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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"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". ;-) |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
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..... |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |