V-8 powered Seabee

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

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:39:14 +0000, Drew Dalgleish wrote:
of engines they could hope to sell. Thielert has a certified Mercedes
deisel auto conversion that they're selling now.

Not to us though.

For Diesel the best shot may be the DeltaHawk:
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/

- Holger

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
: 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?

Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline
engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned
for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you
describe a

1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd
engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with
computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient
performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control
doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does.

2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded.
Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you
anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the
ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel
(much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic
efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read:
efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so
much as an airframe issue.

3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise,
since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow
you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly
affect BSFC.

While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled,
fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline
engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not
inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel
economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

: 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?

Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline
engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned
for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you
describe a

1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd
engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with
computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient
performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control
doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does.

2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded.
Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you
anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the
ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel
(much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic
efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read:
efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so
much as an airframe issue.

3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise,
since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow
you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly
affect BSFC.

While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled,
fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline
engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not
inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel
economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360.

-Cory
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BINGO.

Thanx, Cory


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:30:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



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

I lurk here pretty much daily and was following this thread. So when I
had my medical I asked the doctor about his plane and reported what he
told me. I don't have any reason to believe he would lie about his
numbers. He's not the one selling the engines he's just one outwardly
very satisfied customer. I'm sure the 100fpm climb was fully loaded on
the hottest day of the year and 1500fpm came when it was a little
cooler and lighter.
Drew

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:15:21 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:30:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



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

I lurk here pretty much daily and was following this thread. So when I
had my medical I asked the doctor about his plane and reported what he
told me. I don't have any reason to believe he would lie about his
numbers. He's not the one selling the engines he's just one outwardly
very satisfied customer. I'm sure the 100fpm climb was fully loaded on
the hottest day of the year and 1500fpm came when it was a little
cooler and lighter.
Drew
I'm not so sure it isn't head to head - same conditions, knowing the
condition the old Franklin was in!!!
It was a case of get a REAL engine in the bird, or park it. I know
the climb and cruise were down a bit from original spec, and the
margin for error on the old Republic was pretty fine to start with.
Like the BumbleBee, it really should not fly.
Like an old friend of mine used to say, they were so ugly the earth
repelled them, or they'd never get off the ground.
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the old Bee kind a grows
on ya - But then I owned a Terraplane and a Pacer and liked the looks
of both, so wat do I know.