A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

V-8 powered Seabee



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 20th 03, 02:23 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default V-8 powered Seabee

Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.

The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
stainless steel mufflers.

http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml

Corky Scott
Ads
  #2  
Old October 20th 03, 08:18 PM
Robert Schieck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You forgot that it gets air-conditioning as a bonus of the conversion...

I have seen the plane, nicely done...

Rob


Corky Scott wrote:

Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.

The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
stainless steel mufflers.

http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml

Corky Scott



  #3  
Old October 20th 03, 10:13 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


(Corky Scott) wrote:

Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.

The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
stainless steel mufflers.

http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml

Corky Scott

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as
fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. g

If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it?


Dictionary.com - Anecdotal:

Based on casual observations or indications
rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:

When was the last time someone posted
that their auto conversion was a POS.

Beware of hidden agendas


Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor
  #4  
Old October 21st 03, 12:18 AM
Bart D. Hull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Aye Barnyard Boob,

I think we all know your agenda. Caveat emptor for certain.

If you have constructive comments fine, otherwise shut your pie hole.

Noticed you didn't want to critique the new Honda-Lyc, Bombardier
or Jabiru engines. Too new for you? Or would they be considered
auto-conversions since their not Lyc or Cont?

Bart
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Building for the new Century.

Check
http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.
Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
(Corky Scott) wrote:


Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee.

The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb,
cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the
conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet
burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two
stainless steel mufflers.

http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml

Corky Scott


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as
fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. g

If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it?


Dictionary.com - Anecdotal:

Based on casual observations or indications
rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:

When was the last time someone posted
that their auto conversion was a POS.

Beware of hidden agendas


Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor




  #5  
Old October 21st 03, 01:39 AM
BD5ER
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it?


Beware of hidden agendas


You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the
thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets......

That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many
Seebees are there left in the world in need of power?

Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion
group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding
everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm
concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous
ice with that last post.

These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the
O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew......

I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you
think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should
be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite
useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post
does nothing more than to express your bias.

If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you
find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find
a better way?
  #6  
Old October 21st 03, 02:47 AM
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



BD5ER wrote:
If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it?



Beware of hidden agendas



You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the
thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets......

That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many
Seebees are there left in the world in need of power?

Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion
group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding
everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm
concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous
ice with that last post.

These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the
O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew......

I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you
think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should
be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite
useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post
does nothing more than to express your bias.

If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you
find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find
a better way?



Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.

Jerry

  #7  
Old October 21st 03, 04:07 AM
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
ink.net...





Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.

Jerry


Building on what Jerry said...

"My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One
of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to
the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s
still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which
turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied
with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport
to make an uneventful dead stick landing.

Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in
mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong*
way than the right way.

KB


  #8  
Old October 21st 03, 04:22 AM
Bart D. Hull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kyle,

What has been the experiences with the other members of
your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this
last year?

Why did the first homebuilt engine quit?

I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you
don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe
that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single
pilot and a homebuilt engine.

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

Thanks
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check
http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.


Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
ink.net...




Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.

Jerry



Building on what Jerry said...

"My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One
of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to
the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s
still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which
turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied
with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport
to make an uneventful dead stick landing.

Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in
mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong*
way than the right way.

KB



  #9  
Old October 21st 03, 05:29 AM
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart D. Hull" wrote in message
m...
Kyle,

What has been the experiences with the other members of
your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this
last year?

Why did the first homebuilt engine quit?

I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you
don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe
that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single
pilot and a homebuilt engine.

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

Thanks
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check
http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.


Kyle Boatright wrote:


"My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft.

One
of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up

to
the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft

s
still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of

which
turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box

supplied
with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an

airport
to make an uneventful dead stick landing.

Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that

purpose in
mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the

*wrong*
way than the right way.

KB


The first aircraft went down because the subaru ate a valve. There was some
talk in the chapter that the engine's oil temperatures were very high, but
the owner has never personally confirmed this in my presence. The gear
failure was related to *where* the weight was located - all of it was waaay
up front. The electrical problems on the third aircraft had to do with a
ground wire that had an intermittant connection which took out the brain
box. Obviously, with two ignition systems - particularly if at least is a
magneto, the chances of losing BOTH ignition systems is very small. The
chances of losing the *single* home baked ignition system is much higher.

Again, most folks don't have the ability, financial ability, or patience to
properly engineer an engine conversion that is up to Lycoming or Continental
standards. There are all sorts of NTSB cases which indicate this. I'm sure
it can be done, but at what price? 5-10 years and/or a million dollars in
development costs? To KNOW you've got the equivalent of a Lycoming or
Continental, that's what it would take...

This year's only *bad* chapter experience with a certified engine was a
fellow with a Continental 0-300 who wasn't happy with his compression
readings, so he pulled the cylinders and reseated the valves or something.
A non-event, as it was not a failure, and was dealt with on the ground.
That's one of the better things about certified engines. The engines and
systems are fairly robust, so most problems don't result in the fan
stopping.

KB



  #10  
Old October 21st 03, 06:48 AM
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type.


But look at the bright side: With this one, if the SeaBee engine fails,
you get to shoot the dead-stick landing in air-conditioned comfort. :-)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
wrote:

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.


But Continental and Lycoming had to convince a *very* skeptical FAA about
the reliability of the FADEC. They had to prove that the FADEC is at least
as reliable as two magnetos.

I remember an article, years ago, about what Porsche had to do to certify
the PFM engine for the Mooney. They had to prove the two independent
ignition systems *were* completely independent. I think they even had to
apply a sudden dead short across one, just to prove the other one would
keep running.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.


A good goal, and worthy of discussion. With one exception, the failures I
hear about have been fairly random, mostly related to the subsystems rather
than the core engine.

I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems. Two batteries,
two electronics boxes, two sets of plug wires, two plugs per cylinder. The
second should be solely a backup, connected to *nothing* in common with the
primary system. If the primary system uses the distributor drive to time
the ignition, the backup system should run off a hall effect sensor on the
flywheel.

Buy a drycell battery and run it directly to the backup ignition
electronics...no connection to the primary bus. I say a drycell simply
because of their ability to hold a charge a long time. Test the ignition
momentarily during runup and slap a charger on the backup system every week
or so.

That way if your electrical system goes to hellandgone, you've got a
completely independent backup. The drycell should be sized to give you at
least a half-hour of flight time...I'm basing that on the required VFR fuel
reserve.

Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
spews oil everywhere, of course).

You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
a fading gauge.

I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?

The PSRU is another single point failure item. I don't know what one could
do to increase redundancy, but plenty of design margin would be a good
start. Regular, in-depth inspections would be another...guy across from me
just found a crack in one plate of his gyro's PSRU.

Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
engine. Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
to fill. :-)

I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
into information sources to build the safest engine possible.

Ron Wanttaja
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.