Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:54:27 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote:



So now you say big super lazy Lycomings can't run lean what at
output/ltr about the same as a 60s VW beetle, yet you want to support
these Ficht idiots who try to do it in 2 strokes no less with absolutely
no piston cooling whatsoever!!! plus outputs up over 70Hp/ltr.



You obviously still don't get it. Lycomings aren't super lazy.... they are
developing a LOT of horsepower per cubic inch per RPM.... and they have nothing
in common with VW engines other than the method of cooling.

You keep agreeing with me Gene!!! but like most mechanics you just
can't look past what you've been told. As I said you'll need to read,
understand then actually think to get this. The aeros "are" big lazy
engines & it's their lack of revs, (read less heat, less firings per
minute, less everything ala VW beetle) that I'm pointing out to you even
they, with direct air cooling, oil cooling & oil cooled pistons have
difficulty running even very very slightly lean (when compared to the
40-1 mix claimed by Ficht) so why couldn't you at least consider running
a 2 stroke lean at power then suddenly increasing power to max & full
rich to be an issue?? I guess if you saw it in a dreamer's magazine
you'd be OK:-) Come on Gene you can do this!!! for once stop being a
runner with the herd, actually try to be the intellect you always hoped
& pretended you would be, I'll even guide you over the bumpy bits:-)



I've joined the 21st century Gene as did the 7000 chucked from OMC
during the biggest ever consumer recreational spending spree.



There have been thousands of jobs lost in the United States and exported to
countries, such as yours, because people are willing to work for pennies on the
dollar. You can *expect* jobs and companies to follow the 2nd and 3rd world
economies since it reduces overhead and improves the profit margin.

Nobody "moved" the OMC nor Bomb jobs to 3rd world countries Gene,
helped along by the unions those jobs no longer exist!!! your union can
bleat all it likes they have gone forever because even during the
biggest recreational spend of all time Ficht managed to bankrupt one of
the biggest recreational manufacturers; who couldn't survive even though
they were charging more for a glorified chainsaw motor than most others
charge for a medium sized car, you know Gene wheels, design/crash
testing, airbags, seats even:-)


I've already posted that Ficht was a technology that single handedly nearly
bankrupted the company and was foisted on the boating public before it was
finished. Not an unusual ploy, and one used by many companies used to screw the
consumer and to pass development costs directly to early purchasers of the
product. Not moral, perhaps, but as many believe, business is business.

What part of...... not ready.... nearly bankrupted...... screw the
consumer..... did you not understand?

The part where you keep saying it works & even can work.


I don't have to say it doesn't work because that's beyond doubt now, I
do have to maintain what we've been telling the NG since early 98 the
exact reasons "why" it wouldn't work then & now why it actually didn't work.



Then Ficht technology has failed and is no longer for sale. Right? Even one
successful engine disproves your theory..... ever heard of one? Oh, first, ever
had any classes at University on logic?

4 out of 5 don't fail according to their own figures that isn't a
successful technology in any manner, even if 9 out of 10 survive it
still fails.


Be aware Gene the reason liar Harry supported Ficht was that his mob
were funding it!!! the union pension funds & the dealers saw me as
detracting from sales when all they were really interested in was
ripping recreational boaters off, which they did & to some extent
deserve what they got.



(1) What the hell has Harry got to do with this and (2) are you adhering to some
bizarre conspiracy theory between you and the dealers and pension funds
holder(s)? If I check with a local Ficht dealer, will they know you by name?
The local Union?

Depends on who you check with :-)

I'm merely pointing out that you & the dealers are doing it all over
again the same mindless claims & trust in what you've been "told", that
it's all fixed now, it isn't because nobody has even admitted nor it
seems understood what the original problem is.

I can assure you Gene if anyone could actually run engines lean enough
to matter economy & EPAwise at power & have them remain reliable the big
people, GM, Ford, Daimler, Bosch would be there in a flash, instead we
get this constant stream of idiots burning gullible investors futures;
all the while making claims as if it's all easy & obvious (read the
articles even Lycoming have the same idiots making claims about the aero
engines), when it's not easy it's very tricky stuff.

It's the same with burning fuel in a chamber for rockets, it looks
simple but ..... when you ignite a very volatile fuel in a closed
chamber to create a significant pressure rise in that chamber you have
to keep many balls in the air at once.

It won't work this time despite the name change:-) because they're
still running extremely lean at low revs & the engine can see in "some"
circumstances significant load while still in lean mode. Till they admit
this is the root cause of the debacle & then explain just how they've
dealt with it, then it's a dead end technology.


??? "the union pension funds & the dealers saw me as detracting from sales "???
You're kidding, right? I hope.....

Well the dealers here including Bill called me some choice names, went
completely crazy at one stage, because I was saying don't buy this it
will fail & yes Gene before it had actually failed. If you have
references that predate late 97 early 98 I'd love to see them.

K