V-8 powered Seabee

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of
Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the
conversion.

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:15:26 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:


I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of
Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the
conversion.

The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or currently
supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this engine running;
I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto piston rings for use
in the 165 Franklin.

According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-B8F.
The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-C1R. Don't
know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite possible that they're
totally different engines.

However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.
He is still around, isn't he? Not that I can tell.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:32:47 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.

Well, like I always say, it depends on what your mission goals are... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.
He is still around, isn't he? Not that I can tell.

--
David Hill

Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David who?


Barnyard BOb --

On 22 Oct 2003 05:31 AM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:

The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or
currently supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this
engine running; I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto
piston rings for use in the 165 Franklin.

According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-
B8F. The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-
C1R. Don't know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite
possible that they're totally different engines.

However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to
replace the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less
work than it took to convert the Chevy....

Even support for the "current" models is sketchy at the moment. One of
the instructors at the A&P school here in Anchorage has the 220hp
Franklin in his 172, and can't get the parts he needs to get it working
again (he has a cracked case, on a 2nd or 3rd run engine) or even a
complete new engine. He's been trying since at least April or May with
no success so far. Something to do with the factory in Poland having
found more lucrative things to build.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Corky

Remember the messenger always gets shot )

Big John

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.

All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
fails.

Read all about it at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
type I'm using now in the model.

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

On 22 Oct 2003 17:57:02 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.

All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
fails.

Read all about it at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
type I'm using now in the model.

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?

Corky Scott

Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?

Corky Scott

Ya, thats how the nose got so long. That part is easy with the
modeling software. I'm a little concerned because the design will
have a very large moment of inertia in pitch and yaw, which on one
hand will make it stable, and on the other hand will make spin
recovery a challenge. Definitely a XC design. If you're interested,
I'll e-mail you the model and you can fly it.

BTW, thanks for reposting my message, it got lost in the car brand
debate.