V-8 powered Seabee

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

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.

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.

John Stricker wrote:

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???




as you said:

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.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is better.

Rob

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

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???




as you said:

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.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of
the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is
better.

Rob

"John Stricker" wrote in message

I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker


Why? You haven't been flamed, or anything.
--
Jim in NC

You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...


John Stricker wrote:



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???





as you said:

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.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of


the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is


better.


Rob

I did read your other post and emailed Brian myself complimenting him on the
job they do and asked some more questions.

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.

What did I misquote? He has different numbers in different parts of his
website. Even with his email you published, he STILL doesn't give a power
rating, does he? I didn't see the second set of numbers. That's not a
misquote. I also didn't see that he eliminated the O2 sensors. My point
remains unchanged, without the O2 sensors he's running in open loop and not
running the way the engine was designed to run.

I don't need to worry about luck with my Northstar because it's not flying
anywhere. It's staying firmly attached to the ground, as long as the
suspension holds up. Tickled me, though, that they thought the Northstar
was too complicated when it has DOHC and direct lifter on valve actuation
and virtually the same electronics as the LS6. But the car itself, when
finished, will run faster than a SeaBee. Where did I say it was too
daunting? Nice little attempted backhand slam, didn't work though.
Besides, do you really think the guys will help me convert the 4T80E to a
six speed with a paddle shift (which is what I'm working on right now)? Oh,
that's right, airplanes don't need that. 8-)

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You
disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We
have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that
rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's
own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really
know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them
is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not
putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having
come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...


John Stricker wrote:



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???





as you said:

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.


from the web site:



Engine Control System

The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed
with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This
was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium
unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT
codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and
correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market
supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing
the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is
imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the
engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable
practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have
the harness manufactured accordingly.

I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of


the O2 sensor was addressed.


disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is


better.


Rob

I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
the the hours flown.

Jerry

Robert Schieck wrote:
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.

Jerry Springer wrote:

I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close
enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well.
Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell
the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with
the the hours flown.

Jerry
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jerry,
You're beating a very, very dead horse.

The RAH auto conversion wannabees are incurably gullible
and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality.

Legitimate auto conversion guys are knee deep in alligators...
walking their talk and have no time for the fuzzy and inane
horse**** that drives the RAH noisemakers. The RAH group
is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself
off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle,
comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case.
The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame.

It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, immature twits
do what they do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot
themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely
no awareness to that very fact.


Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable