V-8 powered Seabee

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:38:23 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:



I am NOT against auto conversions.
I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.

*YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".


Barnyard BOb --

BOb, I think I understand your position , now more than ever. The thing I
don't understand what about this particular conversion you feel falls short
of the mark. It seems they have done their homework, are expecting
realistic power levels of the machine, and have a good start on a number of
hours on it.

So, if you would, spell it out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not critical of what has been done to date.
They have a good start....

There are issues that I would normally pursue,
but I've had enough of "shoot the messenger"
to last me a while. Especially when I watch
John Stricker unable to get to first base with
some good points.

What exactly were those good points? And what's first base? My
impression is that he asked some questions and the people who
engineered the conversion responded with precise answers. Then
somehow the subject got sidetracked to Cadilacs and the Northstar
system, like that had anything to do with Seabee's flying with a Chevy
LS1 engine.

Time to let go until some
jackoff starts flaming Lycoming and
Continental beyond my capacity to resist
once more.

BOb, lest you forget, **I** was the messenger in this case. I posted
the link to the converted Seabee's.

It's a pretty ****ed up world when it's OK to drop the
hammer at will on certified engines with impunity while any
auto conversion that can get airborne gets a free pass.

Barnyard BOb --

What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
and tempermental? BIG grin here

Auto conversions don't get free passes here but they do get discussed.
May I respectfully direct your attention once again to the subject
heading for the group in which you are reading this: Recreational
Aviation Homebuilt.

Corky Scott

John Stricker wrote:

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.

Ahem. I think we can all agree that those "MILLIONS" of Lycoming and
Continental hours were far from "trouble-free".

Russell Kent

Jay wrote:

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

I think you're talking about Ken Welter's old Coot. It burned last year
(Jun 2002 IIRC). Ken has since completed a 4-place Coot, although it is
currently single-engine Wankel-only.

Ken Welter wrote on 13-Mar-2002:

Yes I have here is a photo of my twin pack that will go on the 4
place coot that I am starting to build, I installed this pack on my
present coot and tested it for 11 hrs and was a bit heavy for it but
should work on the bigger one, the front engine is a 670 Rotax
snowmobile engine that puts out 125 hp but there is no reason that it
should not work with two rotary's however part of the design to stop
resonant vibration is to run two very different rpm's so you would
run two different gear ratios and I would suggest running a 12a and a
13b, the spag clutches that I used were made by SSK and sold by Morse.


Russell Kent

CORRECTION: the quote from Ken was written 13-Mar-2003.

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Jay wrote:

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

I think you're talking about Ken Welter's old Coot. It burned last year
(Jun 2002 IIRC). Ken has since completed a 4-place Coot, although it is
currently single-engine Wankel-only.

Ken Welter wrote on 13-Mar-2003:

Yes I have here is a photo of my twin pack that will go on the 4
place coot that I am starting to build, I installed this pack on my
present coot and tested it for 11 hrs and was a bit heavy for it but
should work on the bigger one, the front engine is a 670 Rotax
snowmobile engine that puts out 125 hp but there is no reason that it
should not work with two rotary's however part of the design to stop
resonant vibration is to run two very different rpm's so you would
run two different gear ratios and I would suggest running a 12a and a
13b, the spag clutches that I used were made by SSK and sold by Morse.

Russell Kent

What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
and tempermental? BIG grin here

Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does the BIG grin imply that you do not believe this?
Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
I no longer care what you think or do.

Plonk.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


What, it's not ok to question that certified aircraft engines have
seen the zenith of their development and are anachronistic, overpriced
and tempermental? BIG grin here

Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does the BIG grin imply that you do not believe this?
Matters not. We've been at our impasse far too long.
I no longer care what you think or do.

Plonk.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

BOb Urban, I_am_hurt! You mean after years of gratuitous insults and
nearly automatic acerbic comments to me, you leave the field?

And here I thought your lack of personal attacks against me lately
were a sign that at last I was gaining your respect because so many
auto coversions had been successful lately.

I guess not.

Corky (who wants my tattered battle flag) Scott

PS, you mean you think that certified aircraft engines AREN'T
anachronistic, overpriced and tempermental? Lordy, I thought that was
something everyone could agree on.

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

here on occasion... and then move on to wherever
real experimentation takes place. They know that
alternative engines are simply that and nothing more
or less. Precious time is not wasted with non productive
****ing on Lycoming or Continental to bolster fragile egos
and images.


Old aero engines never die they just slowly fade away.:-) Wish there
were more of them around - here in Ireland - and they didn't cost as
much, "Hey Mister", Gimmey two of them
things...................................
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place



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

Corky,

Here's my problem with the Bull****.

I have a '98 Buick Riviera. It has a series 2 3800 supercharged GM engine
in it. This series is one of the most popular in terms of units on the
road, most highly refined, and most reliable engines in the US today. They
just rarely break.

I've put (or my wife has) 123,000 miles on the car. In that time, I've had
to replace one set of plug wires, two accessory drive belt idlers, one set
of spark plugs, and 2 fuel filters. Figuring an average speed of about 65
mph, that's about 1900 hours, more or less.

I consider that to be remarkably reliable. I do NOT consider that to be
trouble free. Parts broke and parts needed to be replaced.

You may claim those were maintenance items yet you consider it a negative if
a mag needs replacing on a Lycoming, which is also a maintenance item. It
reminds me of Clare claiming a weak spot of the Northstar was that threads
got pulled from an aluminum block when ANY aluminum threaded casting can
suffer the same fate.

When I read that these guys have three engines out there, with an
accumulated 1100+ hours on them and they have been "trouble-free", the
Bull**** flag flies high.

Have they been reliable? I suppose, or they wouldn't be happy with them. So
why not just state the facts? Why not say that after 300 hours, we had a
coil failure on one cylinder (something that happens on the LS6 with
remarkable regularity). Why not just say that they had a few problems
getting the cooling system bled. Why not just present the facts without the
hyperbole?

I don't know if they had any of the problems I mentioned, I haven't gotten a
response to the email I sent one of the guys. But I *DO* know that they did
not do three experimental conversions on two different engines on those
SeaBees and after they bolted them up, closed the cowls, started them up and
flew away into the sunset, never having to put a wrench on them again.

I know that for a fact and so do you, so instead of claiming they've been
"trouble free", why not just present what problems they experienced, however
minor, as a caveat to those wanting to follow in their footsteps?

Do you want to know why, Corky? I'll tell you. They want to sell their
conversions. Like all manufacturers, they want to sell the good points and
gloss over the bad. I don't blame them for that, it's the way of life.
Just quit peeing down my neck while you're telling me its raining.

John Stricker



"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

BOb, this is what I don't understand: No one, to my knowledge, is
saying anything other than that alternative engines are just that,
alternatives.

Why you persist in smearing any and all discussion or examples is a
mystery to me. If this group were titled something other than
Recreational Aviation Homebuilt, perhaps you'd have a valid argument,
but it's not. Experimental homebuilders have been using auto
conversions pretty much from the very beginning of the homebuilt
movement. There is no technical reason why a modified auto engine
can't or shouldn't be used as a replacement for a certified aircraft
engine. The proof is in the many examples that are flying. Have
there been bumps in the road? Sure. But does this mean that we
should all just give up? Are you really advocating that?

Not sure what you mean by the "real deals" who link up here and then
move on, can you give an example?

And as to the "BULL**** RULEZ", the subject heading refers to a V-8
conversion for a Seabee. It's a flying example of a successfull
conversion and now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. Exactly
what is bull**** about that?

Corky Scott

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:


Know why they call him "barnyard" Bob?
Cause he's both a S**t disturber, and full of S**t.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clare...
I thought you were above this sort of cheap s**t.
Shame, shame, shame on you.

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.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:15:44 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:


I know that for a fact and so do you, so instead of claiming they've been
"trouble free", why not just present what problems they experienced, however
minor, as a caveat to those wanting to follow in their footsteps?

Do you want to know why, Corky? I'll tell you. They want to sell their
conversions. Like all manufacturers, they want to sell the good points and
gloss over the bad. I don't blame them for that, it's the way of life.
Just quit peeing down my neck while you're telling me its raining.

John Stricker

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.

I do know that many have seen them flying.

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

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.

Corky Scott