V-8 powered Seabee

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped
from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.
Drew Dalgleish

Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:


Well I had my medical with the doctor that owns one of the subject
planes today. In our short conversation I asked what specific problems
he'd had with the conversion. He says the only problem has been with
the computer setting the fuel mixture too rich. They had a lot of
trouble sorting that out and are now running without using the O2
sensors. He and his father have owned this plane for many years
origionally with the franklin engine and later with a lycoming. He was
ready to sell the plane due to poor performance off the water and slow
climb rates but since doing the conversion he is very happy with the
performance now. His takeoff distances are greatly reduced, cruise has
increased by 5mph, climb rates are as high as 1500fpm. ( instead of
100fpm with the franklin on a hot day ) and his fuel burn has dropped

from 12 to 8.8gph. on autofeul.

Drew Dalgleish


Drew Drew Drew, how dare you suggest that the V-8 powered Seabees
actually perform better than their Franklin or Lycoming powered
predecessors. Prepare to be "BObbed"!

Corky Scott

I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

"Jerry Springer" wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Springer" wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to
believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to
believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little
suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't
you know that, Morgue?

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:49:58 -0800, "Morgans"
wrote:

I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sheesh!!!

It's not about lies.
It's all about verifying what is truly factual.
Everything is suspect until proven otherwise.
It's in the nature of the real world.
Should I begin to wonder if you live in La-La Land?

Would you really bet the farm on uncorroborated
numbers from a sole source that has everything
to gain and nothing to lose by publishing such?

DIdn't your mother teach you better?
Does PT Barnum come to mind?

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to good to be true, it is.

"Morgans" wrote:


I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.
Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.
I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the
unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry

So basicly, you are calling this lies?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pssst....
Your computer clock is lying, AGAIN.

BTW...
What do you have for horsepower numbers
as produced in these converted Seabees?
Please don't quote GM factory numbers.
They are useless for this question.

FWIW...
Fuel consumption indirectly is quite
telling of what is going on with HP.


Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to good to be true, it is.

Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the
horsepower and weight and prop comparisons.

Jerry

Morgans wrote:
"Jerry Springer" wrote

I find the difference between 100 fpm and

1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe.

Also

from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe.

I

think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the

unbelieving

they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry


So basicly, you are calling this lies?
--
Jim in NC

I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jerry,

"Astonishing" is putting it mildly. g

Some of these auto conversion folks have got "religion".
They are 'true believers" and are as brainwashed as they come.
Nothing concerning the laws of physics need apply.

Fer instance.....
8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.

How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.

If anything they said added up... someone, somewhere
would get one of these 'WONDER' conversions certified
and in the process make such folks very, very wealthy.
It's not even close to happening. The certification process
is something that keeps these black magic artists in the
shadows of reality... on web sites and newsgroups....
beckoning the next rube, guppy, wannabee or whatever.
No question, there is a sucker born every minute. Just
ain't ever gonna me.. or you, from what I have observed.

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

BOb wrote:

Fer instance.....
8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.

How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.

I cannot speak for this *particular* case, but in general one "goes 5 mph faster on
40 less horsepower" by reducing the drag (parasitic and/or induced).

speculation mode=wild
Perhaps the water-cooled auto conversion has less parasitic cooling drag than the
original air-cooled engine.
/speculation

Russell Kent

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:35:45 -0600, You know who
wrote:



I well let Bob do the BObbed part but I do have a couple questions
about the above post by the guy that said he talked to someone that changed
engines. I find the numbers difference very hard to believe without knowing more
facts. And this may have all been explained somewhere and I can't find the info.
What are the power output comparisons? I find the difference between 100 fpm and
1500 fpm pretty astonishing difference and really find it hard to believe. Also
from 12 gph to 8.8 gph and 5 faster cruise is also pretty hard to believe. I
think that if the auto engine proponents are going to convince the unbelieving
they need to at least give honest and true numbers.

Jerry
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

Jerry,

"Astonishing" is putting it mildly. g

Some of these auto conversion folks have got "religion".
They are 'true believers" and are as brainwashed as they come.
Nothing concerning the laws of physics need apply.

Fer instance.....
8.8 gph suggests 105 horsepower.
12 gph suggests 145 horsepower.

How does one go 5 mph faster on 40 less horsepower
and likely with a heavier engine? Dunno. but if you are
a 'TRUE BELIEVER', nothing is impossible.

If anything they said added up... someone, somewhere
would get one of these 'WONDER' conversions certified
and in the process make such folks very, very wealthy.
It's not even close to happening. The certification process
is something that keeps these black magic artists in the
shadows of reality... on web sites and newsgroups....
beckoning the next rube, guppy, wannabee or whatever.
No question, there is a sucker born every minute. Just
ain't ever gonna me.. or you, from what I have observed.

Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds too good to be true, it is.





Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed
advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water
cooled engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition? It's quite
possible that the doctor was talking in imperial gallons as thats what
we used to use in Canada before being saved by the metric system. I
don't think there's a big enough market for engines to justify the
expense of certification. I believe Toyota certified an auto engine
conversion and then shelved the project because of the small numbers
of engines they could hope to sell. Thielert has a certified Mercedes
deisel auto conversion that they're selling now.
Drew