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
  #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, 08:23 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart D. Hull" wrote:

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.


Bart

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

You and your name calling can go **** off and die.

This group is just as much open to my opinions as your
dizzy unproven crap. Somebody needs to balance out
your 'pie in the sky twit ****' so, learn to deal with me...
in a constructive manner if you can.

Until you get the bejeezus scared out of you real good...
you're just another punk talking through a large paper asshole.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight
  #6  
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?
  #7  
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

  #8  
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


  #9  
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



  #10  
Old October 23rd 03, 05:05 AM
RDA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm still trying to figger how you got under 600 hrs out of your 0-200 in
your 172....Oh....thats right- two jugs fell off somewhere.

Yea, that's the answer!


"BD5ER" wrote in message
...


SNIP

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......



 




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 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.