V-8 powered Seabee

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:26:44 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:



Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.

IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.

Worth YOUR indulgence?
Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?

When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
...IF you survive your follies and your egos.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.

BOb, you continually amaze me. What's the problem with citing those
who have flown prior to Bruce and me? Aren't you continually
demanding that we prove the viability of the auto conversion by
listing how many have flown and for how many hours?

Does the fate of the auto conversion rest soley on the shoulders of
Bruce and me? You cannot look at the success of others as
confirmation that if one does the job correctly, one can successfully
fly behind an auto conversion?

I'm afraid if you wait for me, it will be several years yet. I have a
long way to go before I'm ready to fly and will not be bullied into
rushing.

Corky Scott

Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
Drew Dalgleish

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
Drew Dalgleish

Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!

Corky Scott

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:


And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Flying is an especially unforgiving activity. No one alive is more
keenly aware that Lycoming and Continental have yet to produce
the perfect piston engine. Once again you miss the point and insult
me with your bias, naivete, arrogance, inexperience and verbal
gymnastics.

It is not from a lack of concentrated, concerted and systematic
efforts over the last 50 years that the perfect aircraft engine has
not been born of the aircraft engine industry. However, for you to
continue denying or inferring that these certified engines and their
marvelous records do not currently blow away anything you are
producing in your backyard is to deny reality and is the epitome
of arrogance and "dastardly" in its own right.

If you want to experiment with auto conversions
and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.

LET ME REPEAT....
If you want to experiment with auto conversions
and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

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!

I have nothing against Lycomings or Continentals other than the very
high cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance. And unlike many, I
actually understand why those prices are so high and destined to never
change. 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.
Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will
eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of
certified types. Rantings and personal attacks from some bring about a
shut down of the necessary public information exchange on the subject.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Flying is an especially unforgiving activity. No one alive is more
keenly aware that Lycoming and Continental have yet to produce
the perfect piston engine. Once again you miss the point and insult
me with your bias, naivete, arrogance, inexperience and verbal
gymnastics.

It is not from a lack of concentrated, concerted and systematic
efforts over the last 50 years that the perfect aircraft engine has
not been born of the aircraft engine industry. However, for you to
continue denying or inferring that these certified engines and their
marvelous records do not currently blow away anything you are
producing in your backyard is to deny reality and is the epitome
of arrogance and "dastardly" in its own right.

If you want to experiment with auto conversions
and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.

LET ME REPEAT....
If you want to experiment with auto conversions
and do it without any lip from me..... IT'S EASY!!!!
Cease your dastardly propaganda concerning certified engines.
By definition, certified engines have PROVEN to be the least risk
to life and limb. No amount of spin can change this. Period.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I sincerely and most humbly apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote I sincerely and most humbly
apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

Eric

Eric Miller wrote:

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote I sincerely and most humbly
apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

"Russell Kent" wrote in message
...
Eric Miller wrote:
I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...aintpraise.asp
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faint

Eric

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.

Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Could this be characterized as...

1. A battle of nits by wits
2. Vice versa
3, or, who cares about wit nits
4. or, vice versa g


Barnyard BOb -- phaking a phaint pheint