V-8 powered Seabee

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:00:13 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

FWIW --
I embrace "Barnyard BOb" because of the low collective
animalistic behavior that the RAH BARNYARD exhibits from time
to time. Your vitriolic fomenting exhibition here proves the point
far too sadly. Begone with the rest of the auto conversion loons.
You too, have begun to serve your cause quite poorly. Future
rants from you will be filtered out.

Barnyard BOb --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog....
and George Carlin humor.


BOb, it's really a shame you feel that way. It becomes a kind of self
fullfilling proficy: You expect the worst of people and darned if you
don't get it.

Is that really why you reply to so many people in so caustic a manner?

I've maintained for a long time that the disturbingly acidic responses
that we see in this group so often are causing many people to stay
away. These are people who could contribute in many ways, if the
atmosphere here were more encouraging.

Corky Scott

I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
they ran into.

My point exactly. This was a very large project. You know it and I know
it. They had to hand build the first PSRU. They had to have a custom
wiring harness made. They had to use a non-stock memcal. They had to fab
dozens, if not hundreds, of brackets, mounts, controls and so on.

IIRC, you used to be a mechanic in a Soob dealership. In your entire
mechanical experience, can you EVER envision a project of that magnitude
truly being "trouble-free"? I've been in on a lot of projects much less
involved than that, and I can't envision it. Things you never thought of,
that never occurred to you, come up and bite you in the butt at places you
never envisioned. That's my point. I do not believe that any project like
this can be trouble free. Can it be successful? Yes, depending on your
criteria. But not trouble free.

I do know that many have seen them flying.

That fact alone is not enough to convince me that it's trouble free, or even
successful. Many BD's flew with the Hirth, and that was neither. Mini
500's flew stock as Dennis sent them out, were they successful (or trouble
free)?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the "peeing down your neck while
saying it's raining" analogy. What does that mean?

Then I'll explain it. Don't tell me one thing when you and I both know it's
another.

I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Appearances can be deceiving and sometimes things can be as they appear.
Anytime something is presented as ALL positive with NONE of the negatives
displayed, as in this case, my bull**** flag goes up.

John Stricker

I only put the URL for the website up for those interested in the
conversion. It appears to be successfull. That's all I'm saying.

Appearances can be deceiving and sometimes things can be as they appear.
Anytime something is presented as ALL positive with NONE of the negatives
displayed, as in this case, my bull**** flag goes up.

John Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. g


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. g

I expect that a large percentage of "quiet" rah readers have
sufficiently accurate BS flags. They simply choose to not get
involved. Such involvement seems even more pointless when one
considers that a number of auto-conversion proponents here have yet to
even build and fly an auto-conversion. One of them has repeatedly
demonstrated technical ignorance on fundamental engine issues. When
such people have walked the walk for a while, then perhaps more people
will pay attention to their pro auto-conversion arguments. Until
then, I expect many people are just "clicking through" and rolling
their eyes.

David "clicking through" O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:54 -0600, "John Stricker"
wrote:

I don't know what problems they had or continue to have, nothing has
been printed, published, alluded to or rumoured in regards any trouble
they ran into.

My point exactly. This was a very large project. You know it and I know
it. They had to hand build the first PSRU. They had to have a custom
wiring harness made. They had to use a non-stock memcal. They had to fab
dozens, if not hundreds, of brackets, mounts, controls and so on.

IIRC, you used to be a mechanic in a Soob dealership. In your entire
mechanical experience, can you EVER envision a project of that magnitude
truly being "trouble-free"? I've been in on a lot of projects much less
involved than that, and I can't envision it. Things you never thought of,
that never occurred to you, come up and bite you in the butt at places you
never envisioned. That's my point. I do not believe that any project like
this can be trouble free. Can it be successful? Yes, depending on your
criteria. But not trouble free.

I'd expect that there might be changes made, configurations tried and
possibly modified, all prior to the extended test period. If they
encountered cooling problems during the initial rigging phase, I'd
assume that they would make the necessary changes and then continue
with the testing.

It's a fairly basic setup, the engine is not running at full capacity
so it is not overstressed. The ignition and fuel injection are
operating within normal parameters. The only unknowns are the PSRU
and cooling. The cooling is obvious and if inadaquate, will make that
fact known immediately. The airplanes are flying wherever and
whenever they want to so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that
cooling appears adaquate.

That leaves just the PSRU as an unknown (to me). They now have over
800 hours on the initial airplane. That's not a lifetime but it's
sure not bad for starters.

It seems all auto conversions have a built in conundrum: None of them
have enough hours to satisfy those who feel auto conversions are
risky. Yet the only way to build those hours is to continue to fly
them. But flying them draws the ire of those who say they are unsafe.

What to do?

How long must auto conversions fly to fly to prove their viability?
500 hours? 1000 hours? 1500 hours? Were the original Lycomings and
Continentals tested for that long? Should all experimenting stop
because some appear inadaquately thought through or improperly
assembled? Or should we learn from the failures of those who tried
ahead of us? In other words, should we seek solutions to known
problems, or give up?

Corky Scott

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

If others would only set their 'bull**** flags' in like manner,
I could kick back and enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance....
at least until all the frauds and wannabees were minimized. g

I expect that a large percentage of "quiet" rah readers have
sufficiently accurate BS flags. They simply choose to not get
involved. Such involvement seems even more pointless when one
considers that a number of auto-conversion proponents here have yet to
even build and fly an auto-conversion.

I would very much expect your expectation to be spot on.
I wuz using a bit of 'drama' above. g

For all my BS'ing here, I don't underestimate the 'silent majority'.

The wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot
at the microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even
if it is pointless. If that is the worst I do here, I'm in good shape!
However, 'tis my aim to reduce some of my more 'colorful' antics,
but no one should hold their breath. g

One of them has repeatedly
demonstrated technical ignorance on fundamental engine issues. When
such people have walked the walk for a while, then perhaps more people
will pay attention to their pro auto-conversion arguments. Until
then, I expect many people are just "clicking through" and rolling
their eyes.

David "clicking through" O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

Just "clicking through"?


Barnyard BOb - feel free to roll you eyes

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:49:53 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

For all my BS'ing here, I don't underestimate the 'silent majority'.

The wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot
at the microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even
if it is pointless. If that is the worst I do here, I'm in good shape!
However, 'tis my aim to reduce some of my more 'colorful' antics,
but no one should hold their breath. g

Just "clicking through"?


Barnyard BOb - feel free to roll you eyes

The "wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks" would include such
poseurs as Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema, Ray Geschwender, Bernie
Pietenpol, Ray Ward, Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
Camp. Some of the afore mentioned people designed auto conversions,
some designed entire airplanes, but all of the flew behind auto
conversions at one time or another. You might recognize a couple of
the names.

Corky (rolling my eyes) Scott

The wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks deserve a shot
at the microphone.... but I'll not give them a free pass, even
if it is pointless. If that is the worst I do here, I'm in good shape!
However, 'tis my aim to reduce some of my more 'colorful' antics,
but no one should hold their breath. g

Just "clicking through"?


Barnyard BOb - feel free to roll you eyes

The "wannabees, fruits, flakes and fringe folks" would include such
poseurs as Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema, Ray Geschwender, Bernie
Pietenpol, Ray Ward, Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
Camp. Some of the afore mentioned people designed auto conversions,
some designed entire airplanes, but all of the flew behind auto
conversions at one time or another. You might recognize a couple of
the names.

Corky (rolling my eyes) Scott
=====================================

Enough of your brand of distortion, Corky.
Cease twisting my words to your agenda.

I do not consider Steve Wittman, Roger Mellema,
Ray Geschwender, Bernie Pietenpol, Ray Ward,
Jerry Schweitzer and the Reverend Ron Van der
Camp in YOUR class of activity. FAR from it, sir.
SO...quit flattering yourself right now !!!!!

In conclusion...
It appears impossible for you to comprehend where
I stand on auto conversions given your incredulous
level of naivete and other factors. You are about the
most clueless dood in RAH to accurately represent,
interpret or depict my true position. PLEEZ, spin no
more on my behalf. You only embarrass yourself.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

What's this "we" crap?

I've been very clear in the past many years I've been on this group that if
I had $150,000, a year, and an engine dyno, I'd build an auto conversion
that was turnkey and reliable. That $$$ would include testing at least 3 or
4 to engine destruction. THAT'S how you find out what's weak and what's
not.

Herein lies the rub.

I would have no problems whatsoever with the flying Corkymobile as long as
whatever information he presented was factual, full, and complete.
Successes AND failures.

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to know
how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.

I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

I don't want to be flying and suddenly find that there's a cooling issue, or
a heat related failing issue on the ignition or electronics, or an oiling
issue on climbout only to call the people and have them tell me (as I've
heard so many times before with so many products) "Gee, nobody's EVER had
that problem before". Then, when you ask around with people that do have
that product, they say "yep, I've been through 3 of those Frizzens on the
Fratzit in the last year".

I want disclosure on how things go bad, not just how they work Corky,
because they might go bad while I'm at 150' on takeoff with trees 1300'
ahead. I want to decide what risk level I'm taking, I don't want others to
decide it for me. If I don't know what problems they've had, I can't make
an informed decision.

Again, this might be the best conversion since sliced bread. They surely
portray it as such. But they don't give enough information to decide that
on the website and my email has gone curiously unanswered.

Do they only respond to supporters and not people with critical questions?
I think that Bull**** flag just went up a little higher.

John Stricker

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
Should all experimenting stop
because some appear inadaquately thought through or improperly
assembled? Or should we learn from the failures of those who tried
ahead of us? In other words, should we seek solutions to known
problems, or give up?

Corky Scott

John Stricker wrote:

If I'm going to by into something like an auto conversion, I want to know
how it's failed in the past JUST LIKE I KNOW HOW THE LYCOMINGS AND
CONTINENTALS HAVE FAILED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.

I hope I didn't scare you with my shouting. 8-)

Not me, anyway, but I have an honest question: Do major
GA engine manufacturers make data on failures *in development*
available to the public? Can we see test-to-failure data
on the new engines Lycoming, Superior, Mattituck, etc.
are putting out for homebuilts? Where?

Seems to me what an auto conversion needs is a 'sugar daddy'
to put up big $$$ to fund develompent and testing testing testing.
I'm not holding my breath.

Dave 'enquiring mind' Hyde