V-8 powered Seabee

"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 22:03:55 -0500, "Larry Smith"
wrote:


"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?

The numbers are from the owner of the plane - NOT ther manufacturer.
The owner has the history through 3 engine types, over several decadrs
IIRC.

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:03:55 -0500, "Larry Smith"
wrote:


"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?

The numbers are from the owner of the plane - NOT ther manufacturer.
The owner has the history through 3 engine types, over several decadrs
IIRC.

Well, I wouldn't impugn the owner or suggest he's telling one. I was just
suggesting that even the certified aircraft manufacturers puff their
numbers, and the owners do too. Human nature.

I'm on the side and in the cheering section of the auto engine conversion,
but skeptical too.

You get more accurate results by testing from 3rd parties, like at
well-monitored races and CAFE events.

Larry Smith wrote:

"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?


Larry you and I on the same side of the fence for a change, now that is
astonishing. :-)

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:02:27 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



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?


Larry you and I on the same side of the fence for a change, now that is
astonishing. :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Less astonishing...

I'll take a bit of a different slant. g

The "numbers" published for certified aircraft are legitimate.
They can be duplicated.... *IF* one duplicates the specific
conditions that were used to generate them in the first place.
This could include a number of conditions and parameters
that are impractical for us to duplicate/measure accurately
from under our cozy shade tree.

CAVEAT
IMO, any numbers published by manufacturers, while
accurate, may not be particularly useful and possibly
misleading to the mere mortals that dare apply them in
the real world.

The irony here is....
We have some dumb bunnies that will unduly question
"numbers" from legitimate sources with everything to lose,
but will bend over backwards to accommodate any struggling
backyard operation without qualification. Go figure!!!

Perhaps this goofy behavior needs be labeled...

*UNDERDAWG SYNDROME*


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

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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:56:07 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:

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

Jerry

FWIR, the prop is the same one used on the Franklin and Lycoming, but
I could be wrong.

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