V-8 powered Seabee

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:32:47 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.

Well, like I always say, it depends on what your mission goals are... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.
He is still around, isn't he? Not that I can tell.

--
David Hill

Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David who?


Barnyard BOb --

On 22 Oct 2003 05:31 AM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:

The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or
currently supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this
engine running; I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto
piston rings for use in the 165 Franklin.

According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-
B8F. The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-
C1R. Don't know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite
possible that they're totally different engines.

However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to
replace the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less
work than it took to convert the Chevy....

Even support for the "current" models is sketchy at the moment. One of
the instructors at the A&P school here in Anchorage has the 220hp
Franklin in his 172, and can't get the parts he needs to get it working
again (he has a cracked case, on a 2nd or 3rd run engine) or even a
complete new engine. He's been trying since at least April or May with
no success so far. Something to do with the factory in Poland having
found more lucrative things to build.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Corky

Remember the messenger always gets shot )

Big John

You are asking the wrong person your questions, I just posted the link
so that people who are interested in auto conversion can have a look
at this one. If you really feel you need answers to your questions I
suggest you contact the guys who are flying the Seabee conversion.

Corky Scott

I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.

All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
fails.

Read all about it at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
type I'm using now in the model.

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

On 22 Oct 2003 17:57:02 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.

All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
fails.

Read all about it at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
type I'm using now in the model.

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?

Corky Scott

Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?

Corky Scott

Ya, thats how the nose got so long. That part is easy with the
modeling software. I'm a little concerned because the design will
have a very large moment of inertia in pitch and yaw, which on one
hand will make it stable, and on the other hand will make spin
recovery a challenge. Definitely a XC design. If you're interested,
I'll e-mail you the model and you can fly it.

BTW, thanks for reposting my message, it got lost in the car brand
debate.

Jay wrote:

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

I think you're talking about Ken Welter's old Coot. It burned last year
(Jun 2002 IIRC). Ken has since completed a 4-place Coot, although it is
currently single-engine Wankel-only.

Ken Welter wrote on 13-Mar-2002:

Yes I have here is a photo of my twin pack that will go on the 4
place coot that I am starting to build, I installed this pack on my
present coot and tested it for 11 hrs and was a bit heavy for it but
should work on the bigger one, the front engine is a 670 Rotax
snowmobile engine that puts out 125 hp but there is no reason that it
should not work with two rotary's however part of the design to stop
resonant vibration is to run two very different rpm's so you would
run two different gear ratios and I would suggest running a 12a and a
13b, the spag clutches that I used were made by SSK and sold by Morse.


Russell Kent

CORRECTION: the quote from Ken was written 13-Mar-2003.

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Jay wrote:

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.

I think you're talking about Ken Welter's old Coot. It burned last year
(Jun 2002 IIRC). Ken has since completed a 4-place Coot, although it is
currently single-engine Wankel-only.

Ken Welter wrote on 13-Mar-2003:

Yes I have here is a photo of my twin pack that will go on the 4
place coot that I am starting to build, I installed this pack on my
present coot and tested it for 11 hrs and was a bit heavy for it but
should work on the bigger one, the front engine is a 670 Rotax
snowmobile engine that puts out 125 hp but there is no reason that it
should not work with two rotary's however part of the design to stop
resonant vibration is to run two very different rpm's so you would
run two different gear ratios and I would suggest running a 12a and a
13b, the spag clutches that I used were made by SSK and sold by Morse.

Russell Kent

Hi Rob. Thanks for forwarding the E-mail. I was unable to find the website
you mentioned. Would you please post my response.

I appologize for not keeping my site totally current. As of 21 Oct 2003, we
have logged 874 trouble free hour on our LS-1 powered Seabee. A second LS-1
powered Bee has loged over 70 hours, and an LS-6 powered Bee has over 180
hours on it. They are using my conversion. The first LS-6 conversion has
been delivered to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

If you check my website, you will see the LS-1 is rated a@ 345 H.P. by G.M.
We derate it to 320 H.P. for our use. The LS-6 is rated by G.M. at 405 H.P.
We derate it to 350 H.P. for our use. If you do a literature search, you
will discover G.M. ran two LS-1's at 100% power for 520 hours. The engines
were torn down & and all parts were within new parts tolerences. We do not
recommend running any engine at 100% continuous power. We run at full power
untill it is safe to throttle back. We cruse climb at 25" & 3500 rpm untill
we are at desired altitude. I have only climed to 11.000' for test purposes.
The engine ran great.I enjoy the scenery & normally cruse in the 2500 to
7000' range.

In terms of fuel efficiency, I normally burn 8.5 Imperial Gallons Per hour
at 22' & 3200 RPM. This increases to 10 IGPH at 25 " & 3500RPM. This is the
maximum popwer setting I have used for extended periods of time. Both of the
other Seabee owners claim they burn less fuel per hour than I do! I time my
flights with my GPS unit & dip the tanks every flight. I normally use the
lower power setting - I pay for all my gas myself & the extra speed is not
worth it.

If these gentlemen check the website, they will discover I do not use Oxygen
sensors on my aircraft. G.M. provides three calibration codes for the
computer, including the one which uses no Oxygen sensors. We did use oxygen
sensors on the LS-6 installation initially (the first 100 hours). They do
last fine if you use leaded fuel occasionally, but provided no operating
advantage. All my current installations do not use Oxygen sensors.

In terms of fuel, I run 100LL when I am at an airport, & premimum unleaded
when I am at home. The unleaded is better for the engine & the environment &
is cheaper.

In terms of the rebuild costs, I have quoted the average cost paid by
several Franklin owners recently. For the LS-1 overhaul costs I have
included the cost of replacing the engine with a factory new short block, &
dismantling the reduction unit & replacing key components.

In terms of reliability, I never passed the 100 hour mark on my Franklin
without incuring some major work. The Lycoming on my Supercub was better,
but not great. They recently replaced the Factory new lycoming on a
commercially operated, well maintained local aircraft at the 800 hour mark
because it plugged the oil cooler with metal. They also replaced 2 cylinders
in the first 800 hours. I believe the V-8 will prove to be a reliable
powerplant, & is certainly more cost effective. The modern heating & air
conditioning systems are a bonus. I remove my reduction unit & dismantle it
for inspection regularly (roughly every 200 hours), & so far it is like new
inside. Last winter I removed the oil pan from the engine & visually
inspected the engine. It too looked like new.

I had also considered the Northstar engin when I was in the design phase. I
rejected it as unnecessarily complicated. I believe the LS series is a much
better choice for aircraft use. I strongly believe in the KISS principle
(Keep It Simple Stupid)

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these items. If anyone wishes to
discuss the mater further, please contact me.

Regards

Brian Robinson

705-374-4347