V-8 powered Seabee

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:52:33 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:


After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:22:14 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:52:33 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:


After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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 --

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

I recall Bill Phillips posting a story about test flying an RV (6 I
think) on it's initial flight. Bill agreed to make the flight for the
builder. The builder went with Bill on the flight, if I remember
correctly, although that fact doesn't matter in terms of the story.

The engine was a brand new Lycoming, again, if I remember correctly.

It blew out the front seal of the engine while in flight and emptied
all the oil everywhere, including the windshield.

Bill managed to get it down amidst a rock strewn opening in the
desert, with minimal damage to the airplane and engine.

This was an air cooled engine, he did not have 15 minutes to get it
down.

Corky Scott

PS, I don't see Bruce's post as a "spin" on the subject. Applying a
spin to a story implies twisting the facts to better suit an agenda or
to explain away ill thought through utterances. What Bruce was doing
was showing that yes in fact there had been a sudden and catastrophic
loss of coolant in a Ford powered airplane, after I'd said I did not
know of such an incident. That the engine was not damaged, even after
flying for 15 additional minutes after loosing all it's coolant isn't
"spin". It's what actually happened.

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.
--
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 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.

"Bruce A. Frank" of the no spin zone wrote:

wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No smiley?


Merriam-Webster Dictionary

--- DASTARDLY ---

1 : COWARDLY
2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery


WoW....
You really have lost it, Bruce.



Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Last time I used a "smiley" with you BOb it still took six subsequent
posts to convince you I was joking. Obviously if you are besting me you
are doing something "dastardly." B^)

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

"Bruce A. Frank" of the no spin zone wrote:

wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No smiley?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

--- DASTARDLY ---

1 : COWARDLY
2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery

WoW....
You really have lost it, Bruce.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

--
Bruce A. Frank

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:

Last time I used a "smiley" with you BOb it still took six subsequent
posts to convince you I was joking. Obviously if you are besting me you
are doing something "dastardly." B^)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ONLY SIX?

I'm slipping.


Barnyard BOb - not into counting

Gotcha!

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.

--
Bruce A. Frank

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