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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote: The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then subsequently built a chain drive PSRU. At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine. One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking. Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-) (For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....) One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines. Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes. Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four. My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per cylinder. As I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one distributor. Ron Wanttaja |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on.
In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well. Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with the the hours flown. Jerry Robert Schieck wrote: John Stricker wrote: Corky, Somewhere it was said they have 600 hours on this conversion and yet from their site "I have approximately 56 hours on the finished product, including a very enjoyable trip to Airventure 2000." Not a long term study. He has more than 600 hours on the first SeaBee that was converted and 56 hours on the second one ...... I leave the rest of the error to be corrected by the reader... Rob .ps I have seen this aircraft 3 times as he comes to the RAA events to talk about the plane. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I am not recomending this but my 95 ford ranger has a 4 cyl.eng. with
dual elect. ign. that is fully redundant in case smeone wants to copy it.One coil fires one set of plugs and the other,the other.Jim |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Jerry Springer wrote: I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on. In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well. Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with the the hours flown. Jerry +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jerry, You're beating a very, very dead horse. The RAH auto conversion wannabees are incurably gullible and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality. Legitimate auto conversion guys are knee deep in alligators... walking their talk and have no time for the fuzzy and inane horse**** that drives the RAH noisemakers. The RAH group is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle, comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case. The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame. It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, immature twits do what they do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely no awareness to that very fact. Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote: Jerry, You're beating a very, very dead horse. The RAH anti-auto conversion wannabees are incurable and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality. I don't like debating with legitimate auto conversion guys as I don't know what the **** I'm talking about. The RAH group is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle, comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case. The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame. It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, old twits like myself, do what I do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely no awareness to that very fact. Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable Thought I'd do a "truth in advertising" re-write of Bob's prose. ;-) -- 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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote: I found this web site to be interesting. The guy looks like he did a good job on the conversion for his purposes. I also can't see one item on it that makes any better than the Franklin. He has the overhaul cost at $40,000. For a Franklin? Lot's of guys were working on the Franklin's in Cozy's because they were 3-4 thousand CHEAPER than a 360 Lycoming. The problem, as I understood it, was that parts for the model of Franklin used in the Seabee could not be found anymore. Hence the conversion. 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message ... Jerry Springer wrote: I had a VW powered aircraft one time that I had over 500 hours on. In that 500 hours I had two complete failures. One I was close enough to land on an airport, the other one did not turn out so well. Point is that saying how many hours an engine has on it does not tell the whole story, we need to know the maintenance history along with the the hours flown. Jerry +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jerry, You're beating a very, very dead horse. The RAH auto conversion wannabees are incurably gullible and will not be deterred by honest info, perspective or reality. Legitimate auto conversion guys are knee deep in alligators... walking their talk and have no time for the fuzzy and inane horse**** that drives the RAH noisemakers. The RAH group is nothing but a vocal minority that fraudulently passes itself off as the real deal. It's laughable. All hat and no cattle, comes to mind. Time and time again this proves the case. The best they do is present URL's of someone elses claim to fame. It's entertaining to observe a bunch of clueless, immature twits do what they do best... hoot, holler, name call and shoot themselves in the foot at every turn.... with absolutely no awareness to that very fact. Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill wrote: the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking. Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-) (For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....) Now that's really funny, same as the Bleriot crossing of the English Channel, by the time he got half way his boots were burning as there was no fire wall, he has the full heat from the engine to contend with.:-) -- .. -- Cheers, Jonathan Lowe whatever at antispam dot net No email address given because of spam. Antispam trap in place One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines. Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes. Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four. My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per cylinder. As I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one distributor. Ron Wanttaja |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
John Stricker wrote:
Rob, I found on a different page where he says he had 650+ hours on the LS6 now. His two pages contradict each other, but that's understandable, things happen. My point on this is that if HE wants to experiment and play with it, that's great. It might even be something I might want to try some time. But in the long haul, figuring time, $$, and all factors, an auto conversion should be looked at as just that, something to experiment and play with and not something that's going to save you a ton of money. As to "rest of the error.." your point is??? as you said: Speaking of which.............. They really don't say much about those bells and whistles, do they?? All they say is that the engine uses "multi-port injection" and "computerized electronic 8 coils" ignition. Curious, that's what GM uses on them. Except to make them really run right, in cruise, they have to operate in closed loop mode. To do that, they need a lead free fuel. 100LL will make the O2 sensors last about, oh, 3-4 hours, if you're lucky. What happens if the O2 sensor fails? The ECM goes into open loop mode and you get BSFC of around ..500 or so. from the web site: Engine Control System The system I chose is a standard G.M. system. The unit is programmed with the export code for leaded fuel and uses no oxygen sensors. This was to enable me to run 100 octane Low Lead fuel as well as premium unleaded fuel. It also meets the KISS criteria. The emission and VAT codes are suppressed. The computer is stock G.M. After much research and correspondence, the wiring harness was purchased from an after market supplier. This portion of the project was as time consuming as designing the reduction drive. Before undertaking a project like this, it is imperative to purchase the factory (not after market) manuals for the engine and read them thoroughly. You have to decide what is acceptable practice, how you want you're engine management system to work, and have the harness manufactured accordingly. I am not sure how much more detail you want or expected and the issue of the O2 sensor was addressed. disappointed, time to go to private lists where signal to noise ratio is better. Rob |
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 |