Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (Daniel Michaels)
2. 09:13 AM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (ogoodwin@comcast.net)
3. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (n801bh@netzero.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you ar
e only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the weigh
t. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is more carry
ing that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
=0AOn the "801"
=0A=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incor
rectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
=0A"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
=0AThe numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
=0ASomething is seriously wrong.
=0A=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
=0AWhat he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
=0AThis person is totally clueless.
=0AI am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
=0APaul Lamar=9D
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
=0AI don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
=0AI am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
=0AMy project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
=0AI built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=0A=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300
hours.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
=0AMy responses..
=0A1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
=0A2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
=0A3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
=0A4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
=0A5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
=0A6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice th
e
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
=0A7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
=0A8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
=0A9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor th
at
rich.
=0A10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
=0A11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
=0A12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor
alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
=0A13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
=0AAnd in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=0A=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
=0A=C2-
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
=0A=0A
____________________________________________________________=0A
Digital Photography - Click Now.
=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation) up.=C2
- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain range.
=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of a supe
rcharged engine without the mechanical complexity.=C2- He's also using su
ch a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty well last
forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him.=C2- He
can carry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bottle le
vels.
His numbers make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the engine.
=C2- Many of us are used to pulling the max power the engine will put out
for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" <nov32394@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you ar
e only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the weigh
t. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is more carry
ing that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
On the "801"
=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrec
tly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=9D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hou
rs.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor alo
t
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
==
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
put in 4 full sized adults and 60+ gallons of fuel and the GEO engine "
Might" be able to get it to taxi to the active runway... <GG>.... He can
have his opinion,, BUT,,, calling me clueless is petty, naive and not a
nything close to the truth... If he had actually built and flown an exp
erimental plane, in my eyes that would go far in my respect for him. Key
board pilots/engineers/ wanna bee's need to listen,,,, not proclaim exce
llence... IMHO... Thanks for your feedback Danial.
tailwinds.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Daniel Michaels <nov32394@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you
are only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the
weight. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is m
ore carrying that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends....... What a piece of work he is !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2­-------------------------------------------------------------
--
On the "801"
=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incor
rectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
"The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=9D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2­-------------------------------------------------------------
---
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours.
Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Click now for prescreened plumbing contractors.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYePbjMAHwHCm7egwgff
ZNQFLlKObyybAIkEWOFnmbZCkKIojcUUco/
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|