V-8 powered Seabee

"John Stricker" wrote:

Unk,

I can be convincing. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
with bull****. Hey, I got you to buy that Buick!! I rest my case.

John "running as fast as I fricking can now...." Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BULL**** RULEZ... is the motto of the
lunatic fringe of auto conversion Wannabees
that absolutely thrive on it here in RAH.

From what I have observed, The "real deals" link up
here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
real experimentation takes place. They know that
alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
and images.


Barnyard BOb --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:19:14 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


"John Stricker" wrote:

Unk,

I can be convincing. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
with bull****. Hey, I got you to buy that Buick!! I rest my case.

John "running as fast as I fricking can now...." Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BULL**** RULEZ... is the motto of the
lunatic fringe of auto conversion Wannabees
that absolutely thrive on it here in RAH.

From what I have observed, The "real deals" link up
here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
real experimentation takes place. They know that
alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
and images.


Barnyard BOb --

BOb, this is what I don't understand: No one, to my knowledge, is
saying anything other than that alternative engines are just that,
alternatives.

Why you persist in smearing any and all discussion or examples is a
mystery to me. If this group were titled something other than
Recreational Aviation Homebuilt, perhaps you'd have a valid argument,
but it's not. Experimental homebuilders have been using auto
conversions pretty much from the very beginning of the homebuilt
movement. There is no technical reason why a modified auto engine
can't or shouldn't be used as a replacement for a certified aircraft
engine. The proof is in the many examples that are flying. Have
there been bumps in the road? Sure. But does this mean that we
should all just give up? Are you really advocating that?

Not sure what you mean by the "real deals" who link up here and then
move on, can you give an example?

And as to the "BULL**** RULEZ", the subject heading refers to a V-8
conversion for a Seabee. It's a flying example of a successfull
conversion and now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. Exactly
what is bull**** about that?

Corky Scott

Corky,

Here's my problem with the Bull****.

I have a '98 Buick Riviera. It has a series 2 3800 supercharged GM engine
in it. This series is one of the most popular in terms of units on the
road, most highly refined, and most reliable engines in the US today. They
just rarely break.

I've put (or my wife has) 123,000 miles on the car. In that time, I've had
to replace one set of plug wires, two accessory drive belt idlers, one set
of spark plugs, and 2 fuel filters. Figuring an average speed of about 65
mph, that's about 1900 hours, more or less.

I consider that to be remarkably reliable. I do NOT consider that to be
trouble free. Parts broke and parts needed to be replaced.

You may claim those were maintenance items yet you consider it a negative if
a mag needs replacing on a Lycoming, which is also a maintenance item. It
reminds me of Clare claiming a weak spot of the Northstar was that threads
got pulled from an aluminum block when ANY aluminum threaded casting can
suffer the same fate.

When I read that these guys have three engines out there, with an
accumulated 1100+ hours on them and they have been "trouble-free", the
Bull**** flag flies high.

Have they been reliable? I suppose, or they wouldn't be happy with them. So
why not just state the facts? Why not say that after 300 hours, we had a
coil failure on one cylinder (something that happens on the LS6 with
remarkable regularity). Why not just say that they had a few problems
getting the cooling system bled. Why not just present the facts without the
hyperbole?

I don't know if they had any of the problems I mentioned, I haven't gotten a
response to the email I sent one of the guys. But I *DO* know that they did
not do three experimental conversions on two different engines on those
SeaBees and after they bolted them up, closed the cowls, started them up and
flew away into the sunset, never having to put a wrench on them again.

I know that for a fact and so do you, so instead of claiming they've been
"trouble free", why not just present what problems they experienced, however
minor, as a caveat to those wanting to follow in their footsteps?

Do you want to know why, Corky? I'll tell you. They want to sell their
conversions. Like all manufacturers, they want to sell the good points and
gloss over the bad. I don't blame them for that, it's the way of life.
Just quit peeing down my neck while you're telling me its raining.

John Stricker



"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

BOb, this is what I don't understand: No one, to my knowledge, is
saying anything other than that alternative engines are just that,
alternatives.

Why you persist in smearing any and all discussion or examples is a
mystery to me. If this group were titled something other than
Recreational Aviation Homebuilt, perhaps you'd have a valid argument,
but it's not. Experimental homebuilders have been using auto
conversions pretty much from the very beginning of the homebuilt
movement. There is no technical reason why a modified auto engine
can't or shouldn't be used as a replacement for a certified aircraft
engine. The proof is in the many examples that are flying. Have
there been bumps in the road? Sure. But does this mean that we
should all just give up? Are you really advocating that?

Not sure what you mean by the "real deals" who link up here and then
move on, can you give an example?

And as to the "BULL**** RULEZ", the subject heading refers to a V-8
conversion for a Seabee. It's a flying example of a successfull
conversion and now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. Exactly
what is bull**** about that?

Corky Scott

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:15:44 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:


I know that for a fact and so do you, so instead of claiming they've been
"trouble free", why not just present what problems they experienced, however
minor, as a caveat to those wanting to follow in their footsteps?

Do you want to know why, Corky? I'll tell you. They want to sell their
conversions. Like all manufacturers, they want to sell the good points and
gloss over the bad. I don't blame them for that, it's the way of life.
Just quit peeing down my neck while you're telling me its raining.

John Stricker

I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
they ran into.

I do know that many have seen them flying.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the "peeing down your neck while
saying it's raining" analogy. What does that mean?

I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Corky Scott

I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
they ran into.

My point exactly. This was a very large project. You know it and I know
it. They had to hand build the first PSRU. They had to have a custom
wiring harness made. They had to use a non-stock memcal. They had to fab
dozens, if not hundreds, of brackets, mounts, controls and so on.

IIRC, you used to be a mechanic in a Soob dealership. In your entire
mechanical experience, can you EVER envision a project of that magnitude
truly being "trouble-free"? I've been in on a lot of projects much less
involved than that, and I can't envision it. Things you never thought of,
that never occurred to you, come up and bite you in the butt at places you
never envisioned. That's my point. I do not believe that any project like
this can be trouble free. Can it be successful? Yes, depending on your
criteria. But not trouble free.

I do know that many have seen them flying.

That fact alone is not enough to convince me that it's trouble free, or even
successful. Many BD's flew with the Hirth, and that was neither. Mini
500's flew stock as Dennis sent them out, were they successful (or trouble
free)?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the "peeing down your neck while
saying it's raining" analogy. What does that mean?

Then I'll explain it. Don't tell me one thing when you and I both know it's
another.

I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Appearances can be deceiving and sometimes things can be as they appear.
Anytime something is presented as ALL positive with NONE of the negatives
displayed, as in this case, my bull**** flag goes up.

John Stricker

I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Appearances can be deceiving and sometimes things can be as they appear.
Anytime something is presented as ALL positive with NONE of the negatives
displayed, as in this case, my bull**** flag goes up.

John Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. g


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. g

I expect that a large percentage of "quiet" rah readers have
sufficiently accurate BS flags. They simply choose to not get
involved. Such involvement seems even more pointless when one
considers that a number of auto-conversion proponents here have yet to
even build and fly an auto-conversion. One of them has repeatedly
demonstrated technical ignorance on fundamental engine issues. When
such people have walked the walk for a while, then perhaps more people
will pay attention to their pro auto-conversion arguments. Until
then, I expect many people are just "clicking through" and rolling
their eyes.

David "clicking through" O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:54 -0600, "John Stricker"
wrote:

I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
they ran into.

My point exactly. This was a very large project. You know it and I know
it. They had to hand build the first PSRU. They had to have a custom
wiring harness made. They had to use a non-stock memcal. They had to fab
dozens, if not hundreds, of brackets, mounts, controls and so on.

IIRC, you used to be a mechanic in a Soob dealership. In your entire
mechanical experience, can you EVER envision a project of that magnitude
truly being "trouble-free"? I've been in on a lot of projects much less
involved than that, and I can't envision it. Things you never thought of,
that never occurred to you, come up and bite you in the butt at places you
never envisioned. That's my point. I do not believe that any project like
this can be trouble free. Can it be successful? Yes, depending on your
criteria. But not trouble free.

I'd expect that there might be changes made, configurations tried and
possibly modified, all prior to the extended test period. If they
encountered cooling problems during the initial rigging phase, I'd
assume that they would make the necessary changes and then continue
with the testing.

It's a fairly basic setup, the engine is not running at full capacity
so it is not overstressed. The ignition and fuel injection are
operating within normal parameters. The only unknowns are the PSRU
and cooling. The cooling is obvious and if inadaquate, will make that
fact known immediately. The airplanes are flying wherever and
whenever they want to so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that
cooling appears adaquate.

That leaves just the PSRU as an unknown (to me). They now have over
800 hours on the initial airplane. That's not a lifetime but it's
sure not bad for starters.

It seems all auto conversions have a built in conundrum: None of them
have enough hours to satisfy those who feel auto conversions are
risky. Yet the only way to build those hours is to continue to fly
them. But flying them draws the ire of those who say they are unsafe.

What to do?

How long must auto conversions fly to fly to prove their viability?
500 hours? 1000 hours? 1500 hours? Were the original Lycomings and
Continentals tested for that long? Should all experimenting stop
because some appear inadaquately thought through or improperly
assembled? Or should we learn from the failures of those who tried
ahead of us? In other words, should we seek solutions to known
problems, or give up?

Corky Scott

What's this "we" crap?

I've been very clear in the past many years I've been on this group that if
I had $150,000, a year, and an engine dyno, I'd build an auto conversion
that was turnkey and reliable. That $$$ would include testing at least 3 or
4 to engine destruction. THAT'S how you find out what's weak and what's
not.

Herein lies the rub.

I would have no problems whatsoever with the flying Corkymobile as long as
whatever information he presented was factual, full, and complete.
Successes AND failures.

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to know
how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.

I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

I don't want to be flying and suddenly find that there's a cooling issue, or
a heat related failing issue on the ignition or electronics, or an oiling
issue on climbout only to call the people and have them tell me (as I've
heard so many times before with so many products) "Gee, nobody's EVER had
that problem before". Then, when you ask around with people that do have
that product, they say "yep, I've been through 3 of those Frizzens on the
Fratzit in the last year".

I want disclosure on how things go bad, not just how they work Corky,
because they might go bad while I'm at 150' on takeoff with trees 1300'
ahead. I want to decide what risk level I'm taking, I don't want others to
decide it for me. If I don't know what problems they've had, I can't make
an informed decision.

Again, this might be the best conversion since sliced bread. They surely
portray it as such. But they don't give enough information to decide that
on the website and my email has gone curiously unanswered.

Do they only respond to supporters and not people with critical questions?
I think that Bull**** flag just went up a little higher.

John Stricker

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
Should all experimenting stop
because some appear inadaquately thought through or improperly
assembled? Or should we learn from the failures of those who tried
ahead of us? In other words, should we seek solutions to known
problems, or give up?

Corky Scott

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

here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
real experimentation takes place. They know that
alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
and images.


Old aero engines never die they just slowly fade away.:-) Wish there
were more of them around - here in Ireland - and they didn't cost as
much, "Hey Mister", Gimmey two of them
things...................................
--

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



Barnyard BOb --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.