RV6A down in Seattle area

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

GM and Toyota engines fail all the time. Only when it happens you just
pull it over to the curb. the statement if reversed.

Maybe it is just luck, but in the last 28 years of driving, I have never had
one of my GM vehicles leave me on the side of the road with an engine
failure.

These are not new babied cars, either. I always drive them to well over 130
thousand.

A had a fuel pump go out and the engine quit dead. In an aircraft, there
would have been a backup pump.

I blew a head gasket one time, but I drove the remaining 10 miles home, no
problem. The same could have been done with an aircraft.

So although there are engine failures on any engine, good PM will go a long
way. I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my GM vehicles. I would put
them beside Lyconentals, anytime.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

So although there are engine failures on any engine, good PM will go a long
way. I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my GM vehicles. I would put
them beside Lyconentals, anytime.

I didn't say GMs were any worse than Lycos and TCMs. I was refuting the
other posters claim that people were dieing left and right because we
weren't using them in aircraft.

My personal history with GM ended in the early '80s. But before than I
owned a 77 Camaro, a 79 Z28 Camaro and a 77 Corvette.

77 Camaro bought used no problem.
79 Z28 was shipped from the factory with no oil rings.
77 Corvette Cam shaft cracked in two.

from the witness statements, it sounds like yet another stall/spin
type of accident. It seems with some homebuilts, there's a lot less
time to react when the engine stops, before a stall occurs. A few
seconds of wondering what to do, and the next thing the plane is
shuddering in a stall. I can see how it can happen, most probably the
pilot is trying to get the engine running and puts flying second to
that. And the higher the performance the homebuilt is, the harder it
seems to get it back on the ground in one piece when the engine goes
away. For most pilots, when the engine quits, he might be better off
not even wasting a moment messing with the engine at all, and instead
just use 100% of his skill to fly the thing to the ground.
Then if there's a lot of altitude, maybe try a few things on the way
down after a landing spot is selected and the speed is under control.
But making that decision almost instantly when the engine quits, that
you are not going to land at an airport and must make a forced landing
is not easy. The homebuilt I fly glides like a brick, and about the
only thing I can do to help it is to pull the prop control all the way
back. Then start looking for a place to put it down, and not far from
where the nose is pointed.

A B C

A - airspeed (best glide speed)
B - best landing field
C - checklist (restart)

And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That would
be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short of
passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds longest
hill...all the time. Sure pal...

Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls than
the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that rotaries are
the next hot ticket item.

Dale Alexander

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

GM and Toyota engines fail all the time. Only when it happens you just
pull it over to the curb. the statement if reversed.

Maybe it is just luck, but in the last 28 years of driving, I have never
had one of my GM vehicles leave me on the side of the road with an engine
failure.

These are not new babied cars, either. I always drive them to well over
130 thousand.

A had a fuel pump go out and the engine quit dead. In an aircraft, there
would have been a backup pump.

I blew a head gasket one time, but I drove the remaining 10 miles home, no
problem. The same could have been done with an aircraft.

So although there are engine failures on any engine, good PM will go a
long way. I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my GM vehicles. I
would put them beside Lyconentals, anytime.
--
Jim in NC

On Feb 19, 9:40*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:30:52 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder

wrote:
No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
manifold with coolant.

Carb ice, fuel starvation, broken throttle control... The list goes on
and on.

Since there's so many RVs, I've been able to run a parallel analysis of RV
accident causes to see how they vary from the general homebuilt causes.

RVs have significantly higher accident rates due to fuel exhaustion, VFR in IFR
conditions, and carburetor icing. *

The first two can probably be mostly explained by the RV's suitability for
cross-country flight; they're more likely to be used for pure transportation
than a Kitfox, etc. and are thus more likely to run out of fuel prematurely or
have the pilot try to push weather. *In fact, the RV rates closely reflect those
of my Cessna 172/210 control group.

I've been told that many RVs don't have conventional muff-type carb heat. *If
so, this could somewhat explain the higher accident rate due to icing.

[Please note that I am writing in general here...I do not have any insight into
specifics of the recent accident.]

Ron Wanttaja

Ron, do you have this stuff up on your web site? If not, it would be a
very valuable addition.

Thanks for your efforts in this regard.

"Dale Alexander" wrote in message
...
And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That
would be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short
of passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds
longest hill...all the time. Sure pal...

Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls
than the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that
rotaries are the next hot ticket item.

Many owners run their V-6 and V-8 engines in boats MORE than 75 percent,
most ALL the time, without problem. As far as recalls go, for my Astro van,
I had one for a plastic part on the brake pedal, one for something about the
throttle position sensor, and I think there was one more not having anything
to do with the engine that was so minor I don't even remember it.

The fuel pump in the tank was replaced the first time at around 160 thousand
miles. Pretty ****ty pump, huh? If your customers followed the maintenance
schedules for replacing fuel filters, perhaps they would get the kind of
service out of them, that I have.

The engine in the Astro has 197 thousand on it, and has never had anything
done to it other than normal wear items, like water pump, alternator, and
sensors. Still uses less than a quarter of a quart of oil per 3 thousand
mile oil change, has good compression and good power output.

By the way, I use mine to haul tools and work trailers, with around 750
pounds of tools, daily. I know it does not run at 75% power output, because
the cops would have me pulled all of the time for speeding. I haul heavy
trailers frequently, with an occasional trailer weighing more than three
tons.

I will concede that GM automatic transmissions are ****. So are most of the
US automatic transmissions, from all of the auto makers, from what I hear.

Say what you will. The GM 4.3 and 5.7 engines are as close to bulletproof
as any engine made ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

If you don't feel that way, fine. It's a free country, here in the US.

I'll jump in a GM powered airplane any day, as long as the PSRU and fuel
system have been properly engineered, and tested. That is the only weak
link, in my opinion.
--
Jim in NC

On Feb 19, 4:10*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Dale Alexander" wrote in message

...

And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That
would be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short
of passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds
longest hill...all the time. Sure pal...

Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls
than the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that
rotaries are the next hot ticket item.

Many owners run their V-6 and V-8 engines in boats MORE than 75 percent,
most ALL the time, without problem. *As far as recalls go, for my Astro van,
I had one for a plastic part on the brake pedal, one for something about the
throttle position sensor, and I think there was one more not having anything
to do with the engine that was so minor I don't even remember it.

The fuel pump in the tank was replaced the first time at around 160 thousand
miles. *Pretty ****ty pump, huh? *If your customers followed the maintenance
schedules for replacing fuel filters, perhaps they would get the kind of
service out of them, that I have.

The engine in the Astro has 197 thousand on it, and has never had anything
done to it other than normal wear items, like water pump, alternator, and
sensors. *Still uses less than a quarter of a quart of oil per 3 thousand
mile oil change, has good compression and good power output.

By the way, I use mine to haul tools and work trailers, with around 750
pounds of tools, daily. *I know it does not run at 75% power output, because
the cops would have me pulled all of the time for speeding. *I haul heavy
trailers frequently, with an occasional trailer weighing more than three
tons.

I will concede that GM automatic transmissions are ****. *So are most of the
US automatic transmissions, from all of the auto makers, from what I hear.

Say what you will. *The GM 4.3 and 5.7 engines are as close to bulletproof
as any engine made ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

If you don't feel that way, fine. *It's a free country, here in the US.

I'll jump in a GM powered airplane any day, as long as the PSRU and fuel
system have been properly engineered, and tested. *That is the only weak
link, in my opinion.
--
Jim in NC

Now you have hurt my feelers.... { :- ((...

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

"Dale Alexander" wrote in message
...
And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That
would be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short
of passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds
longest hill...all the time. Sure pal...

As a matter of fact, a lot of automotive and light truck based engines are
subjected to just that sort of service in marine applications, generators,
etc. They seem to tolerate it quite well in a properly designed
installation.

Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls
than the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that
rotaries are the next hot ticket item.

Dale Alexander

As far as the rotaries go, you seem to have missed that whole sequence by at
least ten years.

Other than the obvious poor fuel efficiency, which was probably no worse
than two-cycle engines, I really can't comment--because I never saw an
installation (or plans for one) with properly designed cooling.

Peter

"stol" wrote

Now you have hurt my feelers.... { :- ((...

OOooops!

I intended to say that the PSRU ((_CAN_ )) be the weak link in an auto
conversion. Cooling, too, but you can generally tell you have a problem
with that, and deal with it without much catastrophic surprise.

From what I have seen from your site, it appears as though the installations
done by you are first class, and should hold up very well. I don't have any
first, second or third hand actual experience with knowing someone who has
used one of yours, though.

I know of at least one of Northwest's (I think that is the name of one of
your companies competing companies) in an acquaintance's airplane, and it
has done very well.

The problems come in when someone gets a bell housing from a 56 Chevy, and
puts some gears in it out of a 79 Ford, with a Dodge spider gear. Who
knows how that will work? Not too good, probably! g

Out of all of the styles of PSRU's out there, I tend to like the design of
the toothed belt setups. It just looks right, I think, and seems to solve a
lot of tricky problems, (like harmonic and torsional vibration) in a simple
way.
--
Jim in NC