If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:23:15 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote: No one is accusing anyone of having their head in the sand, but given the millions of hours Lycoming and Continental have been flown and tracked over the years, any backyard data base by a couple of conversion enthusiasts is insignificant and quite suspect in the scheme of things. The FAA and the AD system far exceeds anything you or Bruce can begin to track regarding auto conversion world faux pas. My sincere apologies if I implied that you accused anyone of having their heads in the sand. That was intended as my reference to myself and anyone else who would rather charge ahead with a project without first ascertaining what, if anything, has gone before and where the failure modes are. That just seemed logical to me. Further... The Ford engine is but one conversion and not a popular one. Whatever its record is, or can be... it ain't good enough for the majority of folks interested in converting auto engines today. As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity. It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals? I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still be heavier. Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base, if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot. Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight. The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that. But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one time too, back when they were first introduced. There isn't anything inherently wrong with the concept of using an auto conversion. An engine is an engine as long is it's run within it's design parameters. But you can't just bolt a prop to Mom's salvaged grocery shuttle V-6 and expect it to work like an IO-360-L2A. The devil is in the details. That's why the subject keeps being discussed, that's why Bruce and others persist in printing newsletters, a thankless task by the way. People need to know the latest information. Corky Scott |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my project. Del Rawlins- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You're ready for a better teacher. Her name is ... EXPERIENCE. I hope she doesn't kill you. The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be alright. Del Rawlins- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Really? Who are you listening to in Alaska that would prefer to bet their lives on auto conversions in the middle of rugged Alaska wilderness? Barnyard BOb -- |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
As far as I'm concerned, you Ford guys are riding a dead horse and the Chevy boyz fall out of the sky with alarming alacrity. It isn't dead to me. The parts are still available and the only reason I'm using it is because so many are flying. The concept that we're "riding a dead horse" is interesting. If that's the case then what does that say about the Lycoming/Continentals? If form still follows function.... Lycoming and Continental are definitely here to stay. The economics of this small industry makes it very likely. One thing for sure, no shade tree artists are going to put them out of business. Further, when diesels become economically viable, look for Lycoming and Continental to lead the pack. I'd rather be using a Chevy, only because there are more aftermarket parts available for it, but it's heavier than the Ford, unless you buy an aluminum block. And then the cost is prohibitive and it may still be heavier. It still belongs in a car, if form still follows function. Feel all warm and fuzzy with your minuscule knowledge/data base, if you must. Your Ford defense is a hoot.... and moot. Barnyard BOb -- 51 years of flight. The Database is small compared to Lycosaurs, no question about that. But the database for them (Lycosaurs) was exceedingly small at one time too, back when they were first introduced. Corky Scott Are you kidding yourself? How can your database grow past more than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market? Barnyard BOb -- |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb wrote in message How can your database grow past more
than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market? I dunno BOb- Take a look at this little jewel. It just begs to be in an airplane like a Mooney Mite. http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/to...dex.html#2cddi D. (stirring the pot) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb wrote in message How can your database grow past more than a few hundred units with Chevy having most of the action and Soob, etcetera taking the rest of the interested market? I dunno BOb- Take a look at this little jewel. It just begs to be in an airplane like a Mooney Mite. http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/to...dex.html#2cddi D. (stirring the pot) ++++++++++++++++++++++ Nah... You're not stirring my pot until you put some money in it. g Remember... Money talks. Bull**** walks. Barnyard BOb -- |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb wrote in message You're not stirring my pot
until you put some money in it. g Problem is that 50 hp isn't enough. I need 450 hp with a max of 2 lbs/hp for my VTOL. D. (reality is over-rated) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Sep 2003 02:55 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:
One thing for sure, no shade tree artists are going to put them out of business. Further, when diesels become economically viable, look for Lycoming and Continental to lead the pack. When diesels become widely available, Lycoming and Continental will very likely continue much as they are right now, selling a few (relatively speaking) new engines each year as replacements and new engines for homebuilders/manufacturers, and selling parts to support their existing engines. The availability of diesels won't immediately reduce the need for support for existing engine designs. My personal conspiracy theory on the subject is that after winning the NASA grants to develop a diesel engine, Continental made enough progress on it to fulfill their oblications for taking the money. In doing that, they accomplished mainly 2 things. They were able to give their R&D people valuable practice on developing a totally new engine with other people's money, and they kept anybody else from getting that development money. It was worth doing even if they never sell a single one, which would likely only eat into their existing market. Assuming the engine is any good, they will only bring it out when forced to by competition from other diesel manufacturers. Contrary to what other people have spouted, diesel engines aren't going to revitalize the GA market and lead to increased production, so they would just be attacking their own core market. What diesel engines will do is give us a better powerplant for the same money. Due to the small market this is taking some time. As far as Lycomings go, they seem to have had too much trouble in recent years building their existing designs (i.e. O-540 crankshaft AD) to be considered a threat to whoever brings out the first commercially successful diesels. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Sep 2003 02:09 PM, Barnyard BOb -- posted the following:
The more I learn about the lyconts the less I want to use one on my project. Del Rawlins- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You're ready for a better teacher. Her name is ... EXPERIENCE. I hope she doesn't kill you. The experience of others seems to suggest that no matter what engine I choose, so long as I keep it supplied with fuel I will likely be alright. Del Rawlins- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Really? Who are you listening to in Alaska that would prefer to bet their lives on auto conversions in the middle of rugged Alaska wilderness? A large percentage of those accidents which do not involve weather seem to be related to an overabundance of air in the fuel lines, which was the basis of my statement. I guess my point is, that there are enough things that can go wrong that I'm less concerned with whether my engine was originally installed in a car or an airplane, than I am with how well it is installed in *my* airplane. I'm more worried about whether the wind blowing up the Copper is going to slow me enough to jeopardize my fuel supply for getting home (why I am installing extra tanks), getting caught in some other nasty weather that came up suddenly like it does here, getting CO poisoning from that muffler that cracked since the last annual, or zigging when I should have zagged landing on some remote strip. I'm a lot more afraid of stupid pilot/mechanic tricks than I am of a PSRU, automotive ignition, or whatever other system you choose to criticize on any given day. In the Alaskan wilderness you will not find many homebuilts period, and therefore few auto conversions, although the number of homebuilts is starting to increase. The reality is, most airplanes here are working airplanes and that requires a standard C of A. Actually for a private airplane I think that auto conversions make a lot of sense up here from the standpoint of being able to get parts in some of the more remote communities, and better tolerance for the crappy fuel that is sometimes the only thing available in the bush. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb wrote in message You're not stirring my pot until you put some money in it. g Problem is that 50 hp isn't enough. I need 450 hp with a max of 2 lbs/hp for my VTOL. D. (reality is over-rated) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reduce the weight. Have you considered an ultra lightweight piston engine constructed of unobtainium? Barnyard BOb -- |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message ... Barnyard BOb wrote in message You're not stirring my pot D. (reality is over-rated) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reduce the weight. Have you considered an ultra lightweight piston engine constructed of unobtainium? The problems they've had with those engines, what you save on the very lightweight engines that result, you spend ten time over keeping the thing on the ground. See, you have to keep the engine running at full power with the prop in negative pitch all day just to stop "it" from taking off by itself. When it runs out of fuel, you've lot it, either the engine breaks loose or the whole lot simply floats away...............................BS. -- .. -- Cheers, Jonathan Lowe whatever at antispam dot net No email address given because of spam. Antispam trap in place Barnyard BOb -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's the best auto gas for a/c use in California? | [email protected] | Home Built | 12 | September 17th 03 08:47 PM |
Fuel pressure Problems | smf | Home Built | 3 | September 7th 03 08:25 PM |
Christen Fuel Pump troubleshooting | ShawnD2112 | Aerobatics | 4 | August 17th 03 12:08 PM |
Barnyard--- Auto engines | Jerry Springer | Home Built | 10 | August 8th 03 06:38 PM |
Question ~ Does fuel injection add weight? | Barnyard BOb -- | Home Built | 0 | July 6th 03 09:47 PM |