V-8 powered Seabee

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
et...
"Bruce A. Frank" wrote in message
...
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.

Bruce, you too cavalierly ignore the dangers of water cooling due to the
presence of large volumes of Di-Hydrogen Monoxide!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

=D

Eric



You need ethylene glycol with that H2O, half and half. I have absolutely
no argument against flying with a liquid-cooled engine. P-40's with
Allisons, P-51's with Packards, Dick Rutan, and Chris Heintz proved they are
safe. Heintz lost his coolant over Lake Michigan and still made it to
Oshkosh, flying behind a Rotax 912.

You can have the advantage of closer tolerances when you cool with liquid.

I flew behind an 1800cc EA-81 Soob engine with Gates Kevlar Belt redrive 10
or so hours without a burp. Several people flew that airplane, a J-6
Karatoo, a total of over 100 hours before the owner sold the powerplant and
installed a VW engine -- a mistake.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:43:00 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

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!

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.

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.

I'm not going to mince any more words over this.
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


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who
wrote:


Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa...

No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, I can't top this.
Color me gone. bfg


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

Gee, is that a PROMISE, or just an empty threat??

Whew! Glad that's over with.

You know who wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:43:00 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

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!

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.

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.

I'm not going to mince any more words over this.
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

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.|

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?