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
  #11  
Old October 21st 03, 07:51 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart D. Hull" wrote:


I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

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

Dream on. There are no details to make your auto-conversion
more successful than a LYC or Cont.

Successfully pass a course in statistical analysis and you may
begin to see the light. The odds of your one shot conversion
performing remotely close to time proven aircraft engines is
slim to none unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars
laying around and some bright engineers willing to baby sit
your R&D until the worst of the bugs are ironed out.

Never mind that a minor bug can be lethal and your project
may never qualify for hull or liability insurance. Remember,
those aviation insurance guys are more conservative than I.
They have no desire to risk paying out one million dollars on
your crap shoot or buy you another hull for a second attempt
to outdo LYC or Continental at their own professional game.

Barnyard BOb - once again predictable



  #12  
Old October 21st 03, 08:23 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart D. Hull" wrote:

Aye Barnyard Boob,

I think we all know your agenda. Caveat emptor for certain.

If you have constructive comments fine, otherwise shut your pie hole.


Bart

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

You and your name calling can go **** off and die.

This group is just as much open to my opinions as your
dizzy unproven crap. Somebody needs to balance out
your 'pie in the sky twit ****' so, learn to deal with me...
in a constructive manner if you can.

Until you get the bejeezus scared out of you real good...
you're just another punk talking through a large paper asshole.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight
  #13  
Old October 21st 03, 01:49 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
engine.



Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
to fill. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

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

Hopefully, you are reaching more than just the choir. g


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight
  #14  
Old October 21st 03, 03:40 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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






  #15  
Old October 21st 03, 03:47 PM
David Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems.

snip
I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
into information sources to build the safest engine possible.


The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.

At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

In trying to decide what engine to put on the replica, I did a lot of
research on modern motorcycle engines. I found that there are modern
V-Twin engines (Honda VT1100 and Kawasaki 1500) that already have two
spark plugs per cylinder. They do not have redundant ignition systems,
but they lend themselves to building your own.

You pointed out that the PSRU is a single point of failure. One
attraction with many modern motorcycle engines is that most have a well
engineered gear reduction system in place. The down side of it is that
there are usually 4 or 5 reduction ratios more than you need, and there
is a substantial weight penalty associated with the integral transmission.

One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

The biggest down side to the use of a modern motorcycle engine in a
plane is that so few people have done it; you are truly experimenting,
which entails obvious risks.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

  #16  
Old October 21st 03, 05:07 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
spews oil everywhere, of course).

You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
a fading gauge.


All good suggestions. Another tack on the cooling system failure would be to
select an auto engine (or engineer its conversion) such that loss of coolant
does not cause a catastrophic failure. For example (and it's only an example!)
the Mazda Wankel engine will happily continue to run and produce usable power
without any coolant remaining. It will likely never start again, however,
without a major rebuild. Why is this? Because when overheating, the aluminum
rotor housings expand more than the cast iron rotors, which precludes seizing
(unlike most piston engines). Parts of the engine permanently deform however,
causing insufficient compression once the engine cools. Thus, no start.

I guess my point is: sometimes we should try to prevent the failure, and other
times we should try to minimize the effect of the failure. There's a balance
in there somewhere.

I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?


The radiator's area is many times the surface area of the engine's water
jacket. Plus the now empty water jacket makes a real nice air gap blanket for
the cylinders. You'd do better to engineer a coolant-loss makeup system.
IMHO. Unfortunately, "make-up coolant" weighs 7.5 lbs. / gallon. Fly in the
rain with a big funnel? Secondary use for that "relief tube" ? :-)

Or perhaps have the pistons machined from some alloy with a low Cte (titanium?)
and make them as undersized (relative to the cylinder diameter) as the rings
will permit.

Russell Kent


  #17  
Old October 22nd 03, 12:27 AM
Bart D. Hull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Boob,

Obviously you haven't looked for insurance on a Soob.

Lots of takers. (AIG for example)

Already taken a course on statistics in college, got an
A. ;-)

All installation bugs can be lethal on a Soob or Lyc or Cont.

I just think your too old to "get it".


How about a Honda-Lyc, a Bombardier or a Jabiru? Millions
spent on those installations but no time on their type yet.

Have a nice day. Don't forget to take your anti-grumpy medications.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check
http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.
Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
"Bart D. Hull" wrote:



I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.


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

Dream on. There are no details to make your auto-conversion
more successful than a LYC or Cont.

Successfully pass a course in statistical analysis and you may
begin to see the light. The odds of your one shot conversion
performing remotely close to time proven aircraft engines is
slim to none unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars
laying around and some bright engineers willing to baby sit
your R&D until the worst of the bugs are ironed out.

Never mind that a minor bug can be lethal and your project
may never qualify for hull or liability insurance. Remember,
those aviation insurance guys are more conservative than I.
They have no desire to risk paying out one million dollars on
your crap shoot or buy you another hull for a second attempt
to outdo LYC or Continental at their own professional game.

Barnyard BOb - once again predictable






  #18  
Old October 22nd 03, 03:26 AM
John Stricker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #19  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:12 AM
Robert Schieck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #20  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:46 AM
John Stricker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




 




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 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.