![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who
wrote: Bruce says: 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! BOb says: 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. Actually, Bruce is correct here, he does not attack certified engines. He has stated previously numerous times, that if certified engines were reasonably priced, he'd have no problem using one. The same goes for me. They are cranky, balky and awkward to start and prone to early overhaul, but do have an enviable safety record. Bruce says: 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. BOb says: I'm not going to mince any more words over this. Ha ha, good joke. Folks, when has BOb ever minced words? 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 We can only hope. Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful f(r)ight (little bit of Corky editing here) Here's the problem: BOb keeps moving the target. At no time in any of the discussions I've seen in this group, since before the group was this group, has anyone suggested that for an auto conversion to be viable it had to be certified. In fact the reality is exactly opposite this concept: the FAA allows us to use alternative engines without needing certification. But what's good enough, and legal for the FAA isn't good enough for BOb Urban. He now demands that in addition to testing the engine in flight to what, 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 hours (who knows, he don't say) anyone who converts an auto engine to airplane engine must also go through the impossibly expensive process of certifying it. Not so that the FAA accepts it as a viable engine, no, this is only for BOb Urban. All I can say is that's pretty cheeky, given that it's not necessary. You've threatened to leave before BOb, are you really going or just tantalizing again? Corky Scott PS, do you re-read what you write before you post? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |