[seattle smitty]

Mr. non-offended A&P Garage-Sweeper Harsay . . . glad you have a sense of humor!! I take your point about the inadvisability of some of us ambitious amateurs flying over innocent neighborhoods with engines built to satisfy Detroit bean-counters. As crude as the approved engines are, at least they are relatively SIMPLE, and they are not fastened with Chinese bolts and studs, and they were designed specifically for aircraft use, and they get looked at by professionals like you on a regular basis. And I strongly concur that car guys shouldn't imagine that they are going to show the airplane guys the error of their ways, end of story.

However, I'm not sold on the idea that air-cooled engines are always the best answer for aircraft, and evidently Lyc and Continental don't think so either, since they draft new designs for liquid-cooled engines from time to time (which are dropped when THEIR bean-counters run the numbers).

My opinion is that there is a big enough knowledge base among auto engine builders and racers to identify likely candidates (NOT Ford V-6's) for aero conversion, and enough good parts (ARP fasteners, Carillo rods, etc.) to build acceptably reliable machinery. Real airplane engines cost far too much for recreational flying, as do brand new factory airplanes. Homebuilding takes flying back to the fun aspect of its early, experimental years, but with all the modern technical advantages, and it makes hobby-flying cheap enough that you can justify the expense, if you cross your fingers behind your back . . . .

Besides, all those flat-fours SOUND so danged ugly and monotonous!!

I was looking into buying the middle of a Bakeng Deuce project, but don't know if it will pan out. Bushplanes have always been a favorite, and if I don't do the Deuce, a Christavia Mk4 with a stroker Rover looks good. I'm watching the aero-diesel thread, but suspect that initial purchase price would overwhelm any later savings in fuel costs.