Anthony Banks
May 1st 18, 03:14 AM
On Monday, August 30, 2010 at 8:51:19 AM UTC+12, stol wrote:
> Just to keep this refreshed and as a warning to other experimental
> builders to aviod this 'person'. He seems to be able to delete this
> topic from the archives to lessen his exposure of looking "less then
> honest".... For all the guys who have seen this just pass right on
> by..
>
> Tailwinds.
> Ben.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------hii vhhv------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To keep this thing fair I will post the hatchet job Mr Lamar posted on
> the net. Before this I had never heard of him. The same time this
> happened I got over 1000 hits on my website, the thing that bothered
> me was I have a "contact me" page on my website.. A decent person
> would have opened up a dialog to ask me reasons and debate me on how
> I got to the end result of my plane. For whatever reason he didn't
> want my side to be told,,, only his.... Bizarre for sure.
>
> Ben.
>
> This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
> friends.......
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On the "801"
>
> “This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is
> incorrectly
> designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
> compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
> aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
> the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during
> landing
> and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
> wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very
> thin skins.
>
> "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
> confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
> 5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
>
> The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
> engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
> 37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
> the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC
> is
> as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
> you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
> cruise.
>
> Something is seriously wrong.
>
> "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
> each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in
> most
> airframes."
>
> What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
> with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
> RPM. No way is that going to happen.
>
> This person is totally clueless.
>
> I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
> airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
>
> Paul Lamar”
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ben's response."""""""""""""
>
> I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are
> but..
>
> I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
>
> My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
> source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
> aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
> a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
> experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
> knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
>
> I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
> one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
> been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
>
> My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours.
> Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been
> flown
> from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
> dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
> settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5
> g's.
> Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
> display their creations.
>
> My responses..
>
> 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
>
> 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
> site and look at the pics.
>
> 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
> but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
> beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean
> crap.
>
> 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
> it is less then his "estimation"
>
> 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
> didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
> shot.
>
> 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the
> "suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
>
> 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
> ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
> 110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
> fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
> another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a
> simple
> conclusion.
>
> 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
> dream about.
>
> 9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
> rich.
>
> 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
> throttled back.
>
> 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
> redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
> any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
> brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
> sure doen not need any more power.
>
> 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot
> higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
> nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
> prop.
>
> 13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
>
> And in closing all I can add is
> " I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
> airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
>
> Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
>
>
> Ben Haas
> www.haaspowerair.com.
> Just to keep this refreshed and as a warning to other experimental
> builders to aviod this 'person'. He seems to be able to delete this
> topic from the archives to lessen his exposure of looking "less then
> honest".... For all the guys who have seen this just pass right on
> by..
>
> Tailwinds.
> Ben.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------hii vhhv------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To keep this thing fair I will post the hatchet job Mr Lamar posted on
> the net. Before this I had never heard of him. The same time this
> happened I got over 1000 hits on my website, the thing that bothered
> me was I have a "contact me" page on my website.. A decent person
> would have opened up a dialog to ask me reasons and debate me on how
> I got to the end result of my plane. For whatever reason he didn't
> want my side to be told,,, only his.... Bizarre for sure.
>
> Ben.
>
> This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
> friends.......
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On the "801"
>
> “This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is
> incorrectly
> designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
> compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
> aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
> the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during
> landing
> and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
> wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very
> thin skins.
>
> "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
> confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
> 5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
>
> The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
> engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
> 37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
> the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC
> is
> as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
> you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
> cruise.
>
> Something is seriously wrong.
>
> "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
> each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in
> most
> airframes."
>
> What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
> with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
> RPM. No way is that going to happen.
>
> This person is totally clueless.
>
> I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
> airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
>
> Paul Lamar”
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ben's response."""""""""""""
>
> I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are
> but..
>
> I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
>
> My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
> source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
> aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
> a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
> experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
> knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
>
> I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
> one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
> been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
>
> My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours.
> Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been
> flown
> from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
> dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
> settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5
> g's.
> Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
> display their creations.
>
> My responses..
>
> 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
>
> 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
> site and look at the pics.
>
> 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
> but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
> beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean
> crap.
>
> 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
> it is less then his "estimation"
>
> 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
> didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
> shot.
>
> 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the
> "suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
>
> 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
> ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
> 110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
> fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
> another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a
> simple
> conclusion.
>
> 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
> dream about.
>
> 9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
> rich.
>
> 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
> throttled back.
>
> 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
> redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
> any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
> brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
> sure doen not need any more power.
>
> 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot
> higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
> nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
> prop.
>
> 13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
>
> And in closing all I can add is
> " I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
> airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
>
> Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
>
>
> Ben Haas
> www.haaspowerair.com.