V-8 powered Seabee

"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

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

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. :-)

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.

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?

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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:16:54 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

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?

What do you mean RE read, it's obvious from a lot of his posts he
doesn't even read what he's responding to.

"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.

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

"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