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 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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:16:54 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:33:12 -0600, You know who
wrote:

Bruce says:
BOb,

What attacks against certified types? My comments have obviously been
sarcastic exaggerations only in response to your equally sarcastic
exaggerations against auto-conversions. 8-O I report one incident of
in-flight coolant loss and you paint the concept of water cooling as a
dangerous and deadly defect of auto-conversions. And you accuse ME of
spin!

BOb says:
What erroneous, warped and distorted BULL****.
Now, you 'dastardly' dare spin MY words in front of me??'
Looks like you are taking a page out of Corky's book.
The more I say, the more you and he twist them.
What futility it is to deal with you two gems.

Actually, Bruce is correct here, he does not attack certified engines.
He has stated previously numerous times, that if certified engines
were reasonably priced, he'd have no problem using one. The same goes
for me. They are cranky, balky and awkward to start and prone to
early overhaul, but do have an enviable safety record.

Well you won't saveany money using this conversion Corky. I think The
owner could have bought a 300hp lycoming brand new and had enough
money left over for a new instrument panel for what he spent on his
plane. Plus he would have been in the air way sooner with little or no
troubleshooting.
Drew

"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". ;-)

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.

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.

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

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/

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.....

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