V-8 powered Seabee

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:13:29 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as
fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. g

If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it?


Dictionary.com - Anecdotal:

Based on casual observations or indications
rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:

When was the last time someone posted
that their auto conversion was a POS.

Beware of hidden agendas


Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor

That's the correct definition of anectdotal BOb, it would appear to be
a mistaken application though. These guys aren't casually observing
their conversion, they created it, developed it, trouble shot it and
flew it with their own bodies inside the airplane on which they
installed it. And they flew it for 600 hours so far. It looks like
they were as scientific about it as they could be, with direct
comparisons, in all modes, to the Franklin powered model.

I don't understand why you consider them liars. Do you have evidence
that the photos and text is faked?

It obviously really irks you when someone actually successfully flies
behind an auto conversion, almost as much as when someone just talks
naively about it.

Corky Scott

Corky,

Liars? Well, I'll reserve judgment. A little weak in the details and
presentation? Absolutely.

I have pretty intimate knowledge of the LS1 and LS6. So let's just start
looking at their information, shall we?

Can you show me what their rated, maximum hp for their CONVERSION is? How
about the CONTINUOUS rated hp for their CONVERSION? I can't find it. They
list a maximum hp rating of 350 for the LS1, which isn't their rating it's
GM's rating. And that's not a continuous rating. But we'll just let that
slide for a moment, let's get to fuel consumption.

They show a BSFC of .454 or .507 at 3200 rpm. Interesting, not, that they
don't show a MAP they got that at, since that with RPM would tell us what HP
the engine was making? Never mind that, let's go back to GM. At 3200 rpm
GM showed the LS1 making 200 hp. That means that at 200 hp, the engine is
burning between 10 and 11 gph. WoW!! All those electronic bells and
whistles sure did improve efficiency over the old dinosaurs, didn't it?

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except
to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2
sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2
sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
..500 or so.

But speaking of fuel.................

Yep, it's getting less rare to have auto fuel on the airport, but I still
wouldn't say that's a common thing to have, would you? And even if it was,
91 octane? Some places, premium IS 91 octane. KS, it's not. 99% of the
premium grade is 89 octane and that's with 10% ethanol. So, you land, have
to hunt down auto gas, and then have to hunt down 91 octane auto gas, get it
back to the airport to fuel up. Yep, that's going to be cost and time
effective. NOT. Oh, the LS1/LS6 will run on 89 octane, by having the ECM
pull the timing back which gives you less power and a higher BSFC.......

Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including
a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.

As far as price goes, the best price I've found on an LS6 is about $8,500,
with shipping. They're really not a very good engine to rebuild due to
their method of construction, but if you want to you probably can, for
around $7,500. Of course there's that gear reduction and the normal
aircraft accessories that need to be overhauled as well. He lists the
overhaul cost of the LS6 at $13,000 CDN, that's about $9,875 on today's
market US$. He is NOT going to overhaul the conversion package of an LS6
for $10K. Not going to happen.

I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
untold failure modes. If these folks want to be pioneers, good on them.
I'll pioneer my system on the ground, thanks anyway.

John Stricker

PS: How many hours of vibration analysis on that prop/PSRU system do you
suppose they had before they took the old girl for a spin?

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

That's the correct definition of anectdotal BOb, it would appear to be
a mistaken application though. These guys aren't casually observing
their conversion, they created it, developed it, trouble shot it and
flew it with their own bodies inside the airplane on which they
installed it. And they flew it for 600 hours so far. It looks like
they were as scientific about it as they could be, with direct
comparisons, in all modes, to the Franklin powered model.

I don't understand why you consider them liars. Do you have evidence
that the photos and text is faked?

It obviously really irks you when someone actually successfully flies
behind an auto conversion, almost as much as when someone just talks
naively about it.

Corky Scott

John Stricker wrote:

Corky,


Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including
a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.


He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
56 hours on the second one ......

I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...

Rob

..ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
talk about the plane.

Rob,

I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6 now.
His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things
happen.

My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it, that's
great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in
the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion should
be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not
something that's going to save you a ton of money.

As to "rest of the error.." your point is???

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

Corky,


Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product,
including
a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.


He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
56 hours on the second one ......

I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...

Rob

.ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
talk about the plane.

I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
the the hours flown.

Jerry

Robert Schieck wrote:
John Stricker wrote:

Corky,


Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product,
including
a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.


He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and
56 hours on the second one ......

I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader...

Rob

.ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to
talk about the plane.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of
Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the
conversion.

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:15:26 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:


I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.

The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of
Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the
conversion.

The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or currently
supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this engine running;
I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto piston rings for use
in the 165 Franklin.

According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-B8F.
The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-C1R. Don't
know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite possible that they're
totally different engines.

However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Ron Wanttaja

Corky

Remember the messenger always gets shot )

Big John

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

Hi Rob. Thanks for forwarding the E-mail. I was unable to find the website
you mentioned. Would you please post my response.

I appologize for not keeping my site totally current. As of 21 Oct 2003, we
have logged 874 trouble free hour on our LS-1 powered Seabee. A second LS-1
powered Bee has loged over 70 hours, and an LS-6 powered Bee has over 180
hours on it. They are using my conversion. The first LS-6 conversion has
been delivered to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

If you check my website, you will see the LS-1 is rated a@ 345 H.P. by G.M.
We derate it to 320 H.P. for our use. The LS-6 is rated by G.M. at 405 H.P.
We derate it to 350 H.P. for our use. If you do a literature search, you
will discover G.M. ran two LS-1's at 100% power for 520 hours. The engines
were torn down & and all parts were within new parts tolerences. We do not
recommend running any engine at 100% continuous power. We run at full power
untill it is safe to throttle back. We cruse climb at 25" & 3500 rpm untill
we are at desired altitude. I have only climed to 11.000' for test purposes.
The engine ran great.I enjoy the scenery & normally cruse in the 2500 to
7000' range.

In terms of fuel efficiency, I normally burn 8.5 Imperial Gallons Per hour
at 22' & 3200 RPM. This increases to 10 IGPH at 25 " & 3500RPM. This is the
maximum popwer setting I have used for extended periods of time. Both of the
other Seabee owners claim they burn less fuel per hour than I do! I time my
flights with my GPS unit & dip the tanks every flight. I normally use the
lower power setting - I pay for all my gas myself & the extra speed is not
worth it.

If these gentlemen check the website, they will discover I do not use Oxygen
sensors on my aircraft. G.M. provides three calibration codes for the
computer, including the one which uses no Oxygen sensors. We did use oxygen
sensors on the LS-6 installation initially (the first 100 hours). They do
last fine if you use leaded fuel occasionally, but provided no operating
advantage. All my current installations do not use Oxygen sensors.

In terms of fuel, I run 100LL when I am at an airport, & premimum unleaded
when I am at home. The unleaded is better for the engine & the environment &
is cheaper.

In terms of the rebuild costs, I have quoted the average cost paid by
several Franklin owners recently. For the LS-1 overhaul costs I have
included the cost of replacing the engine with a factory new short block, &
dismantling the reduction unit & replacing key components.

In terms of reliability, I never passed the 100 hour mark on my Franklin
without incuring some major work. The Lycoming on my Supercub was better,
but not great. They recently replaced the Factory new lycoming on a
commercially operated, well maintained local aircraft at the 800 hour mark
because it plugged the oil cooler with metal. They also replaced 2 cylinders
in the first 800 hours. I believe the V-8 will prove to be a reliable
powerplant, & is certainly more cost effective. The modern heating & air
conditioning systems are a bonus. I remove my reduction unit & dismantle it
for inspection regularly (roughly every 200 hours), & so far it is like new
inside. Last winter I removed the oil pan from the engine & visually
inspected the engine. It too looked like new.

I had also considered the Northstar engin when I was in the design phase. I
rejected it as unnecessarily complicated. I believe the LS series is a much
better choice for aircraft use. I strongly believe in the KISS principle
(Keep It Simple Stupid)

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these items. If anyone wishes to
discuss the mater further, please contact me.

Regards

Brian Robinson

705-374-4347

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

Corky,

Liars? Well, I'll reserve judgment. A little weak in the details and
presentation? Absolutely.

You have to see and hear the plane to believe it, guys. I have. Up
close. It is BEAUTIFULL and it sounds like no 'Bee you have ever heard
before - with "street mufflers"

I have pretty intimate knowledge of the LS1 and LS6. So let's just start
looking at their information, shall we?

Can you show me what their rated, maximum hp for their CONVERSION is? How
about the CONTINUOUS rated hp for their CONVERSION? I can't find it. They
list a maximum hp rating of 350 for the LS1, which isn't their rating it's
GM's rating. And that's not a continuous rating. But we'll just let that
slide for a moment, let's get to fuel consumption.

They show a BSFC of .454 or .507 at 3200 rpm. Interesting, not, that they
don't show a MAP they got that at, since that with RPM would tell us what HP
the engine was making? Never mind that, let's go back to GM. At 3200 rpm
GM showed the LS1 making 200 hp. That means that at 200 hp, the engine is
burning between 10 and 11 gph. WoW!! All those electronic bells and
whistles sure did improve efficiency over the old dinosaurs, didn't it?

Speaking of which..............

They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All
they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized
electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except
to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed
loop mode.
GM has an "export" calibration that shuts off the O2 sensors - and
under load the engine runs open loop just fine even without the
recalibration.


To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2
sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2
sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around
.500 or so.


I've seen the bird. It is 100% stock GM with an export calibration on
the box to eliminate the need for the O2 sensor. That is IT.


But speaking of fuel.................

Yep, it's getting less rare to have auto fuel on the airport, but I still
wouldn't say that's a common thing to have, would you? And even if it was,
91 octane? Some places, premium IS 91 octane. KS, it's not. 99% of the
premium grade is 89 octane and that's with 10% ethanol. So, you land, have
to hunt down auto gas, and then have to hunt down 91 octane auto gas, get it
back to the airport to fuel up. Yep, that's going to be cost and time
effective. NOT. Oh, the LS1/LS6 will run on 89 octane, by having the ECM
pull the timing back which gives you less power and a higher BSFC.......

Don't NEED Mogas - no O2 Sensors to worry about as stated above.
Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from
their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including
a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study.

The good doctor has several hundred hours on his. It has flown all
over Ontario with the new engine, and uses significantly less fuel
than the Franklin, which is all that really counts. He and his Dad
have owned and flown the bird for many years with the Franklin, so
they have all the fuel consumption info, and cruise speeds etc, before
and after conversion.
And they have AIR CONDITIONING too!!!
As far as price goes, the best price I've found on an LS6 is about $8,500,
with shipping. They're really not a very good engine to rebuild due to
their method of construction, but if you want to you probably can, for
around $7,500. Of course there's that gear reduction and the normal
aircraft accessories that need to be overhauled as well. He lists the
overhaul cost of the LS6 at $13,000 CDN, that's about $9,875 on today's
market US$. He is NOT going to overhaul the conversion package of an LS6
for $10K. Not going to happen.

In a few years you will be able to BUY an LS6 for a lot less than
today's price. Not sure, but I think the Doc'd is an LS1
I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good
job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it
that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at
$40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in
Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming.


I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
untold failure modes. If these folks want to be pioneers, good on them.
I'll pioneer my system on the ground, thanks anyway.

The Northstar system is VERY daunting.

John Stricker

PS: How many hours of vibration analysis on that prop/PSRU system do you
suppose they had before they took the old girl for a spin?

It has been EXTREMELY well engineered and executed. These guys are
perfectionists to the enth degree. And they have contacts. Not much,
if anything, was left to chance.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

That's the correct definition of anectdotal BOb, it would appear to be
a mistaken application though. These guys aren't casually observing
their conversion, they created it, developed it, trouble shot it and
flew it with their own bodies inside the airplane on which they
installed it. And they flew it for 600 hours so far. It looks like
they were as scientific about it as they could be, with direct
comparisons, in all modes, to the Franklin powered model.

I don't understand why you consider them liars. Do you have evidence
that the photos and text is faked?

It obviously really irks you when someone actually successfully flies
behind an auto conversion, almost as much as when someone just talks
naively about it.

Corky Scott