V-8 powered Seabee

I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current
vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage
over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on
my '75 Pacer did -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 30% improvement disappears when operating
hour after hour at a 75% to 100% power setting
to duplicate aircraft performance requirements.

Let me rephrase...

The 30% improvement is only do-able/practical for automotive
generally low end power, street applications, loads and conditions.

When operating at 75% to 100% power settings demanded by aircraft...
The 30% improvement disappears unless the test conditions and
comparisons are fatally flawed or rigged for such an outcome.

P.S.
The Pacer is still a sick joke of a car for testing or otherwise.


Barnyard BOb -- unfair to mix apples and Pacers

Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!


(Drew Dalgleish) wrote in message ...
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.

Well you won't saveany money using this conversion Corky. I think The
owner could have bought a 300hp lycoming brand new and had enough
money left over for a new instrument panel for what he spent on his
plane. Plus he would have been in the air way sooner with little or no
troubleshooting.
Drew

On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:

Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben,
You need flowers...
Stuck up your assinine arse.
You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.

Any reasonable person knows...
Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
They also know that **** happens under the best of
conditions and controls even where the most qualified
folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
at the mouth here in RAH.

My record of 50 years and nearly 9000 hours speaks
well of certified engines. I've learn in that time to respect
and trust the engines that I have flown behind over vast
open waters, western deserts, the Rocky Mountains,
crop dusting and IFR charters that would have you ****ting
in your britches.

What have you got to offer to date in your OWN behalf?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but derogatory crap and very cheap talk.

Each and every home brewed conversion carries UNKNOWN risks...
and only a flying fool would think he has better odds gambling on
**** that the average shade tree dood has cobbled together.
I'm not against you or your conversion endeavors, but I am
against any horse**** posted here laying claim that auto
conversions in general remotely measure up to the finest
and most reliable piston aircraft engines ever produced by man.

Anyone with an IQ over two digits should realize this...
but guys like you have to learn it the hard way.
So be it.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
: Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed :
advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water : cooled
engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition?

Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline
engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned
for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you
describe a

1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd
engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with
computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient
performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control
doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does.

2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded.
Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you
anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the
ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel
(much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic
efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read:
efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so
much as an airframe issue.

3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise,
since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow
you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly
affect BSFC.

While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled,
fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline
engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not
inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel
economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

: Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed :
advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water : cooled
engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition?

Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline
engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned
for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you
describe a

1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd
engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with
computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient
performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control
doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does.

2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded.
Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you
anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the
ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel
(much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic
efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read:
efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so
much as an airframe issue.

3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise,
since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow
you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly
affect BSFC.

While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled,
fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline
engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not
inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel
economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360.

-Cory
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BINGO.

Thanx, Cory


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:54:00 -0600, Me again wrote:

Any reasonable person knows...
Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
They also know that **** happens under the best of
conditions and controls even where the most qualified
folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
at the mouth here in RAH.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight


Wow.

Corky Scott

Just thought I'd throw out a point for contention. (As if any more are
needed)

The O2 sensor as used in a NB Speed Density system is of little value at the
power levels used in aircraft. My understanding is that the NB O2 sensor is
mainly an emissions device. 14.7 AFR is neither best power nor is it best
economy. What it is is best emissions when combined with the proper cat. All
NB Speed Density systems that I am aware of ignore the O2 sensor at full
power.

Removing the NBO2 sensor from the engines made perfect sense when taking the
operating environment into account. In this situation (as in the car when at
full power) the computer uses preprogrammed lookup tables based on operating
and environmental considerations. A properly tuned engine can and will make
full power without an NB O2 sensor. Nothing whatsoever is given up except
emissions, but since no cat...

The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with making max power. So why include it
on an aircraft?

The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with max economy. So why include it on an
aircraft?

A WB O2 sensor is a different story. And there are other compromises at play
that have not been addressed here.

Regards
Ken Bauman

Me again wrote in message . ..
On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:

Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben,
You need flowers...
Stuck up your assinine arse.
You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.

Any reasonable person knows...
Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
They also know that **** happens under the best of
conditions and controls even where the most qualified
folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
at the mouth here in RAH.
Is this the same old man who just a few months ago claimed he was
50 years of accident free flight until I invited him to visit me at me
private strip if he could prove it was really accident free. Seems to
me some serious back peddling was done. I will dredge up that thread
and repost it for all the new people that cannot figure out your real
motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group
was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger. If ya want to keep ranting
about Lycoming please go to the CERTIFIED group, The jist of this room
it to EXPERIMENT with all realms of flight, be it airframe or
powerplant. You seem to be a very intelligent man so tell us all
reading this.... What is the defination of EXPERIMENTAL in your book
???????

PS, anyone out there that has a little free time would you go into the
archives and dredge up the last line of BULL**** BOb tried to pull
off about 50 years of accident free flight and repost it, BOb's not
worth my time. Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes
a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives,
agenda and stuff...

Ben Haas N801BH.
My record of 50 years and nearly 9000 hours speaks
well of certified engines. I've learn in that time to respect
and trust the engines that I have flown behind over vast
open waters, western deserts, the Rocky Mountains,
crop dusting and IFR charters that would have you ****ting
in your britches.

What have you got to offer to date in your OWN behalf?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but derogatory crap and very cheap talk.

Each and every home brewed conversion carries UNKNOWN risks...
and only a flying fool would think he has better odds gambling on
**** that the average shade tree dood has cobbled together.
I'm not against you or your conversion endeavors, but I am
against any horse**** posted here laying claim that auto
conversions in general remotely measure up to the finest
and most reliable piston aircraft engines ever produced by man.

Anyone with an IQ over two digits should realize this...
but guys like you have to learn it the hard way.
So be it.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

On 6 Nov 2003 03:31:40 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:

motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group
was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben,
You continue to prove yourself the unmitigated and irascible fool.
This is a NEWSGROUP outside of YAHOO and it is known as.....

--- rec.aviation.homebuilt ---

Since you have no idea where you are, there is little reason to
take stock in the rest of your character assassination foments.

Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes
a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives,
agenda and stuff...

I have signed "Barnyard BOb" in every post of which you complain.
I'm hardly anonymous or deceptive on this count. Only a jerk like
you with an ax to grind would so blatantly be looking for trouble in
this regard and every other PETTY manner possible. Seems I am
"besting" you to the point you will try anything and do anything to
muddy the waters that I address. For your "dastardly" behavior,
I will no longer address you in this forum. However, I reserve the
right to address your online indiscretions and stupidity as it
pleases me in the future.

PLONK

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

Ben Haas wrote:
Me again wrote in message . ..

On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote:


Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a
crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did
the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped
by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a
rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50
YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first
ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin /
PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing
like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!!

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

Ben,
You need flowers...
Stuck up your assinine arse.
You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool.

Any reasonable person knows...
Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks.
They also know that **** happens under the best of
conditions and controls even where the most qualified
folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is
risks are made as low as possible in this manner....
not by psychotically hammering on some car engine
from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for
the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming
at the mouth here in RAH.
Is this the same old man who just a few months ago claimed he was

50 years of accident free flight until I invited him to visit me at me
private strip if he could prove it was really accident free. Seems to
me some serious back peddling was done. I will dredge up that thread
and repost it for all the new people that cannot figure out your real
motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group
was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger. If ya want to keep ranting
about Lycoming please go to the CERTIFIED group, The jist of this room
it to EXPERIMENT with all realms of flight, be it airframe or
powerplant. You seem to be a very intelligent man so tell us all
reading this.... What is the defination of EXPERIMENTAL in your book
???????

PS, anyone out there that has a little free time would you go into the
archives and dredge up the last line of BULL**** BOb tried to pull
off about 50 years of accident free flight and repost it, BOb's not
worth my time. Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes
a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives,
agenda and stuff...

Ben Haas N801BH.


Ben,
Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused
this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob
really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him
into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a
accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove
that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof.

Jerry