V-8 powered Seabee

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.