funny

David Hill wrote:


Lemme see, yep, I though so, it says it right there at the top:
rec.aviation.homebuilt.

What's the point of having this forum, if for not sharing serious info
and advice? On conversions or any other facet of homebuilding? Did I
miss something? Is this a private party? An entertainment center for
surly curmudgeons?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David,
You claim to have left four years ago because you didn't
like what was going on here and... first shot back, you
loudly whined about the number of Zoom posts. Here
you are whining about me. IMO, you are a control freak
and cannot be pleased unless in charge.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
as you exit for another four years, OK?

Bye-bye.


Barnyard BOb --

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:20:56 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
.. .

Anywhoooo --
As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.



Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
working on putting a Mazda in his plane.


Bob Reed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I like Mazda engines.
I even have one in my Mazda car.


Barnyard BOb --
*******************************

Go ahead. But................
g
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"BUT" ........ WHAT? g


Banrnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
snip
2 If you want to show some respect as a noble gesture, do it.
If your intention is to meter the amount, cut me off now.

Not a problem. I'm not the noble gesture type, so if you want no
respect, it's yours.

3. Either way, I'm gonna continue to do what I've been doing
way before you showed up here to set your righteous path.

That is abundantly clear to anyone who spends more than a day or two here.

snip Seems there is a small number of newbies here that just
gotta pick at every generality that I utter at every turn.

Not exactly a newby, just gone for four years, mainly because of the
extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. This time around I'm working on
filtering the noise.

You'll never see the forest fer the trees that a way.

Whatever. I do tend to take people at their word, until they show me I
shouldn't, and I do assume people here actually wish to communicate,
rather than just chat to make noise. Obviously, for some people this is
only entertainment.

Have fun.

And I'll let you know when I get that Harley motor flying. :-)

Be sure to lemme know when you scare the crap out
yourself as well.... and the number of times per flying hour.
I'd like to keep stats on how many off field landings you
must endure before you get your head right. g

If you're still around, I'll be sure to do that. g

--
David Hill, curly surmudgeon
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote
I like Mazda engines.
I even have one in my Mazda car.


Barnyard BOb --
*******************************

Go ahead. But................
g
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"BUT" ........ WHAT? g


Banrnyard BOb --
**************************
Someone call EMS. BOb has gone brain dead. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Anywhoooo --
As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.



Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
working on putting a Mazda in his plane.


Bob Reed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Geez, Bob.

The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.

Who here has built and is currently piling up hours in
their own homemade auto conversion - RIGHT NOW.
Anybody besides Mr. Graham?
Of those that are flying auto conversions...
How many have been able to acquire liability insurance?
No way will I fly without it.
I like keeping the assets I've worked a lifetime to own.

If I was to do an auto conversion.....
I most definitely would stuff the NEW Mazda rotary
into my number two RV3.

This would not take a whole lot of doing on my part
since much of the pioneering work is already done.
Liability insurance might be do-able too, since I've
got lotsa' hours total time and a bunch in RV-3's.

Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.

On 06 Oct 2003 17:47:18 GMT, osite (RobertR237) wrote:

Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
working on putting a Mazda in his plane.

Actually, there were two engines that Paul had no objection to, as far as
aircraft conversions: The Mazda and the VW.

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Barnyard BOb --
writes:


Geez, Bob.

The guys who are successfully flying auto conversions,
as we speak, are where? Here in RAH? I know of ONE.
All I get is **** from the wannabees.. projecting their brand of
warm fuzziest and what they are gonad do or finish SOME DAY.


There might be one or two others but I am not sure. I seem to recall a couple
posting from time to time.

Who here has built and is currently piling up hours in
their own homemade auto conversion - RIGHT NOW.
Anybody besides Mr. Graham?
Of those that are flying auto conversions...
How many have been able to acquire liability insurance?
No way will I fly without it.
I like keeping the assets I've worked a lifetime to own.


Now you are finally getting around to giving the answers that the poster of the
question needs. Reasons for or against which are based on sound logic.


If I was to do an auto conversion.....
I most definitely would stuff the NEW Mazda rotary
into my number two RV3.


How about the new one announced with their latest sports car?

This would not take a whole lot of doing on my part
since much of the pioneering work is already done.
Liability insurance might be do-able too, since I've
got lotsa' hours total time and a bunch in RV-3's.

Barnyard BOb -- Lamar look alike? Hmmmm.




:-)))))))


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , Barnyard BOb --
writes:

As I see it, those that are hellbent on installing auto conversions
are usually the least equipped to succeed for myriad reasons.
If I ruffle their feathers... **** 'em. They are lost souls anyway.
Poking at them is a measure of entertainment before they fade away.



Now you are starting to sound like Paul Lamar did years ago...who is now
working on putting a Mazda in his plane.


Bob Reed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I like Mazda engines.
I even have one in my Mazda car.


Barnyard BOb --




GEEEEEEE You are getting old if that is the only rise out of you for saying you
sounded like Paul Lamar...I would have thought the ground would have shook.

BFG

I also believe the Mazda would be a good choice but not for the inexperienced.
My whole point is that auto engines can be successfully adapted for aircraft
use, not just the Mazda, IF you know what you are doing. I don't believe it
will be significantly cheaper and that is proven by the cost of the many
conversion engines on the market. It should also not be done by anyone that
doesn't have the knowledge to do the maintenance on the engine, anytime and
anywhere.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:03:10 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Jerry Springer wrote:

Oh boy I want to get the popcorn out and sit back and watch this one. :-)

It would be a lot more exciting if the anti- auto engine folks had
something substantial to say, instead of just pointing at crashes that
were caused by fuel system, prop, etc., and trying to blame them on the
auto engine.

Well...remember, you aren't just installing an auto engine on an airplane.
You are installing an auto-based powerplant *system*. Any problems with
system changes that are necessary to install the auto engine should be
lumped in with the problems relative to the engine.

Take my airplane, for instance...a Bowers Fly Baby, built by someone else.
It has a dead-stock Continental C-85 powerplant system. System, not merely
an engine. Everything forward of the firewall could be unbolted and
transferred directly to a typical high-wing Piper. Heck, I think
everything FWF on my plane but the duct tape is right from the Piper parts
book. :-)

I have considered, when contemplating the awful prospect of my Continental
giving up the ghost someday (hopefully leaving the airframe and its pilot
intact in the process), that I might install a Subaru conversion. If I do,
it will more than likely require a near-total reworking of the firewall
forward area of my plane.

From the point I next holler, "Clear," nearly *any* power-loss problem has
to be attributed to the auto-engine conversion. Whether it's a failure in
the actual engine or not. If a fuel line chafes and starts a leak, it's
because of the conversion (after all, the certified fuel lines connected to
my Continental haven't chafed). If an engine mount cracks, it's because of
the conversion (my Continental's mount hasn't broken). If I use the
existing throttle cable and the cable breaks, it's because of the
conversion...it may be a stock aircraft part, but it didn't break until
there was a non-aircraft part attached to the other end.

Yes, the case mentioned sounded more like builder error than anything;
dialing in the wrong amount of propeller pitch. But if the guy had used an
aircraft engine, there's a ton of history that could have been used to
select the right pitch for the engine and airframe.

Builder error on either engine or aircraft kills pilots. But when a known
standard is used, there's less chance of making a mistake. I can wander
two hangars down and see another C-85 installation if I have any questions.

I have nothing against people experimenting with auto engines on
aircraft...heck, I'm rooting for Corky and Bruce. But they understand what
they're up against. They know it's not just a simple matter of bolting on
new hardware...that new hardware is going to vibrate differently and react
to stresses differently. Bruce's newsletter helps spread the word, telling
people where they might expect problems.

Who's telling me what kind of problems to expect? All the people who had
problems with Continentals and/or Piper installations since about 1935.
Nicely documented by the FAA.

If someone has worked with engines for a while and wants to try one on an
airplane, that's great. But if someone has never done much more than
change plugs or swap out a carburetor, I worry whether they have the right
background to detect and solve problems before they cause harm.

The solution for them are the firewall forward packages. But there is
still that pesky interface with the airframe that they have to solve.
And...well, those FWF packages ain't a whole lot cheaper than a good used
Lycoming or Continental.

I fully confess, I ain't an engine guy. Personally, all I want is a lot of
flame- and fume-free propwash blowing back in my face when I shove the
black knob forward. My Continental fills the bill.

Yes, there's the potential that it might hit me hard in the wallet. It
hasn't yet...had to replace an exhaust valve to the tune of $350, but I at
least provided all the cylinder remove/reinstall labor myself. But if
worst comes to worst, I can probably get a rebuilt C-85 for less than
$5,000, and it'll still be the Continental *system* that has served me so
well.

But I agree, this is the place to discuss these sorts of trades.

Ron Wanttaja

Nah,
Might lead to real discussion!

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Ben Haas wrote:
This will be good !!!!!!! Bob might blow a head gasket on this one. g
Bart D. Hull" wrote in message om...

Bob,

I'm just not happy with the old injection systems, ignition systems and starting
issues with the Lycs. If I throw all those away, I just have a old air-cooled
long block anyways. A big question I see is what IF they do away with 100LL and
replace it with 82UL? What then for those old Lyc's and Conts'? I know its a
vague threat by those environmentalist types but what if they manage it?

I do understand your comments about tried and true but at one time they were
"cutting edge" as well, right? In your 50 years of flying you must have had a
time that you thought, "Man the old XXXXX engine (or plane) was a piece of ****
I'm glad I'm flying a XXXXXXX now."

I think its time to bring airplane engines and their systems up to more modern
and reliable levels. I don't mean more complicated, but things have come a long
way since air cooled, low compression, twin valve per cylinder, pushrod engine.

Yes, it's more work than just installing a Lyc, it will require more effort to
work out the bugs (as on any new engine install.) and I'll need to provide the
technical support myself. (better than trusting my life to something I'm not
intimately familiar with.)

Too many think of a auto-conversion as a "cheap" engine, I don't see it this way
if you plan to have a successful conversion. No pinto distributors, old Holley
two barrels, used fuel tank pumps, standard EFI boxes on my engine. Even a
turbo for altitude equalization not a "Rice Boy" HP until it blows installation.

The Honda-Lyc will be very similar to a auto-conversion as is the Bombardier
V-6. Both have serious investments to bring them up to date. I am watching them
carefully to follow the millions of bucks they are spending to learn how to
build a reliable new generation engine package that pilots will trust.

Would you put a Honda-Lyc or a Bombardier V-6 (200 or 300 HP) on your 2nd RV-3?

And yes I take "junior" as a complement as I'm quite the youngster at 35 years
of age. As far as youthful foolishness, we all do it some time in our life and
yet most of us make it to a ripe old age.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

"Bart D. Hull" wrote:



Bob,

You seem to be a grumpy old man "armchair builder". Any pics of planes you have
personally built?


Guilty of all of the above and much more.
Check Ron Wanttaja's site for pix.

I have a second RV-3 project in the garage that needs FWF.
It may or may not get finished. Depends if one of my sons cares
to take an interest in flying it. The RV-3 I fly now keeps me
satisfied and quite busy several hundred hours a year.
Bass fishing takes up a lot of my retired life as well.

In case you don't know...
Some guys are born to build and others born to fly.
You may place me in the latter group at this point.
No question that I'm on the downhill side of things,
but chances are damn good I can show you a thing
or two about building, flying and surviving.



Or just stories?


Got plenty of them, too, but....

What have you got that would impress someone
that has survived 50 flight years of mistakes made
by myself and my generation of aviation comrades?

I have a very rich flying history.
If you want to turn a deaf ear and repeat much of my
youthful foolishness for yourself, be my guest. Maybe you
will be lucky enough not to kill yourself, too. OTOH.....



I do find it interesting the Honda has designed and is testing a
4 cyl water-cooled aircraft engine for Lycoming to produce. Would that be
classed an auto engine by you as well?


Don't **** with me, junior.
I don't suffer fools well, as you already know.



Some do, others just bitch.


I was "doing" before your mommy learned
about contraceptives and abortion.


Barnyard BOb --