercially
successful diesels.

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

On 18 Sep 2003 02:09 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:

The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my
project.

Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You're ready for a better teacher.
Her name is ... EXPERIENCE.

I hope she doesn't kill you.

The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I
choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be
alright. Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Really?

Who are you listening to in Alaska that would
prefer to bet their lives on auto conversions
in the middle of rugged Alaska wilderness?

A large percentage of those accidents which do not involve weather seem
to be related to an overabundance of air in the fuel lines, which was
the basis of my statement. I guess my point is, that there are enough
things that can go wrong that I'm less concerned with whether my engine
was originally installed in a car or an airplane, than I am with how
well it is installed in *my* airplane. I'm more worried about whether
the wind blowing up the Copper is going to slow me enough to jeopardize
my fuel supply for getting home (why I am installing extra tanks),
getting caught in some other nasty weather that came up suddenly like it
does here, getting CO poisoning from that muffler that cracked since the
last annual, or zigging when I should have zagged landing on some remote
strip. I'm a lot more afraid of stupid pilot/mechanic tricks than I am
of a PSRU, automotive ignition, or whatever other system you choose to
criticize on any given day.

In the Alaskan wilderness you will not find many homebuilts period, and
therefore few auto conversions, although the number of homebuilts is
starting to increase. The reality is, most airplanes here are working
airplanes and that requires a standard C of A. Actually for a private
airplane I think that auto conversions make a lot of sense up here from
the standpoint of being able to get parts in some of the more remote
communities, and better tolerance for the crappy fuel that is sometimes
the only thing available in the bush.

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

Barnyard BOb wrote in message You're not stirring my pot
until you put some money in it. g

Problem is that 50 hp isn't enough. I need 450 hp with a max of 2 lbs/hp for
my VTOL.

D. (reality is over-rated)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reduce the weight.

Have you considered an ultra lightweight
piston engine constructed of unobtainium?


Barnyard BOb --

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...

Barnyard BOb wrote in message You're not stirring my pot

D. (reality is over-rated)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reduce the weight.

Have you considered an ultra lightweight
piston engine constructed of unobtainium?


The problems they've had with those engines, what you save on the
very lightweight engines that result, you spend ten time over keeping
the thing on the ground. See, you have to keep the engine running at
full power with the prop in negative pitch all day just to stop "it"
from taking off by itself. When it runs out of fuel, you've lot it,
either the engine breaks loose or the whole lot simply floats
away...............................BS.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place




Barnyard BOb --