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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |