V-8 powered Seabee

John Stricker wrote:

Rob,

I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6 now.
His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
happen.

My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it, that's
great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion should
be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
something that's going to save you a ton of money.


As to "rest of the error.." your point is???




as you said:

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except
to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2
sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2
sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
..500 or so.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is better.

Rob

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

Rob,

I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6
now.
His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
happen.

My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it,
that's
great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion
should
be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
something that's going to save you a ton of money.


As to "rest of the error.." your point is???




as you said:

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them.
Except
to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the
O2
sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the
O2
sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
.500 or so.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of
the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is
better.

Rob

"John Stricker" wrote in message

I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker


Why? You haven't been flamed, or anything.
--
Jim in NC

You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...


John Stricker wrote:



Rob,

I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6


now.


His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
happen.

My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it,


that's


great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion


should


be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
something that's going to save you a ton of money.




As to "rest of the error.." your point is???





as you said:

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them.


Except


to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the


O2


sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the


O2


sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
.500 or so.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of


the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is


better.


Rob

I did read your other post and emailed Brian myself complimenting him on the
job they do and asked some more questions.

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.

What did I misquote? He has different numbers in different parts of his
website. Even with his email you published, he STILL doesn't give a power
rating, does he? I didn't see the second set of numbers. That's not a
misquote. I also didn't see that he eliminated the O2 sensors. My point
remains unchanged, without the O2 sensors he's running in open loop and not
running the way the engine was designed to run.

I don't need to worry about luck with my Northstar because it's not flying
anywhere. It's staying firmly attached to the ground, as long as the
suspension holds up. Tickled me, though, that they thought the Northstar
was too complicated when it has DOHC and direct lifter on valve actuation
and virtually the same electronics as the LS6. But the car itself, when
finished, will run faster than a SeaBee. Where did I say it was too
daunting? Nice little attempted backhand slam, didn't work though.
Besides, do you really think the guys will help me convert the 4T80E to a
six speed with a paddle shift (which is what I'm working on right now)? Oh,
that's right, airplanes don't need that. 8-)

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You
disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We
have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that
rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's
own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really
know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them
is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not
putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having
come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...


John Stricker wrote:



Rob,

I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6


now.


His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
happen.

My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it,


that's


great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But
in
the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion


should


be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and
not
something that's going to save you a ton of money.




As to "rest of the error.." your point is???





as you said:

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they??
All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and
"computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them.


Except


to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the


O2


sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the


O2


sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of
around
.500 or so.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of


the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is


better.


Rob

You are changing the topic again....

I never said that you said it was too daunting, I just said that if it
was, you could purchase one from Brian, here is a quote from your first
message:

I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
untold failure modes.

We are the masters of word all unspoken and slave to those that are.....


Rob

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

I didn't change the topic, I responded to a statement you made, amongst
others. You then proceeded to quote a part of one paragraph of my response.
Daunting, to me, is a difficult and challenging thing. Not impossible. If
I did want to buy a wiring harness, why would I buy one from someone with no
experience on the engine I'm working on for an application that was in no
way similar to the harness I need?

Some of us are the "masters of word all unspoken and blah blah blah"

Some of you have simply never learned to think things through. The
statement you quoted from me showed you missed the point completely. It's
the last part that's important. Any difficult project can be completed
given a sufficient quantity of time and/or money. But it's one thing to
have many failure modes on the ground and quite another to have them in the
air. THAT'S the important point of my comment. In one case, I coast to a
stop on the highway and use my cellphone to call a tow truck. In the other,
I'm practicing a forced landing for real.

There is a reason that the certified engines have remained very simple
systems.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
You are changing the topic again....

I never said that you said it was too daunting, I just said that if it
was, you could purchase one from Brian, here is a quote from your first
message:

I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
untold failure modes.

We are the masters of word all unspoken and slave to those that are.....


Rob

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:06:07 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

I did read your other post and emailed Brian myself complimenting him on the
job they do and asked some more questions.

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.

John, I don't understand what it is you're looking for. These guys
aren't Lycoming and they aren't Continental. They are a couple of
guys who make an auto conversion from the Chevy LS1 or LS6, one at a
time.

Of **COURSE** they aren't going to have the millions of hours
LyContinental have accumulated since they first began building flat
engines.

But these guys have an engine conversion that seems to be working
well. Isn't the whole point to have a bunch of this type of engine
out there running so we can see how they match up? The only way to
make comparisons is to build them and fly them.

They're using a setting that allows them to run the computer without
needing oxygen sensors. Is this equally as efficient as running a
closed loop with O2 sensor input? Probably not, but it turns out it's
pretty close and much more efficient than what the Franklin was able
to manage. The engine is readily available, burns less fuel, makes
more power and offers air conditioning to boot. I'm having a hard
time seeing problems here.

Corky Scott

John Stricker wrote:

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.

Ahem. I think we can all agree that those "MILLIONS" of Lycoming and
Continental hours were far from "trouble-free".

Russell Kent