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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
V-8 powered Seabee
Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee. The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb, cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two stainless steel mufflers. http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml Corky Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You forgot that it gets air-conditioning as a bonus of the conversion...
I have seen the plane, nicely done... Rob Corky Scott wrote: Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee. The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb, cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two stainless steel mufflers. http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml Corky Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. Noticed you didn't want to critique the new Honda-Lyc, Bombardier or Jabiru engines. Too new for you? Or would they be considered auto-conversions since their not Lyc or Cont? Bart -- Bart D. Hull Tempe, Arizona Building for the new Century. 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: (Corky Scott) wrote: Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee. The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb, cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two stainless steel mufflers. http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml Corky Scott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it? Beware of hidden agendas You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets...... That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many Seebees are there left in the world in need of power? Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous ice with that last post. These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew...... I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post does nothing more than to express your bias. If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find a better way? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BD5ER wrote: If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge how many would buy it? Beware of hidden agendas You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets...... That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many Seebees are there left in the world in need of power? Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous ice with that last post. These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew...... I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post does nothing more than to express your bias. If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find a better way? Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain. Jerry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message ink.net... Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain. Jerry Building on what Jerry said... "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport to make an uneventful dead stick landing. Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong* way than the right way. KB |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kyle,
What has been the experiences with the other members of your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this last year? Why did the first homebuilt engine quit? I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single pilot and a homebuilt engine. I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well. I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont install. Thanks -- 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. Kyle Boatright wrote: "Jerry Springer" wrote in message ink.net... Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain. Jerry Building on what Jerry said... "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport to make an uneventful dead stick landing. Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong* way than the right way. KB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I'm still trying to figger how you got under 600 hrs out of your 0-200 in
your 172....Oh....thats right- two jugs fell off somewhere. Yea, that's the answer! "BD5ER" wrote in message ... SNIP These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew...... |
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 |