V8 fuel flow

Very well explained Corky !!!!!!!!!!!!

Please read the followup post I did for an explaination. You seem to
have pasted the SEA level output I quoted, not the real enviorment it
is flying . I am SURE the fuel consumption will be a lot higher DOWN
there.So Lets see, 12.6 X X 6 is 73 pounds per hour divided by 240 hp
gaves a number in the low three range. The main reason I am seeing 12.2
or so GPM is because I don't use FULL power. The whole idea is to have
plenty of EXTRA HP and use just what one needs for the task at hand.
Maybe one day when I get real crazy I will throttle it up some more, if
the plane don't break in half.. After all I only have two feet to push
on the right rudder. After 60+ hours on this package it has
demonstrated everything I was expecting and more. The motor is WAY
smoother then a Lyc or Cont, starts on the first couple of turns
everytime and can burn either 100LL or car gas. I do commend you on
taking the WRONG numbers to make your calcs with. IMHO you are bizarre
in your approach. But what the hell, this is a free country, better
yet. Come on out and strap yourself in and see for yourself, is ya
promise not to throw up in my plane.. Bring Barnyard Blob anong too..I
am betting all three of the planes you list below your name has a
aircooled engine in them,

Ben Haas

stol wrote...

After 60+ hours on this package it has
demonstrated everything I was expecting and more.

I don't doubt that someday someone will build
a successful auto conversion. Maybe someone
already has. Maybe it's you. But you sure
as snot don't know for sure after only "60+ hours"
unless that plus adds a zero or two to that 60.

Dave 'accelerated service test' Hyde

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:21:19 GMT, "Dave Hyde" wrote:

I don't doubt that someday someone will build
a successful auto conversion. Maybe someone
already has. Maybe it's you. But you sure
as snot don't know for sure after only "60+ hours"
unless that plus adds a zero or two to that 60.

Does 2,000+ hours count? There is a Ford V6 STOL that achieved that
mark several years ago. The owner/builder reached that time and tore
the engine and PSRU down for inspection. He found no discernable wear
in the cylinders and the belt appeared still viable. My understanding
is that he installed new bearings and replaced the psru's cog belt
anyway.

Bruce can likely give more detailed information.

Bruce can also give numbers on how many of the Ford conversions are
over 1,000 hours.

Corky Scott

PS, I did not see where Ben claimed anything other than that he built
the conversion and it is working fine so far.

Geez. Once again I screwed up and posted my results from my auto
conversion on the wrong web group. You see I was trying to inform all
the EXPERIMENTAL people that are " dreaming, thinking about, building
or just curious about homebuilt aircraft and dumb me I posted it on the
CERTIFIED plane group instead I put it here.........


Wait !!!!!


late breaking news !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is the rec.aviation. HOMEBUILT. newsgroup. Please Dave Hyde find
something wrong with this ...

Ben' thank god I don't have a certfied Lycoming crank that will break
in my plane' Haas.

Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one I
was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 = 0.29
BSFC.

Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be proud
to show.

73,
Sid

wrote in message oups.com...
Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one I
was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 = 0.29
BSFC.

Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be proud
to show.

73,
Sid


What is the fuel used in that engine - autogas, 100LL?

wrote:
Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one
I
was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 =
0.29
BSFC.

Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be
proud
to show.

73,
Sid

Thank you sir. I am using a JPI 450 fuel flow gauge and it is still in
the calibrate test mode. It appears to read a bit on the low side,
maybe 8 to 10 % I am making repeated flights to verify the true flow
though it. Ya see I used the bigger transducer to be sure of proper
flow though it in case I needed to gravity feed to motor in case both
fuel pumps fail. That change probably confuses the 450 head unit. I am
sure the flows to the carb and engine are correct as all my plug cuts
show a good color and after years of being in the engine development
business I am pretty sure what a proper running engine should feel
like. To answer the other guys question, so far I have only used 100LL
just to make sure I don't get too far off baseline. I do admit I have a
new respect for test pilots,, thats for sure.. I will keep posting
results as they are produced. Ya have to keep in mind I realize this
thing might do me in on the next flight, but thats the price to pay for
pushing the envelope.

Ben Haas N801BH

wrote:
Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one
I
was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 =
0.29
BSFC.

Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be
proud
to show.

73,
Sid

Thank you sir. I am using a JPI 450 fuel flow gauge and it is still in
the calibrate test mode. It appears to read a bit on the low side,
maybe 8 to 10 % I am making repeated flights to verify the true flow
though it. Ya see I used the bigger transducer to be sure of proper
flow though it in case I needed to gravity feed to motor in case both
fuel pumps fail. That change probably confuses the 450 head unit. I am
sure the flows to the carb and engine are correct as all my plug cuts
show a good color and after years of being in the engine development
business I am pretty sure what a proper running engine should feel
like. To answer the other guys question, so far I have only used 100LL
just to make sure I don't get too far off baseline. I do admit I have a
new respect for test pilots,, thats for sure.. I will keep posting
results as they are produced. Ya have to keep in mind I realize this
thing might do me in on the next flight, but thats the price to pay for
pushing the envelope.

Ben Haas N801BH

Robert Bates wrote:
I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was
derated
to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does
anyone
have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite
a
savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.

Hi, Robert!
Typically, the SFC of 4-stroke IC engines, liquid or air-cooled, is
0.5lb/hp-hr at best power mixture of about 12.5:1 A-F. Leaned for max
economy this will range from O.45 to 0.38 depending upon the engine.
Those that have 0.38 are very efficient. Some new Continentals or
Lycomings are getting this value leaned for best economy. The 10.9
gal/hr says that this engine, if it's leaned for best economy, is
producing between 148hp and 168hp, or about 50% power. "Cruise" is an
ambiguous designator, and doesn't really convey any information about
the engine's operating parameters! Be careful of these kind of claims!
So to get a good estimate of an engine's full-throttle, max. power
output, divide the fuel flow in gallons/hour by 0.5 then multiply this
by the weight of the fuel, which for av-gas averages about 5.85lb/gal.
Paul