V-8 powered Seabee

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

John Stricker wrote:

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-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
I'm not holding my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde

Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification division
sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the point,
though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

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-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
I'm not holding my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde

John Stricker wrote:

These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

Dave,

Now you're parsing words, sort of. You can put a certified, new from
Lycoming engine in a homebuilt. Vans sells them all the time. You're
right, though, that once it's in there it's no longer certified in that
aircraft. That's not the point.

The point is that part of that cost is what's left of original R&D as well
as ongoing development of the engine. A lot of it is also maintaining the
standards of parts, assembly, and QA that's required to make it a certified
engine, regardless of whether or not it's certified in that airframe. That
costs money and infers a certain standard of testing and reliability, even
though we all know that machines can and do break at any time. I'll take
the odds on a certified engine over an auto conversion any time.

I didn't infer that a website should be all the research one should do. It
is often the FIRST source of information for those on the list and when it
shows such a one sided view, then your "caveat surfer" tag is definitely in
order.

John Stricker

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

These conversions AREN'T certified.

No engine installed in a homebuilt is.

Am I reading you correctly? Has the rule changed? I remember 25 hours
fly-off time on a certified engine in a new experimental and 40 in an
experimental aircraft with a non-certified engine. If the certified engine
later comes out of the experimental, as long as it has been maintained as a
certified engine, it can go back into a certified aircraft, right? But if
you do something to the engine to cause it to lose its certification, like
using non-approved parts, you must remove the data plate.

Back to the FARs.


In effect WE are the certifying entity and as such the
responsibility falls on us and we can't make that decision
with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

I agree absolutely. I also realize and accept that
the developer is hardly an impartial observer and
is likely to sugar-coat their results. I'd never
buy an airplane or an engine (certificated or otherwise)
without digging deeper than a website. I'll never be
the first to buy or fly.

Dave 'caveat surfer' Hyde

Lycoming-powered RV-4

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:59 -0600, John Stricker wrote:

Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the
point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
problems are found and fixed.


"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

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-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major GA engine
manufacturers make data on failures *in development* available to the
public? Can we see test-to-failure data on the new engines Lycoming,
Superior, Mattituck, etc. are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy' to put up
big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing. I'm not holding
my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde


--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

Kevin Horton wrote:


Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's the
point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
problems are found and fixed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Picking nits are we? g


Barnyard BOb --

That's a valid point. Let's say we have a couple of early versions break
crankshafts. The cranks are changed, or maybe the balance is changed and
all appears to be well. The article is submitted with test results for
certification. It is certified. A couple dozen are placed into service.
Crankshafts start breaking.

Think the FAA will have any problems getting those pre-presentation test
results? Not if that manufacturer ever wants to sell anything as certified
again, they won't.

Certified Manufacturers are that way and charge what they do for a reason.
That reason IS the certification. If it was easy to be certified, their
SeaBee conversion would be certified, but it's not an easy thing to do or
maintain.

John Stricker

"Kevin Horton" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:59 -0600, John Stricker wrote:

Dave,

Can we? I don't know if FOI covers that, but the FAA certification
division sure can. And they have the failure reports on file. That's
the
point, though. These conversions AREN'T certified. In effect WE are
the
certifying entity and as such the responsibility falls on us and we
can't
make that decision with glossed over reports of "trouble-free" service.

John Stricker

If the failures happen during development, and they make design changes to
address the failure before they present the engine to the FAA for type
certification, then the FAA may very well not have anything on file. The
FAA makes a very big point about not getting out the microscope until they
are presented a test article that conforms to the type design. The
definition of the type design evolves during the development process as
problems are found and fixed.


"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

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-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major GA engine
manufacturers make data on failures *in development* available to the
public? Can we see test-to-failure data on the new engines Lycoming,
Superior, Mattituck, etc. are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy' to put up
big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing. I'm not
holding
my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde


--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com