V-8 powered Seabee

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote I sincerely and most humbly
apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

Eric

"Corky Scott" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote:

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
in both instances noticed them.

The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
pilot's attention.

When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.

When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.

Corky Scott

I wasn't implying that a catastrophic coolant failure was a likely event,
but rather that this was an unlikely PR angle.

Eric

Eric Miller wrote:

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote I sincerely and most humbly
apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

There has been one incident where there was a sudden and complete loss
of coolant. The builder had capped an unused hose connection on the
block by folding a short length of heater hose in half and hose clamping
everything in place. Though the engine's head gaskets had not been set
up as recommended the plane had more than 800 hours on the meter. The
builder had no problems to this point because of his procedure of fully
bring the engine to temp before requiring take off power. This day he
neglected his own warm up rules and took off before full saturation. The
head gasket blew pressuring the coolant system. The pressure peak blew
the clamped hose plug and instantly emptied the coolant from the engine.

After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.

This incident is the only instantaneous loss of coolant of which I am
aware. Point is that sudden loss of coolant does not suddenly stop the
engines power making capability ....as would loss of fuel or loss of oil
in this or any other engine.

Corky Scott wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

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

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
in both instances noticed them.

The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
pilot's attention.

When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.

When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.

Corky Scott

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:52:33 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:


After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.


Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:22:14 -0600, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:52:33 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:


After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

I recall Bill Phillips posting a story about test flying an RV (6 I
think) on it's initial flight. Bill agreed to make the flight for the
builder. The builder went with Bill on the flight, if I remember
correctly, although that fact doesn't matter in terms of the story.

The engine was a brand new Lycoming, again, if I remember correctly.

It blew out the front seal of the engine while in flight and emptied
all the oil everywhere, including the windshield.

Bill managed to get it down amidst a rock strewn opening in the
desert, with minimal damage to the airplane and engine.

This was an air cooled engine, he did not have 15 minutes to get it
down.

Corky Scott

PS, I don't see Bruce's post as a "spin" on the subject. Applying a
spin to a story implies twisting the facts to better suit an agenda or
to explain away ill thought through utterances. What Bruce was doing
was showing that yes in fact there had been a sudden and catastrophic
loss of coolant in a Ford powered airplane, after I'd said I did not
know of such an incident. That the engine was not damaged, even after
flying for 15 additional minutes after loosing all it's coolant isn't
"spin". It's what actually happened.

"Russell Kent" wrote in message
...
Eric Miller wrote:
I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...aintpraise.asp
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faint

Eric

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

N.B. the above should read "feint praise"

feint:
(n.) 1. a false show; sham 2. a pretended blow or attack intended to
take the opponent off his guard, as in boxing or warfare
(vi., vt.) 1. to delivery such a blow or attack

This message is intended to educate, not mock or degrade.

Russell Kent

The correct expression and spelling is "faint praise"; the praise isn't
false (a feint) it's weak (faint).
Notice that faint is an adjective while feint is not.

Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Could this be characterized as...

1. A battle of nits by wits
2. Vice versa
3, or, who cares about wit nits
4. or, vice versa g


Barnyard BOb -- phaking a phaint pheint

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:38:20 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:



Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

And my counterpoint is....
If this was an AIRCOOLED powered aircraft,
the failure could not possibly happen.

Keep on spinning away...
with talk of minimal damage, etcetera --
but, far too many times aircraft are totaled
and occupants do not walk away when
forced to land off airport. And sadly, when
it comes to landing on highways, they tend to
take their share of traffic innocents with them.

Barnyard BOb -- KISS - keeping it simple, stoopid

Yep, you are correct, BOb. Lycomings and Continentals never fail and of
the infinitesimal small number that might, no one will ever even get
hurt. This wasn't a point/counter point discussion. I was clarifying a
fact for Corky. I would hate to leave out a piece of information so that
you might say I was "spinning" the facts. A sin(spin?)of omission. Oh,
wait, you say I am spinning the facts now! Obviously you are still
besting me at every turn. How dastardly of you. Maybe one of these days
I'll consider this "fight" worth some indulgence of my time. But for now
I'll leave others the pleasure and just "spin" a few facts once in a
while.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If your remarks are for Corky... send him a private email.
Otherwise, your remarks here are fair game for one and all.

IF you and Corky ever ACTUALLY FLY your conversions.....
maybe your FACTS? will take on a more realistic perspective.
So far, you vocal RAH conversion advocates are ALL TALK
and NO WALK. ALL HAT. NO CATTLE. You guys point to what
you believe are 'successes' defined by some 'shoot from the hip'
criteria. MOSTLY what I see is...BULL****, so the flags go up.
If this is "BESTING" you, so be it. I make no apologies.

Worth YOUR indulgence?
Pardon me all to hell, your majesty.
While you and Corky just talk, talk, talk....
I continue to walk my walk - just like I have for 50 flight years.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you never INDULGE me, again?

When you two scare the **** out of yourselves sufficiently,
AND YOU WILL, I believe you may 'indulge' me...
....IF you survive your follies and your egos.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight.