V-8 powered Seabee

"John Stricker" wrote in message

I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker


Why? You haven't been flamed, or anything.
--
Jim in NC

You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...


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

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:32:47 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I suspect it probably would have been easier to replace
the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less work than it
took to convert the Chevy....

Yes, but it would not have been nearly as irritating to Barnyard BOb.

Well, like I always say, it depends on what your mission goals are... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

On 22 Oct 2003 05:31 AM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:

The current Franklin company only supports two engines, a 125 HP
four-cylinder and a 220 HP six. The 165 HP Franklin as used in my old
Stinson 108-3 was NOT one of the engines produced in Poland or
currently supported. We had to jump through many hoops to keep this
engine running; I think one of the main rebuilders even reworks auto
piston rings for use in the 165 Franklin.

According to a SeaBee site, the 'Bee used the 215 HP Franklin 6A8-215-
B8F. The Franklin engines site says the current 220 HP is the 6A-350-
C1R. Don't know what parts commonality there is, but it's quite
possible that they're totally different engines.

However, that said, I suspect it probably would have been easier to
replace the old 215 Franklin with the new 220 HP model with far less
work than it took to convert the Chevy....

Even support for the "current" models is sketchy at the moment. One of
the instructors at the A&P school here in Anchorage has the 220hp
Franklin in his 172, and can't get the parts he needs to get it working
again (he has a cracked case, on a 2nd or 3rd run engine) or even a
complete new engine. He's been trying since at least April or May with
no success so far. Something to do with the factory in Poland having
found more lucrative things to build.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

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.

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.

Whatever Bob!

Too bad you choose not to participate in a discussion.

Could put those many years to use.

I'm just mirroring your posts so what does that have
to say about your RV-3 build?

Didn't notice that did you? That was what the last
post was about, getting you to notice.

The Seabee discussion has actually produced some useful info
pertaining to all conversions.

Bart

--
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.


Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
"Bart D. Hull" wrote:


Barnyard BOb -- once again predictable


Thought I'd do a "truth in advertising" re-write of Bob's prose.

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

Bart,
You have nothing going for you.
Least of all, originally.

If your auto conversion carries the same level of quality
as your posts here, you are in deep **** and will be my
poster boy for... how NOT to proceed in aviation.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

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.

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.

What did I misquote? He has different numbers in different parts of his
website. Even with his email you published, he STILL doesn't give a power
rating, does he? I didn't see the second set of numbers. That's not a
misquote. I also didn't see that he eliminated the O2 sensors. My point
remains unchanged, without the O2 sensors he's running in open loop and not
running the way the engine was designed to run.

I don't need to worry about luck with my Northstar because it's not flying
anywhere. It's staying firmly attached to the ground, as long as the
suspension holds up. Tickled me, though, that they thought the Northstar
was too complicated when it has DOHC and direct lifter on valve actuation
and virtually the same electronics as the LS6. But the car itself, when
finished, will run faster than a SeaBee. Where did I say it was too
daunting? Nice little attempted backhand slam, didn't work though.
Besides, do you really think the guys will help me convert the 4T80E to a
six speed with a paddle shift (which is what I'm working on right now)? Oh,
that's right, airplanes don't need that. 8-)

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...
You have changed the topic...

We are discussing your misquoting his web site to prove your point. You
asked for another error and I delivered another one.

You may want to read the post from me titled :

V-8 powered Seabee - a response from Brian Robinson

it is a response from the SeaBee Conversation Designer to your first
message. He did wish you luck on your northstar conversion as he ruled
it out for the SeaBee as begin too complicated.

And, in case you don't read it, there are now 3 converted SeaBees
flying with more than 1100 trouble free hours between them, with 874
hours on the highest time one. In addition he has just delivered his
first conversion to a Murphy Super Rebel customer.

Personally, I think you should be so lucky to have as much success with
your Northstar project . However if the Northstar's electronics and
system become to daunting, you could always purchase a LS-1/6
conversion from Brian as he seems to have the electronics and the
systems all worked out. .

Rob


John Stricker wrote:

Why are you disappointed, because someone asks questions?? You
disappoint
easily then.

Having no O2 sensors requires the computer to go into open loop mode.
That's not as efficient in cruise. Simple fact. It's now a simple, MAP
system. Later he says that he's getting 8.5 IMP/hour at 3200 rpm. We
have
no way of knowing what HP that's making there, but if it's max at that
rpm
according to dyno charts that's a BSFC of .318. Guess what? That aint
happening. That's better than a very efficient diesel can do.

The conversions use of no O2 sensors simply backs up my point that they
won't work with 100LL for very long. The published HP figures are GM's
own,
the developers don't make any claims for any other HP and don't really
know
what HP the conversion makes. Best guess is they're using a 400 hp auto
engine to do slightly better than a 200 hp aviation engine.

That being the case, are the Ford and Chevy V6 conversions that came from
the factory at about 200 hp really only 100 hp aircraft engines?

The fact that these guys made a system that appears to work well for them
is
commendable. It takes a lot of patience to do that. He's also not
putting
it in an experimental airframe either, also commendable.

You guys fly what you want. Matters not to me. I regret ever having
come
out of lurk mode and ever bothering to check in on the group.

John Stricker

"Robert Schieck" wrote in message
...


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

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:37:37 +0000, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

You might think it's funny, and in a way maybe it is funny.

No it is not funny. The discussions here are saved to many databases and
threads are not always kept together. There is no guarantee Bart's
second mail will stay together with his childish attempt to make a joke
using someone else's identity.

Thanks for pointing that out, Bob.

Bart: if you want to improve the noise level here stop picking on those
you don't agree with. Or get a life.

- Holger