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
  #61  
Old October 23rd 03, 01:08 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bob,

What makes you think I don't have "credentials" or
various flight certs? Even as a "youngster" at 35.


Your behavior.

Post what you got.
Embarrass me.
Show everybody how badly I missed the boat.
Now's your opportunity to really shine.
Go for it.
Let's see what a poor judge of character I am. g

Psssst. - No fibbing allowed.

I was attacking your personal vendetta on auto-conversions
that seemed rather lacking in basis.


Bart


Sorry, but you have attacked my name, changed my posts,
and ridiculed me on a personal basis because of my opinions.
If you have a different view, that's fine. It's time to move on at
long last. There is nothing to be gained by either of us engaging
each other now or into the foreseeable future. I'm finished
responding to you. Post your credentials and certs as your
last hurrah. So.. the last word is now yours. Have at it.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

  #62  
Old October 23rd 03, 01:16 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:06:07 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

I did read your other post and emailed Brian myself complimenting him on the
job they do and asked some more questions.

1100 trouble free hours? You don't know that. All you know is there are
three conversions that have accumulated 1100 hours on the hobbs. Take that
and compare it to the how many MILLIONS of hours of Lycoming and Continental
time and it will put things in perspective.


John, I don't understand what it is you're looking for. These guys
aren't Lycoming and they aren't Continental. They are a couple of
guys who make an auto conversion from the Chevy LS1 or LS6, one at a
time.

Of **COURSE** they aren't going to have the millions of hours
LyContinental have accumulated since they first began building flat
engines.

But these guys have an engine conversion that seems to be working
well. Isn't the whole point to have a bunch of this type of engine
out there running so we can see how they match up? The only way to
make comparisons is to build them and fly them.

They're using a setting that allows them to run the computer without
needing oxygen sensors. Is this equally as efficient as running a
closed loop with O2 sensor input? Probably not, but it turns out it's
pretty close and much more efficient than what the Franklin was able
to manage. The engine is readily available, burns less fuel, makes
more power and offers air conditioning to boot. I'm having a hard
time seeing problems here.

Corky Scott
  #63  
Old October 23rd 03, 01:23 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 22 Oct 2003 17:57:02 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

I don't have a dog in this fight, yet, so I figured I'd throw mine in.

All this talk of reliability, statistics, redundant systems, engine
failure, and dying is the perfect place to put in my 2 cents about
using 2 single ignition engines to get a dual everything. Its like
the brakes in your car. Brakes are pretty important right? But, you
don't pay a zillion dollars for single special purpose super reliable
brake system, that you have to have professionally inspected every
year. No, you design a cross coupled redundant system that granny can
drive and say "It pulls to the left", when one of the 2 circuits
fails.

Read all about it at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

I'm thinking folding props might be better than the CS full feathering
type I'm using now in the model.

There is a guy that was (still is?) flying a push pull power pod sea
plane with a Mazda 13B in back and a Rotax (I think) in front. Talk
about mixing and matching. Maybe he was going for that "disimilar"
idea you see in voting flight control systems on the big 'uns.


Jay, have you calculated weight and balance yet?

Corky Scott

  #64  
Old October 23rd 03, 01:49 PM
John Stricker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

I didn't change the topic, I responded to a statement you made, amongst
others. You then proceeded to quote a part of one paragraph of my response.
Daunting, to me, is a difficult and challenging thing. Not impossible. If
I did want to buy a wiring harness, why would I buy one from someone with no
experience on the engine I'm working on for an application that was in no
way similar to the harness I need?

Some of us are the "masters of word all unspoken and blah blah blah"

Some of you have simply never learned to think things through. The
statement you quoted from me showed you missed the point completely. It's
the last part that's important. Any difficult project can be completed
given a sufficient quantity of time and/or money. But it's one thing to
have many failure modes on the ground and quite another to have them in the
air. THAT'S the important point of my comment. In one case, I coast to a
stop on the highway and use my cellphone to call a tow truck. In the other,
I'm practicing a forced landing for real.

There is a reason that the certified engines have remained very simple
systems.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
You are changing the topic again....

I never said that you said it was too daunting, I just said that if it
was, you could purchase one from Brian, here is a quote from your first
message:

I'm elbow deep into a Northstar right now for a completely (ground-based)
different purpose. The electronics and systems on this are daunting with
untold failure modes.


We are the masters of word all unspoken and slave to those that are.....


Rob



  #65  
Old October 23rd 03, 03:17 PM
clare @ snyder.on .ca
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

The Northstar of either the 4.6L or the 4.0 Liter are within 10 pounds in
weight to the LS6, ready to run. Many Northstars are still running with no
visible wear on the cylinders after 150,000 miles. They had a problem the
first three years of porous aluminum castings causing oil leaks that were
replaced by Cadillac with new engines. That problem hasn't been a factor
for quite a while. They had a service bulletin on the oil pump relief valve
sticking as well which was addressed with a new design oil pump in '96.

I don't think you can make the mileage claim of the LS6 over the Northstar
since they were never put in comparably weighted vehicles. I know that the
guys that swap them into Fieros can routinely make well over 30 mpg on the
highway, and the LS6 guys can't do that. But most of the LS6 guys are using
manuals and not the 4T80E that the Northstar was designed to run in front
of.

Both the LS6 and the Northstar/Aurora can supposedly be driven with no
coolant but that's simply a factor of power limiting coming into play in the
PCM. They won't allow them to make enough power to generate enough heat to
cause a catastrophic failure. The other thing is they come standard with an
external engine oil cooler that takes a lot of the coolant load off the
radiator. That doesn't change the complexity of the engine itself. They
use the same sensors and fuel management control. In fact, the LS6 fuel
pressure regulator is a bolt on that the Northstar guys use because there
are adjustable versions of it out there.

There is one major difference in the electronics of a Northstar over a LS6.
The Northstar uses two crankshaft position sensors and a special toothed
segment on the crankshaft which allows the ECM to determine the precise
crank position within 180° of crankshaft rotation. That was incorporated
strictly to make the engine start quickly.

I don't know what you mean by "staying in one piece". The Cadillac is good
to over 7000 rpm on a regular basis with stock rods, crank, and pistons.
The only time they get upgraded by the guys that push them is if they're
boosted over about 7 psi and making more than 525hp. They use the same
powdered metal construction rods the LS6 uses with full floating piston
pins. The engine I'm in the process of building uses turbo cams and springs
from CHRFab that are good to 9,000 rpm. When I called around to some of my
friends that were service managers in Cadillac dealerships to get some
information on rebuilding and weak spots, all of them said they really
didn't know much about it because they'd never had one apart.

John Stricker


Well, the caddy experts around here say the factory is "still trying
to get it right" and they can pretty well tell what failures to look
for by looking at the production date. One of the latest failures to
come to light is a fracture of the block, with no apparent cause.
Can't remember where, but IIRC between 2 cyls. Usually good to
150,000K, but some don't get half that far. They are Godawfull
expensive to replace, too. $8000 Canadian for a (hopefully) good used
engine????
Now to give credit where credit is due, they are a very technically
advanced engine, capable of significant power output, and very smooth
when running right. Possibly one of the best engine "designs" out
there - but the implementation is still not up to the standard of,
say, a Lexus.Or a Bimmer.Or a SBC II
My brother's shop services a large fleet of limos - and a year or so
ago they got rid of the last Caddy - had just Lincs and Mercs and a
Caprice. This was due to the expense of keeping the caddies on the
road. They have a couple (Chevy powered) Caddies in the fleet again
this year - and they've got their fingers crossed.

As for the dealers never having one apart, that is very likely true,
as when they have a problem they pull the engine out and drop a new
one in - the "defective" engine goes back to GM for an autopsy.
In my 25 years in the business, that only happened when the factory
had "concerns" with a given item.
In the early seventies with Toyota it was 1600cc cyl heads. For 6
months, every one that came off went back to Japan for analysis - and
they found out what the problem was, changed the type of sand they
used for the cores, and the problem went away. In a particular
production range, replacement level was close to 100% - and I was
replacing about 6 a day for weeks at a time.


clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

Clare,

The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the

exception
of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.

John Stricker

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
.. .

The Northstar system is VERY daunting.


The LS6 is lighter, more powerful, and gives better mileage than a
Northstar. It also tends to stay in one peice, and running, much
longer than the Northstar. The LS6 has adaptive shut-down to allow it
to get home without coolant like the Northstar (supposedly) will? ? If
so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was ONLY the northstar and
Aurora engines that had those features.



  #66  
Old October 23rd 03, 03:25 PM
clare @ snyder.on .ca
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:22:41 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
wrote:

Bob,

What makes you think I don't have "credentials" or
various flight certs? Even as a "youngster" at 35.

I was attacking your personal vendetta on auto-conversions
that seemed rather lacking in basis.

If I were your son, I'd expect more discussion and less
doctrine. If you can't suggest or support improvement of
anyone elses projects or ideas, how can a person grow
or develop new ideas?

Bart


Know why they call him "barnyard" Bob?
Cause he's both a S**t disturber, and full of S**t.
You and I will never change his mind. 66 years of bullheaded Dogma is
a terminal condition. There is no proof that could possibly be
provided that will change this old codger's mind (and heck, 66 isn't
OLD, for crying out loud - it's about the median age of the typical
EAA chapter).
He's all but calling the designer and owners of these conversions
liars, and unrealistic, overly optimistic fools, without ever having
met them, or seen the conversions.
I've met them. I've seen them. They are neither.
  #67  
Old October 23rd 03, 03:51 PM
clare @ snyder.on .ca
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:23:45 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


Holger,

I don't think you get it. I wrote a few emails critical
of Bob, and he has written dozens of critical emails about
auto-conversions without a complaint.

If you notice, my emails generated REAL feedback on auto
conversions.

I'm sure Bob's Ego will heal and maybe he'll be a more
beneficial contributor to this group.

That's my hope.

Bart

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

Sorry Bart,
Your emails, for the most part, attack ME...
not my position on auto conversions which
you have yet to comprehend.

I am NOT against auto conversions.
I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.

*YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".


Barnyard BOb --

And exactly what is "simplistic" about the conversion under
discussion?? They have taken extreme pains to do things RIGHT. The
only thing that can be construed as "simplistic" is the fact they
adhere to the KISS principal. Use what has been proven to work. Change
only what is necessary, and then do not use unproven changes.
The engine calibration they are using is proven over millions of Kms
on land based apps. All the Saudis and other rich folks of the third
world, and half of eastern Europe driving late model high end GMs are
running the same, factory supplied code. This is because lead free gas
cannot be guaranteed available in better than half the world, even
today.
The proof is in the pudding. These 'Bees DO fly. I see and hear one
of them flying overhead here several times a week. Up to this point
they have been rock solid, dependable.
As for WHY install an auto conversion??
What other engine do you put into these old birds - the "factory"
engine has been out of production for decades - and the installed base
has exhausted the supply of many important replacement parts.
Converting to another existing aviation engine would be almost as
involved as the auto conversion, and a whole lot less "fun".
This IS "RECREATIONAL" aircraft, is it not??? And what can beat the
recreational value of being able to fly into a remote lake to go
fishing or hunting in your antique amphibian, without having to worry
that if something goes wrong it may be after freezeup before the
required part can be located, much less shipped up and installed to
get you out? And the comfort of being able to sit in the air
conditioned, temperature controlled cabin - comfortable in shirt
sleeves in any weather? For guys in the "snack bracket" these fellows
are in, it is not so much a matter of cost. The fact the parts are
available, regardless of cost, is more important than the "fact" that
parts are less expensive. The fact they will be available in another
20 or 25 years is another factor.
The fact that a new, current technology engine is statistically more
reliable than a patched together (by necessity) heavily used, heavily
stressed, high hour antique aircraft engine is another bonus.
Sure, they could buy a brand new Lake, or other current production
Amphib with a certified engine -but then all the old Republics would
either be in museums or scrapyards. They are too unique to suffer that
fate.
  #68  
Old October 23rd 03, 06:44 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message

I am NOT against auto conversions.
I'm against simplistic auto conversion bull****.

*YOU'RE* the one who doesn't "get it".


Barnyard BOb --


BOb, I think I understand your position , now more than ever. The thing I
don't understand what about this particular conversion you feel falls short
of the mark. It seems they have done their homework, are expecting
realistic power levels of the machine, and have a good start on a number of
hours on it.

So, if you would, spell it out.
--
Jim in NC


  #69  
Old October 23rd 03, 11:17 PM
John Stricker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Clare,

Yep, they really stink. That's why, for the last 6 or 7 years, they've been
the basis of every IRL car. Not most. All. I'm sure that full girdle
surrounding the crank was so much weaker than the old style main bearing
caps.

Cracks between the cylinders? Show me the SB. Better yet, just give me the
number, I have all of them. You've obviously never seen how a Northstar
block is designed and built. They may crack somewhere, but I'd be amazed to
find one crack between the cylinders.

$8,000 CDN for a good used engine? Why not just shop EBay and take your
choice of low mileage complete cars for the same amount? How on earth did I
ever find my two engines (one with a 4T80E attached) with wiring and
computer for about $500 each? Maybe I should sell them to the Canadian
market.

As far as engine replacement if major repairs are needed goes, that's been a
CADILLAC policy for almost 20 years, long before the Northstar came on the
scene. It's a way to maintain high customer loyalty.

Obviously, someone you know hasn't had good luck with them. That happens.
Ask Unka Bob what kind of luck he has with GM products. That doesn't make
them a bad engine and they're far more advanced technologically than the
LS6. I like them so I play with them. You don't care for them, I'd suggest
you stay away from them.

Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or BMW, and
don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a damn
fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)? Koni shocks
being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think not.
And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between one of
those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.
Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive some
German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior it
is.

John Stricker

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:26:48 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

The Northstar of either the 4.6L or the 4.0 Liter are within 10 pounds in
weight to the LS6, ready to run. Many Northstars are still running with

no
visible wear on the cylinders after 150,000 miles. They had a problem

the
first three years of porous aluminum castings causing oil leaks that were
replaced by Cadillac with new engines. That problem hasn't been a factor
for quite a while. They had a service bulletin on the oil pump relief

valve
sticking as well which was addressed with a new design oil pump in '96.

I don't think you can make the mileage claim of the LS6 over the

Northstar
since they were never put in comparably weighted vehicles. I know that

the
guys that swap them into Fieros can routinely make well over 30 mpg on

the
highway, and the LS6 guys can't do that. But most of the LS6 guys are

using
manuals and not the 4T80E that the Northstar was designed to run in front
of.

Both the LS6 and the Northstar/Aurora can supposedly be driven with no
coolant but that's simply a factor of power limiting coming into play in

the
PCM. They won't allow them to make enough power to generate enough heat

to
cause a catastrophic failure. The other thing is they come standard with

an
external engine oil cooler that takes a lot of the coolant load off the
radiator. That doesn't change the complexity of the engine itself. They
use the same sensors and fuel management control. In fact, the LS6 fuel
pressure regulator is a bolt on that the Northstar guys use because there
are adjustable versions of it out there.

There is one major difference in the electronics of a Northstar over a

LS6.
The Northstar uses two crankshaft position sensors and a special toothed
segment on the crankshaft which allows the ECM to determine the precise
crank position within 180° of crankshaft rotation. That was incorporated
strictly to make the engine start quickly.

I don't know what you mean by "staying in one piece". The Cadillac is

good
to over 7000 rpm on a regular basis with stock rods, crank, and pistons.
The only time they get upgraded by the guys that push them is if they're
boosted over about 7 psi and making more than 525hp. They use the same
powdered metal construction rods the LS6 uses with full floating piston
pins. The engine I'm in the process of building uses turbo cams and

springs
from CHRFab that are good to 9,000 rpm. When I called around to some of

my
friends that were service managers in Cadillac dealerships to get some
information on rebuilding and weak spots, all of them said they really
didn't know much about it because they'd never had one apart.

John Stricker


Well, the caddy experts around here say the factory is "still trying
to get it right" and they can pretty well tell what failures to look
for by looking at the production date. One of the latest failures to
come to light is a fracture of the block, with no apparent cause.
Can't remember where, but IIRC between 2 cyls. Usually good to
150,000K, but some don't get half that far. They are Godawfull
expensive to replace, too. $8000 Canadian for a (hopefully) good used
engine????
Now to give credit where credit is due, they are a very technically
advanced engine, capable of significant power output, and very smooth
when running right. Possibly one of the best engine "designs" out
there - but the implementation is still not up to the standard of,
say, a Lexus.Or a Bimmer.Or a SBC II
My brother's shop services a large fleet of limos - and a year or so
ago they got rid of the last Caddy - had just Lincs and Mercs and a
Caprice. This was due to the expense of keeping the caddies on the
road. They have a couple (Chevy powered) Caddies in the fleet again
this year - and they've got their fingers crossed.

As for the dealers never having one apart, that is very likely true,
as when they have a problem they pull the engine out and drop a new
one in - the "defective" engine goes back to GM for an autopsy.
In my 25 years in the business, that only happened when the factory
had "concerns" with a given item.
In the early seventies with Toyota it was 1600cc cyl heads. For 6
months, every one that came off went back to Japan for analysis - and
they found out what the problem was, changed the type of sand they
used for the cores, and the problem went away. In a particular
production range, replacement level was close to 100% - and I was
replacing about 6 a day for weeks at a time.


clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "John Stricker"
wrote:

Clare,

The Northstar system is functionally identical to the LS6 with the

exception
of a single crank sensor instead of 2 on the Cadillac.

John Stricker

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
.. .

The Northstar system is VERY daunting.


The LS6 is lighter, more powerful, and gives better mileage than a
Northstar. It also tends to stay in one peice, and running, much
longer than the Northstar. The LS6 has adaptive shut-down to allow it
to get home without coolant like the Northstar (supposedly) will? ? If
so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was ONLY the northstar and
Aurora engines that had those features.





  #70  
Old October 23rd 03, 11:30 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Stricker" wrote in message
...

Oh, and BTW, I'd rather work on 6 Caddy's than one damn Mercedes or BMW,

and
don't even begin to talk parts price comparison with me. $700 for a damn
fuel pump in a Mercedes (like I just put in my brothers car)? Koni shocks
being $150 a pair cheaper for a BMW than the factory shocks. I think not.
And don't even begin to compare smoothness of the powertrain between one

of
those cars and a Northstar because they simply don't compare.
Implementation my butt. I guess if you pay that much just to drive some
German or Japanese car it's easy to convince yourself just how superior it
is.

John Stricker

********************************

chuckle chuckle, snort, chuckle. !

Amen, brother!
--
Jim in NC


 




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 01:26 PM.


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