If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Jerry Springer" wrote 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 So basicly, you are calling this lies? -- Jim in NC |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the
horsepower and weight and prop comparisons. Jerry Morgans wrote: "Jerry Springer" wrote 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 So basicly, you are calling this lies? -- Jim in NC |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Smith wrote: "Morgans" wrote in message ... "Jerry Springer" wrote 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 So basicly, you are calling this lies? -- Jim in NC No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't you know that, Morgue? Larry you and I on the same side of the fence for a change, now that is astonishing. :-) |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:02:27 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote: So basicly, you are calling this lies? -- Jim in NC No, he's not; he's questioning the numbers which seem to be a little suspect. Manufacturers of certified aircraft puff their numbers. Didn't you know that, Morgue? Larry you and I on the same side of the fence for a change, now that is astonishing. :-) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Less astonishing... I'll take a bit of a different slant. g The "numbers" published for certified aircraft are legitimate. They can be duplicated.... *IF* one duplicates the specific conditions that were used to generate them in the first place. This could include a number of conditions and parameters that are impractical for us to duplicate/measure accurately from under our cozy shade tree. CAVEAT IMO, any numbers published by manufacturers, while accurate, may not be particularly useful and possibly misleading to the mere mortals that dare apply them in the real world. The irony here is.... We have some dumb bunnies that will unduly question "numbers" from legitimate sources with everything to lose, but will bend over backwards to accommodate any struggling backyard operation without qualification. Go figure!!! Perhaps this goofy behavior needs be labeled... *UNDERDAWG SYNDROME* Barnyard BOb -- if it sounds to be too good to be true, it is. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
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. Bruce says: Auto engine conversions are a safe alternative, subject to the same failure modes that stop certified types. Auto conversions do not explosively deconstruct any more frequently than do certified types. BOb says: I'm not going to mince any more words over this. Ha ha, good joke. Folks, when has BOb ever minced words? Until you attempt to certify your auto conversion via the FAA your don't know what got, much less be able to TRUTHFULLY lay claim to equality/parity with certified engines. In short..... your position is patently absurd without authoritative data that is all but an impossibility to collect. Details of installation and operation disseminated widely will eventually bring auto conversion failure rates in line with that of certified types. Hahahahahahhahahhahaaa... No ****ING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But, I can't top this. Color me gone. bfg We can only hope. Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful f(r)ight (little bit of Corky editing here) Here's the problem: BOb keeps moving the target. At no time in any of the discussions I've seen in this group, since before the group was this group, has anyone suggested that for an auto conversion to be viable it had to be certified. In fact the reality is exactly opposite this concept: the FAA allows us to use alternative engines without needing certification. But what's good enough, and legal for the FAA isn't good enough for BOb Urban. He now demands that in addition to testing the engine in flight to what, 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 hours (who knows, he don't say) anyone who converts an auto engine to airplane engine must also go through the impossibly expensive process of certifying it. Not so that the FAA accepts it as a viable engine, no, this is only for BOb Urban. All I can say is that's pretty cheeky, given that it's not necessary. You've threatened to leave before BOb, are you really going or just tantalizing again? Corky Scott PS, do you re-read what you write before you post? |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:56:07 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote: Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the horsepower and weight and prop comparisons. Jerry FWIR, the prop is the same one used on the Franklin and Lycoming, but I could be wrong. Morgans wrote: "Jerry Springer" wrote 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 So basicly, you are calling this lies? -- Jim in NC |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"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*. Barnyard BOb -- if it sound to good to be true, it is. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
BOb wrote:
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 |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message ink.net... Jim you don't find the 1500fpm number suspect? Once again lets see the horsepower and weight and prop comparisons. Jerry I really don't want to give the impression that I believe all of the numbers are accurate. I imagine that a complete and scientific POH may be lacking, but although the numbers may be "slightly enhanced", I believe the owner believes them. 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. It is also not too hard to believe that it has better efficiency than the Lycosarus. I agree. I would love to see a full accounting given. It sounds as though the people have done some good work, and are more than some of BOb's wanna bees. A big V-8 can work. I site Orenda, or however it is spelled. After all, it is just 2/3rds of a V-12, and we all know they can work. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
human powered flight | patrick timony | Home Built | 10 | September 16th 03 03:38 AM |
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter | Mike Hindle | Home Built | 6 | September 15th 03 03:32 PM |
Pre-Rotator Powered by Compressed Air? | nuke | Home Built | 8 | July 30th 03 12:36 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans | MJC | Home Built | 4 | July 15th 03 07:29 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans- correction | Cy Galley | Home Built | 0 | July 11th 03 03:43 AM |