"K. Smith" wrote in message
...


but at the end you'll see that 7000 chucked
unemployed, 1.3 bil of pensioners money,

You might want to read up about George Soros (who plundered OMC) and how he
"changed" the OMC pension system before bankrupting the company, just prior
to being indicted by the French government for messing around with their
banking system. Now is using his own money to influence the US election. He
gets around.

"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

Lean mixtures at power make unreliable engines ...


At what rated power setting are you talking about? 50%, 75%

Bill Grannis
service manager

..

Billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...


but at the end you'll see that 7000 chucked

unemployed, 1.3 bil of pensioners money,


You might want to read up about George Soros (who plundered OMC) and how he
"changed" the OMC pension system before bankrupting the company, just prior
to being indicted by the French government for messing around with their
banking system. Now is using his own money to influence the US election. He
gets around.



Is that it Bill?? that's your technical rejoinder?? hmm

Soros (apologies got his name wrong earlier) is in cahoots with the
union pension funds, it was their money he tried to prop (little pun
there) OMC up with, but the money regardless of it's source was spent
trying to make Ficht work & despite 1.3 bil it didn't.

Bomb have some proper engineers (aircraft, 2 stroke rotax etc) who
actually understand this stuff & must have had a pup when they actually
looked at what Bomb had brought home from the fire sale this time:-) at
any price it was a disaster & they rightly chucked it so they could stem
the bleeding.

Lean mixtures at power make unreliable engines all the big
manufacturers know it, any mixtures not properly atomised will lead to
unreliability, again look at all the big manufacturers & the trouble
they go to to get proper atomisation "before" the charge is in the
chamber, add lean mixtures & poor atomisation together & it seems a
failure rate of 1 in 5 can result.

Your well polished VRO style of keep saying "it's all fixed now" but
then you don't give any details, seeing it was your head of camp that
gave the 1 in 5 number it now falls on you who wants to again market
this crap, you have to explain exactly what caused the 1 in 5 & what has
been done to fix it & what is the expected failure rate now, 1 in 10??
still way too high.

In the past you've blamed all & everything; oil, piston manufacturer,
the tooth fairy but never ever confronted the reality that during the
whole Ficht debacle you were merrily selling the carbed OMC OBs, same
power, same basic components, yet they were about as reliable as any
prior OMC engine fitted with VRO. It wasn't the oil, it wasn't the
pistons, Soros didn't have any technical say, it was always the Ficht
DFI, the low injection pressures (it never was hundreds of PSI that was
a lie but even if true it was never going to be enough) which gave poor
atomisation which meant pockets of the charge were too rich & others too
lean = detonation under power, the design trying to fudge it past the
EPA with super lean mixtures (your mob claimed 40-1!!! & your claimed
fuel savings at low speed when calculated out confirm!!! despite you
trying to recant when you finally realised what an admisssion it was) it
all means any real power in HP/ltr terms when lean will lead to
detonation & it does.

Blaming soros!!!:-) what for being conned by a bunch of union grease
monkey amateurs???:-) I do like it though you're inventive with the
dealer excuses & spam, pity you can't turn that to the engines:-)

K

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:48:27 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote:



We clearly disagree on this. I've read the references as you have I'll
put a few links in case anyone else would like to have a look & as
always a technical discussion would be great;

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main...ngEngines.html

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:i...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main...erLeaning.html



......and if there is anybody that really cares, here is a more recent
service publication that essentially refutes the "Lycoming Flyer
Reprints" era publications.... The Lycoming Flyer was a sorta annual
chatty newsletter published from 1964 until 1980 with four issues
published since, in 1991 and 1992.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...ps/SSP700A.pdf

With this latter service publication, Lycoming has returned to their
original position, that lean of peak is fine as long as the engine is
"managed."

Bear in mind that this technology doesn't compare well with the
discussion at hand. Getting off the "flame Fitch" bandwagon, lean
burn technology requires vigilant human intervention or computer
control. Modern Lycoming aeronautical reciprocating engine technology
employs neither.

A modern lean burn engine is computer controlled and water cooled.

A new Lycoming aircraft engine is 1930's technology:
-is air cooled
-has fixed timing, regardless of RPM, load, etc.
-has a manually variable mixture setting (the pilot can screw up fuel
management royally)
-has a true throttle and not a demand lever as employed by computer
controlled technology
-may be "lugged" or overstressed by improper propeller setting
-is carbureted (updraft, possibly side draft) or fuel injected using a
mechanical metering device
-burns a boutique grade of fuel
-redlines at 2700 RPM and, at that speed, is considered a high
performance engine.

K, if you'd like to debate Lycoming aircraft engines, I'd be happy to
in a forum more applicable and appropriate. I don't know what you
know about Lycoming, but I live within driving distance of the
Lycoming Corporate Headquarters and have been through the Lycoming
factory school and toured the manufacturing and assembly plant on
more than one occasion. Wrench in hand, I touch at least one Lycoming
engine every day. Knowing what I know about these engines, I know
that comparing them to modern lean burn outboard engines is truly
comparing apples and oranges.

Using this data as a basis for argument mere perpetuates a flawed,
demonstrably inaccurate, and unproductive argument.

Please enter the 21st Century....

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.

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

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.

Just for the record one of the links I gave you was to the same
"experts are everywhere" page.

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.

K

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



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?

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


Ms. Smith obviously is mentally unbalanced, but this is not news. I've
never had a relationship with Evinrude or Johnson or OMC or its
successors. My father had a long relationship with OMC as a dealer, but
that ended in the mid-1960s, when he dumped Evinrude for Mercury. As an
adult, I've never even owned an Evinrude or Johnson outboard.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that one or more of the labor unions
whose members once worked for OMC owned stock in the company. Nothing
unusual about that.

It's your call, Gene, but I'd be wary of "engaging" Ms. Smith in
anything other that a dismissive way. She's a mentally unbalanced pit viper.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

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

"K. Smith" wrote in message
...
Billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...


but at the end you'll see that 7000 chucked

unemployed, 1.3 bil of pensioners money,


You might want to read up about George Soros (who plundered OMC)
and how he
"changed" the OMC pension system before bankrupting the company,
just prior
to being indicted by the French government for messing around with
their
banking system. Now is using his own money to influence the US
election. He
gets around.



Is that it Bill?? that's your technical rejoinder?? hmm

Soros (apologies got his name wrong earlier) is in cahoots with the
union pension funds, it was their money he tried to prop (little pun
there) OMC up with, but the money regardless of it's source was spent
trying to make Ficht work & despite 1.3 bil it didn't.

Soros, Harry's buddy, didn't get conned by anyone, and it wasn't trying
to prop up anyone. He made his first bundle attacking the brit pound.
Maybe he is short the dollar and that is why he wants bush out? He
tried to take cost out by outsourcing to the lowest bidder is my guess.
You can get parts cheap if they don't have to work.

del