Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (ogoodwin@comcast.net)
2. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (Daniel Michaels)
3. 03:44 PM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (n801bh@netzero.com)
4. 06:20 PM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (Tedd McHenry)
5. 08:18 PM - Hi-Rev car engines (Randy L. Thwing)
6. 09:56 PM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Tracy Crook)
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. !!! |
If you're replying to me, I wasn't commenting on the use of a Geo, but sugg
esting a reason for having an engine that has more power than might be cons
idered absolutely necessary.=C2- Obviously, a Geo isn't near enough.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Smith" <edflying@sandyvalley.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:49:56 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=EF=BB
=C2-=C2- Does this guy even know what an 801 is.=C2-To suggest a litt
le geo for an 801 is a little odd for such a large plane=C2-=C2- Ed Smi
th
----- Original Message -----
From: ogoodwin@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: 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.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List p://forums.
matronics.com blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?
Engines-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.c
om href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
===========
==
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. !!! |
I do know what a 801 is, I was just making an observation of amount of hp t
hat was being used in cruise. Application is everything. In general the les
s weight you are carrying the better off you are. If you are operating at 1
4,000' you will need more than the 50% he was using. I went totally by the
hp he mentioned he was using as an example.
The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on the
freeway. Turbo that engine and you get your rated hp as high as you want to
normalize it to. Little over 115 hp to be conservative. Ever notice how mu
ch faster a plane gets off the ground with 200# less weight.
I was just making an observation on why Paul thought using such a large eng
ine was not practical. I was not endorsing either one. I do know that Paul
is very knowledgeable on engine hp, fuel flows and the ability of an engine
to produce any hp at any specific BSFC.
Dan
--- On Sun, 9/20/09, Ed Smith <edflying@sandyvalley.net> wrote:
From: Ed Smith <edflying@sandyvalley.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
=EF=BB=0A=0A =0A#yiv449018188 P {=0AMARGIN:0px;}=0A=0A=0A=C2-=C2- Do
es this guy even know what an 801 =0Ais.=C2-To suggest a little geo for a
n 801 is a little odd for such a large =0Aplane=C2-=C2- Ed Smith=0A=0A
----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A ogoodwin@comcast.net =0A To:
engines-list@matronics.com =0A Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05
=0A AM=0A Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul =0A Lamar. !!!=0A
=0A =0A Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevati
on) =0A up.=C2- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft
mountain =0A range.=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has
the effect of a =0A supercharged engine without the mechanical complexity.
=C2- He's also using =0A such a small amount of the engine's potential t
hat it should pretty well last =0A forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little
fuel is worth it to him.=C2- He can =0A carry the power the Geo makes a
t sea level up into the oxygen bottle =0A levels.=0A =C2-=0A His numbe
rs make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the =0A engine.=C2
- Many of us are used to pulling the max power the engine will put =0A o
ut for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.=0A =C2-=0A Olen=0A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" =0A <nov32394@yahoo.com>
Sent: =0A Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada =0A
Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=0A =0A =0A =0A I think what he is saying is why have such a bi
g engine =0A out front if you are only going to use what a little GE
O engine will put =0A out at half the weight. Not only are you carry
ing extra weight, but your =0A fuel burn is more carrying that weigh
t.
Just an =0A observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, =0A n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wro
te:
=0A
From: =0A n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
Subject: =0A Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
=0A =0A This =0A posting that was on the interne
t was forwarded to me by several =0A
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
=0A --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------=C2=AD--------------------------------------------------------
------- =0A
=0A On the "801"
=0A =9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor moun
t is =0A incorrectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in =0A tension a
nd
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least =0A 450 pound
s
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made =0A of bee
fing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending =0A loads during
landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased =0A bending loads on
the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =0A =C2-designed to begin with
having very
thin skins.
=0A "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am present
ly =0A
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is =0A pr
oducing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
=0A The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about e
ngine =0A
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour =0A
or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP =0A gi
ving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely =0A event the
BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the =0A absolute maxim
um. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight =0A putting out 93 HP
at
cruise.
=0A Something is seriously wrong.
=0A =C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine
=0A weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that =0A will fit
in most
airframes."
=0A What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to
400 =0A HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 =0A en
gine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
=0A This person is totally clueless.
=0A I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
=0A
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
=0A Paul Lamar=9D
=0A --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------=C2=AD--------------------------------------------------------
-------- =0A
=0A I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications a
re =0A but..
=0A I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
=0A My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any ot
her =0A
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my =0A exper
imental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and =0A installati
ons are
a one off and done to the best of my ability =0A using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, =0A cars and god
only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years. =0A
=0A I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half
=0A built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. =0A I
have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other =0A planes
.
=0A =C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 year
s and =0A 300 hours.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 =0A landin
g, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full =0A throttle, !! over a co
uple of
dozen times to test it for strength. =0A Been flown in all other p
ower
settings to comfirm and quantify =0A data. Tested to +3.5g's to -
2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not =0A trucked there as others seem to d
o to
display their creations. =0A
=0A My responses..
=0A 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
=0A 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to
my =0A web
site and look at the pics.
=0A 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting
=0A angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the =0A are
a is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it =0A doesn't me
an crap.
=0A 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems
to. =0A And
it is less then his "estimation"
=0A 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just beca
use I =0A
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a =0A
free
shot.
=0A 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-ha
s =0A twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half. =0A
=0A 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle b
ack =0A to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 =0A G
PH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three =0A tim
es the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I =0A would hav
e built
another type plane. You would think a guy like =0A him could draw
a simple
conclusion.
=0A 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he
can =0A
dream about.
=0A 9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune
a =0A motor that
rich.
=0A 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
=0A
throttled back.
=0A 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie,
=0A different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor =0A will no
t gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 =0A Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 =0A because i
t for
sure doen not need any more power.
=0A 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn
the =0A motor alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda =0A noisy bu
t
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a =0A large di
ameter
prop.
=0A 13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
=0A And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. =0A Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very =0A long time. "
=0A =C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
=0A
=0A =C2-
Ben =0A Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________ =0A
Digital Photography - Click =0A Now.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A
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. !!! |
Ya even notice how much faster a plane gets off the ground with twice th
e suggested horsepower? <G>.
As for Paul. Working BSFC calculations is simple math assuming you know
all the parameters of the engine being observed. He has no idea about
the inner workings of mine......... YMMV. On his forum/sandbox someone s
ent in two dyno sheets for a rotary. The BSFC numbers were in the .65 ra
nge... Funny, not one person spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard"
.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Daniel Michaels <nov32394@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
I do know what a 801 is, I was just making an observation of amount of h
p that was being used in cruise. Application is everything. In general t
he less weight you are carrying the better off you are. If you are opera
ting at 14,000' you will need more than the 50% he was using. I went tot
ally by the hp he mentioned he was using as an example.
The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on t
he freeway. Turbo that engine and you get your rated hp as high as you w
ant to normalize it to. Little over 115 hp to be conservative. Ever noti
ce how much faster a plane gets off the ground with 200# less weight.
I was just making an observation on why Paul thought using such a large
engine was not practical. I was not endorsing either one. I do know that
Paul is very knowledgeable on engine hp, fuel flows and the ability of
an engine to produce any hp at any specific BSFC.
Dan
--- On Sun, 9/20/09, Ed Smith <edflying@sandyvalley.net> wrote:
From: Ed Smith <edflying@sandyvalley.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
=EF=BB Does this guy even know what an 801 is. To suggest a little
geo for an 801 is a little odd for such a large plane Ed Smith----- O
riginal Message ----- From: ogoodwin@comcast.net To: engines-list@matron
ics.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05 AMSubject: Re: Engines-L
ist: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation) up.
I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain range
. By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of a super
charged engine without the mechanical complexity. He's also using such
a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty well last
forever. Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him. He can car
ry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bottle levels
.
His numbers make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the engin
e. 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 Mount
ain
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.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?En="_blank" href="http://forums.m
atronics.com">http://forums.matronics.co= -->
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrFDTsstH2pc1lpr1
NENYFkQIqmdOjIizYfK9pq8BHbxoykQqNy/
Message 4
| 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. !!! |
> On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
> The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
> spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
>
Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
even challenged the statement, but there you go.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 5
| 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: | Hi-Rev car engines |
do not archive
Hello All:
Today I read this on this list:
"The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on
the freeway."
Could everyone or anyone please verify that this is even in the ball
park.
In the last several years that car engines have been adapted to
aircraft, I have often heard statements such as above where:
"These new hi-revving car engines run all day long at high rpms.
Between my own experience, and polling friends with small cars, I
haven't found that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I have no
experience with a GEO, but I have noted the following:
I had a '89 Jeep Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned 2100 rpm@ 70
mph.
I have a '89 Firebird with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the
highway. 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
I have a '98 Toyota 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400 rpm@ 70 mph.
I have polled friends with compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't
recall any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
If I have this wrong, please point out specific examples.
Most later models cars have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
Message 6
| 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: Hi-Rev car engines |
Probably a little high but smaller engines do tend to be geared higher than
big ones. The Mazda MX5 (Miata) turns about 4000 - 4300 at hiway speeds.
My Kawasaki 650 twin turns close to 4800 at 70 mph.
My 13B rotary cruises at 5200 - 5600 at 170 mph (in the plane) and I have
raced it at 7250 continuously (for 100 mile races). I would not feel
comfortable with that rpm if there were pistons in there stopping & starting
that rapidly. That might be just a psychological thing though.
Tracy Crook
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>wrote:
> do not archive
>
> Hello All:
>
> Today I read this on this list:
>
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on the
> freeway."
>
> Could everyone or anyone please verify that this is even in the ball park.
>
> In the last several years that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I
> have often heard statements such as above where:
>
> "These new hi-revving car engines run all day long at high rpms.
>
> Between my own experience, and polling friends with small cars, I haven't
> found that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I have no experience
> with a GEO, but I have noted the following:
>
> I had a '89 Jeep Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical engines
> and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have a '89 Firebird with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the
> highway. 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have a '98 Toyota 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have polled friends with compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't
> recall any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
>
> If I have this wrong, please point out specific examples.
>
> Most later models cars have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy, Las Vegas
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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! --
|