V-8 powered Seabee

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the
horsepower and weight and prop comparisons.

Jerry

I really don't want to give the impression that I believe all of the numbers
are accurate. I imagine that a complete and scientific POH may be lacking,
but although the numbers may be "slightly enhanced", I believe the owner
believes them.

The 1500 FPM was probably on an optimum day, but it could also be because of
the PSRU, that the prop is bigger, and being turned with more torque,
allowing a bit more pitch.

It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the
Lycosarus.

I agree. I would love to see a full accounting given. It sounds as though
the people have done some good work, and are more than some of BOb's wanna
bees.

A big V-8 can work. I site Orenda, or however it is spelled. After all, it
is just 2/3rds of a V-12, and we all know they can work.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:

The 1500 FPM was probably on an optimum day, but it could also be because of
the PSRU, that the prop is bigger, and being turned with more torque,
allowing a bit more pitch.

Some folks wanna bee-lieve anything.
It would take a thermal to hoist this boat anchor at 1500 fpm.
Horsepower is horsepower is horsepower....
and so far, we don't have a clue what it is, do we?
Geejus H. Chryst, fella.

It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the
Lycosarus.

Ah ****, doofus.
Do some homework...
or are teachers exempt.

Wake up and smell...
the *FRANKLIN*.


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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:52:42 -0600, Bob U. wrote:


"Morgans" wrote:

The 1500 FPM was probably on an optimum day, but it could also be because of
the PSRU, that the prop is bigger, and being turned with more torque,
allowing a bit more pitch.

Some folks wanna bee-lieve anything.
It would take a thermal to hoist this boat anchor at 1500 fpm.
Horsepower is horsepower is horsepower....
and so far, we don't have a clue what it is, do we?
Geejus H. Chryst, fella.

It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the
Lycosarus.

Ah ****, doofus.
Do some homework...
or are teachers exempt.

Wake up and smell...
the *FRANKLIN*.


Read, SubUrban Bob
The plane in question has flown with both Lyco and Franklin power in
it's lifetime, from what has been stated here.

Now - as for efficiency. If the stock aircraft engine (any make) has
basically fixed timing (an impulse magneto to retard for starting) it
is optimized for only one combination of throttle position, mixture,
RPM, and load. That particular combination MAY never be realized.
The computer controlled system on even the lowliest of current
production automobiles optimizes the fuel mixture and ignition timing
for virtually all possible combinations of load, throttle opening,
RPM, as well as temperature and atmospheric conditions.
I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
my '75 Pacer did - and the van has a larger frontal area, weighs
several hundredweight more, and has air conditioning and an automatic
transmission. It is also capable of significantly higher cruising
speed, and accelerates MUCH more quickly - and the 232 inch AMC was
much more sophisticated in the control department than an old Franklin
or Lycosaur.
To go back just a bit farther, the 232 overhead valve engine in the
Pacer gave better mileage and performance than the low compression L
Head 231 in a '49 Dodge, of about the same weight.
Higher compression ratio, advanced combustion chamber design,
optimized fuel mixtures, and variable, closely controlled ignition
timing make a HUGE difference in engine efficiency and power output.

I know, Bob, you are going to say the optimized fuel mixtures and
closely controlled ignition timing are thrown out the window because
they are not running closed loop, having removed the O2 sensors.
Well, 14.7:1, or whatever the O2 sensor forces the engine to run at is
NOT the optimum for either power output or efficiency. It is simply
the mixture required for the catalytic converter to do it's job. By
removing the cat, and allowing the engine to run with a pre-plotted
mixture and timing map it can actually be MORE efficient, and more
powerful, than when constrained by the cat and O2 sensor.

The engine that was installed in the Republic SeaBee from the factory
was about equivalent, in technology and efficiency, with a 1932 Ford -
or even closer to a Model A.

The 60 hp Ford Flattie was about 209 cu inches displacement. It ran
6.6:1 compression ratio. That is basically a 3.5 liter engine.
In 1976, Ford's 200 cu inch six, with 8.7:1 compression put out 84
hp.
A 3 liter engine today can put out 200 HP - and at the same RPM as the
old Flattie still put out in excess of 160 ft lbs, at 3200 RPM,
roughly 100 HP.
The specific fuel consumption of the new engine is significantly lower
than the old engine,while producing almost double the horsepower.

In other words, SubUrban Bob, You are blowing smoke.

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

On 04 Nov 2003 05:48 PM, clare @ snyder.on .ca posted the following:

I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
my '75 Pacer did - and the van has a larger frontal area, weighs
several hundredweight more, and has air conditioning and an automatic
transmission. It is also capable of significantly higher cruising
speed, and accelerates MUCH more quickly - and the 232 inch AMC was
much more sophisticated in the control department than an old Franklin
or Lycosaur.

My 1973 Chevrolet pickup truck with a carbureted 350 V-8 and automatic
transmission gets between 10 and 11 mpg, city, highway, loaded, unloaded,
uphill, downhill, tailwind, headwind, whatever. A newer Chevrolet with
the same engine and fuel injection can be expected to get around 20 mpg
on the highway. Part of that is due to the better transmissions that
are used today, but mostly due to the efficiency of EFI. In addition,
modern fuel injection offers advantages in cold starting (my '94 S-10
would start instantly at 40 below zero with no preheat, though it was
normally kept plugged in when it was below zero), and operation at
extreme angles which would give a float carburetor fits (more of an
issue offroading in my Jeep). I LOVE fuel injection. But I am not
ready to fly behind an automotive based EFI system, not yet anyway.

A little over a year ago, my less than 2 year old Jeep (which uses a
descendant of your 232) coasted to a halt at mile 87 on the Parks
Highway between Fairbanks and Anchorage. The cause was a seizure of the
mechanical drive which operates the camshaft position sensor, a hall
effect module which supplies engine speed information to the computer
for the fuel injection. This single point failure instantly shut down
the fuel injection system and required around a 150 mile tow to
Anchorage, which luckily was covered under the vehicle's warranty (
particularly when you consider that I had been in the middle of Yukon,
Canada two days previously).

I would consider using an EFI with redundant sensors for required
computer inputs, but until such a beast is available, I'll have to pass.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
my '75 Pacer did -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 30% improvement disappears when operating
hour after hour at a 75% to 100% power setting
to duplicate aircraft performance requirements.

Run both on the German Autobahn wide open
until destruction and get back with the data that
may hint of some practical use and application.

Pacer???
A bad joke perpetrated on clueless consumers...
if it's not a classic and revered Lycoming powered Piper aircraft.


Barnyard BOb -- unfair to compare apples and oranges

I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
my '75 Pacer did -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 30% improvement disappears when operating
hour after hour at a 75% to 100% power setting
to duplicate aircraft performance requirements.

Let me rephrase...

The 30% improvement is only do-able/practical for automotive
generally low end power, street applications, loads and conditions.

When operating at 75% to 100% power settings demanded by aircraft...
The 30% improvement disappears unless the test conditions and
comparisons are fatally flawed or rigged for such an outcome.

P.S.
The Pacer is still a sick joke of a car for testing or otherwise.


Barnyard BOb -- unfair to mix apples and Pacers

Just thought I'd throw out a point for contention. (As if any more are
needed)

The O2 sensor as used in a NB Speed Density system is of little value at the
power levels used in aircraft. My understanding is that the NB O2 sensor is
mainly an emissions device. 14.7 AFR is neither best power nor is it best
economy. What it is is best emissions when combined with the proper cat. All
NB Speed Density systems that I am aware of ignore the O2 sensor at full
power.

Removing the NBO2 sensor from the engines made perfect sense when taking the
operating environment into account. In this situation (as in the car when at
full power) the computer uses preprogrammed lookup tables based on operating
and environmental considerations. A properly tuned engine can and will make
full power without an NB O2 sensor. Nothing whatsoever is given up except
emissions, but since no cat...

The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with making max power. So why include it
on an aircraft?

The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with max economy. So why include it on an
aircraft?

A WB O2 sensor is a different story. And there are other compromises at play
that have not been addressed here.

Regards
Ken Bauman

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than
the
Lycosarus.

Mak thet "Lycosaurus".

I site Orenda, or however it is spelled.

Its spelt "I cite Orenda". ;-)