Harley engine special

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

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.

I don't think the boogeyman is all that secret.
I think people that fully understand the mission are
well aware of the problem areas. I just don't see many
of them working to solve it in an upfront and productive
manner.

I'm (still) not BOb, but what scares me about
auto conversions (and a lot of engine and airframe
work in general) is the lack of engineering and
valid testing that I've observed, and the tendency
to "cut to fit and fly to failure, fix it and call
it a success." That's one of the main reasons I'm
flying an RV-4 and a Lycoming.

Bash Lycomings all you want, but they are simple, well
engineered, work well, are reliable when maintained, and,
although it doesn't seem to be the case sometime, do have
a well-established quality control chain even after delivery.

Experiment where you choose, but be honest in your assessments,
and for Pete's sake, do some valid testing and understand the
results. As someone said right here not too long ago,
"The plural of anecdote is not data."

Dave 'carpe datum' Hyde

I am far from an expert,but from my past experience with cont. engs.,it
would seem to me that if someone could mill one out of solid alu. stock,
cyls. included,it would be a great eng.I would love to do it but I do
not have the machines or know how.

(DJFawcett26) wrote in message ...
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.

Can you expand on this boat/airplane comparison a little more.

(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

majority of immature, fictional and bull-headed rant snipped

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.

It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.

Ever wonder why?



Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot since the early 60's

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.

It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.

Ever wonder why?

Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
then experimental sport aviation possible.

I stand by my view, that BoB is basically an old buzzard with a big
mouth, so to speak (or type.) A lot of people shouldn't work on or
attempt to build anything that flies, or anything else. For people
with a desire to advance the art, study what has and hasn't worked-and
why-and then set out to build a better mousetrap, they in my opinion
are the reason why Congress has seen fit to allow FAA to keep
Experimental Amateur Built activity as it is. Sure, people get
killed-usually not famous, occasionally a John Denver-and people bitch
saying "there ought to be a law". Type certification, right or wrong,
is there for a reason and Experimental aviation outside the Amateur
Built category is regulated pretty heavily. Ask the CJAA guys if you
dispute this. As Dave Blanton said to me when I would go off on how we
needed to get a libertarian-minded government, homebuilding existed
partly because old and wise people in government itself (at that time)
knew over-regulation would cause a backlash and stop progress. As long
as Poberezny's EAA behaved like adults-and they did-the FAA would let
them play in their own sandbox.

In case y'all hadn't noticed, the amateur-built tail is wagging the
General Aviation dog now. The popularity of certain designs with 3000
flying or in progress is making many people think people are building
to get around type certification instead of because they like building
and want to learn. A lot of these airplanes are being built by "serial
builders", some of whom are A&Ps who quit work to play in their
garage.

With most aircraft being built strictly to plans with certified
engines and often by people who are not amateurs, no one experimenting
in any fashion anymore, the case for not making them get a type
certificate is getting weaker. This is like ham radio, which used to
be how electronics people learned their trade-building transmitters.
Now there's no more electronics industry, hams buy everything off the
shelf, and Amateur Radio is going to lose their spectrum, starting
with HF as the broadband-over-powerline crowd craps the band up.

Don't bitch at me-I'm just the messenger. If you **** on people for
wanting to make progress, and no one does, and the FAA kicks you out
of your sandbox because you have no leverage (post your Ayn Rand
arguments of right to alt.politics.libertarian, I deal in reality), I
don't want to hear it.

Barnyard BOb - wrote:
(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

majority of immature, fictional and bull-headed rant snipped

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.


It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.

Ever wonder why?



Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot since the early 60's





No. I just assumed the old codgers liked their lawn mower engines and
are too senile to think for themselves any more. Just like you, Bob.

(No, I don't really think Lycomings are lawn mower engines, but I do
think Bob is senile.)

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

On 19 May 2004 11:50:42 -0700, (Jim-Ed Browne)
wrote:

Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
then experimental sport aviation possible.

Well it's not really a mystery: he attempted to bond polyfiber fabric
to a plywood wing using the wrong method. It lasted for a while, then
pulled free on that fatal flight and ballooned causing destructive
flutter. The wing was found some distance from the fuselage
suggesting seperatin prior to impact. Inspection of the wing revealed
the seperated fabric. Analysis of the wing showed what materials were
used to attach it.

Both Blanton and Wittman suffered engine failures during their
development of their respective engines and had return to terra firma
deadstick. Blanton suffered more than a few.

Blanton also, at one time, advocated lifting a salvage engine out of
the junkyard and plunking it into an airframe without rebuilding it.
To his credit, he quit suggesting that after a few years.

But one thing Blanton never did stop doing was to claim excessive
horsepower for his conversion of the Ford 3.8L V6. He claimed he was
getting up to 250 horsepower on his dynomometer. He wasn't, but he
could not be told he was not adding his figures up correctly. He
insisted that the horsepower claim was correct and his claim made him
a controversial figure in his later life and may have done great harm
to the auto conversion concept. He was so vocal and so wrong that
people thought all conversion advocates were equally crazed. He also
wasn't following through on paid orders towards the end and what he
was shipping wasn't great quality.

I know of one guy who did a LOT of modification to his 3.8 to get
around 225 hp or so, but he had special pistons and rods and was
willing to rev it to 5300 rpm to do so. Most people using the 3.8 use
a more conservative rev limit - 4800. At that rpm, most of the
engines put out from 175 to 195 hp depending on what pistons are used
and how much time is spent on the intake manifold and exhaust system.

There is a lot to converting an auto engine, it isn't for just
anybody. You really should understand engines and how to cool them.
You can of course just buy a firewall forward system but those can
cost almost as much as a Lycontinental of equal power. People have
often said: Yeh, but it costs a lot less to overhaul, which would be
true, if you ever flew it enough to reach the TBO. At my age (56),
and considering the cost of flying which limits my time in the air, I
doubt I'd ever fly enough to get there in my lifetime. But it would
be nice to try.

Corky Scott

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

Don't bitch at me-I'm just the messenger. If you **** on people for
wanting to make progress, and no one does, and the FAA kicks you out
of your sandbox because you have no leverage (post your Ayn Rand
arguments of right to alt.politics.libertarian, I deal in reality), I
don't want to hear it.

I'm behind you, Jim. Society is just another system. The smart amoung
us learn to hack it. We can either keep the non-flying public oohing
and aahing, or we can close up shop and go home.

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

Ernest Christley wrote in message . com...
No. I just assumed the old codgers liked their lawn mower engines and
are too senile to think for themselves any more. Just like you, Bob.

(No, I don't really think Lycomings are lawn mower engines, but I do
think Bob is senile.)

May I achieve Bob's years with his degree of senility. Not an
advanced degree I assure you

Bob status:
curmudgeonly Y (on occasion)
senility N

Cheers,
Sydney

(Jim-Ed Browne) wrote:

It would be exceedingly rare for any pilot with many thousands of
hours experience, like myself, to endorse your warped & cavalier view.

Ever wonder why?

Steve Wittman and Dave Blanton both flew auto engines very
successfully for a lot of hours, both being past middle age when they
started with thousands of flight hours. Steve was killed with his much
younger wife behind a Lycoming-although there's no evidence it was
anything to do with the engine, indeed, it's a mystery to this day-and
Dave died of old age. They were both _experimenters_, but safe and
methodical ones, the kind that made aviation in the first place and
then experimental sport aviation possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You continue to demonstrate a terminal case of dumb ass.
You wouldn't know "safe and methodical" if it bit you in the butt.
Read the current posts and comments about Blanton and Wittman.
Both these guys are classic extremes of how dumb luck can rule!
Blanton survived in spite of himself while Wittman died because of
himself. Where do you fit in? Do you possess the genius of these
two men? If so, you have a 50/50 chance of being a fatality.

When all the smoke clears, only a few of the very best auto
conversions will get within spitting distance of the performance
and reliably offered by Lycoming and Continental on an every
day basis. Home brewed auto conversions have been long on
promise and short on delivery since the Ford Model A engine.
Little has occurred since to warrant greater success for the masses.
Especially, today, when aviation insurances companies are loath to
insure auto conversion power in aircraft. Nothing like negative stats
to put the insurance industry in a tailspin. [Pardon the pun.]

As has been already stated, I am not against auto conversions.....
just jerks like you that promote them so ignorantly, wrong headedly
and cavalierly.


Barnyard BOb - experimental builder/pilot before you were born?