A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

V-8 powered Seabee



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 03, 03:35 AM
You know who
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.





  #2  
Old November 4th 03, 11:25 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #3  
Old November 5th 03, 05:48 AM
Bob U.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps....
Santa Claus will bring me a new Cessna Citation
fer Xmas and the funds to operate it, too. g


Barnyard BOb -- If it sounds to go to be true.....




  #4  
Old November 5th 03, 01:39 AM
Drew Dalgleish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #5  
Old November 5th 03, 03:11 AM
Holger Stephan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old November 5th 03, 03:00 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

  #7  
Old November 5th 03, 03:15 PM
Me again
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


: 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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
human powered flight patrick timony Home Built 10 September 16th 03 03:38 AM
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter Mike Hindle Home Built 6 September 15th 03 03:32 PM
Pre-Rotator Powered by Compressed Air? nuke Home Built 8 July 30th 03 12:36 PM
Powered Parachute Plans MJC Home Built 4 July 15th 03 07:29 PM
Powered Parachute Plans- correction Cy Galley Home Built 0 July 11th 03 03:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.