Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Paul Lamar. !!!

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several 

friends.......  What a piece of work he is  !

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

On the "801" 

 

“This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly 

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 (at) 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” 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

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(at) 6.4 GPH or 

110(at) 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

  



____________________________________________________________ 

[url=_blank]Digital Photography - Click Now.[/url]

  [quote][b]

nov32394(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: 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 more carrying that weight.



Just an observation.



Dan

--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>

Subject: Re:  Paul Lamar. !!!

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM



This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several 

friends.......  What a piece of  work he is  !

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â--------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

On the "801" 

 

â€œThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly 

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 (at) 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 Lamarâ€ 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â---------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

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(at) 6.4 GPH or 

110(at) 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.

   	  Quote: 	
		  	


	


         [quote][b]

ogoodwin(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:13 am Post subject: 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 supercharged 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 carry 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 engine.  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 



---

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: 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 anything close to the truth...  If he had actually built and flown an experimental plane, in my eyes that would go far in my respect for him. Keyboard pilots/engineers/ wanna bee's need to listen,,,, not proclaim excellence... IMHO...  Thanks for your feedback Danial. 

tailwinds.

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

edflying(at)sandyvalley.n
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

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

 [quote]   ---

ogoodwin(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:49 am Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

If you're replying to me, I wasn't commenting on the use of a Geo, but suggesting a reason for having an engine that has more power than might be considered absolutely necessary.  Obviously, a Geo isn't near enough. 

  

Olen 



---

nov32394(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

I do know what a 801 is, I was just making an observation of amount of hp that was being used in cruise. Application is everything. In general the less weight you are carrying the better off you are. If you are operating at 14,000' 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 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(at)sandyvalley.net> wrote:

[quote]

From: Ed Smith <edflying(at)sandyvalley.net>

Subject: Re: Re:  Paul Lamar. !!!

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 11:49 PM



ï»¿    #yiv449018188 P { MARGIN:0px;}      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

 [quote]   ---

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

Ya even notice how much faster a plane gets off the ground with twice the 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 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"

tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

 	  Quote: 	
		   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

nov32394(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: Paul Lamar. !!!

I was just reading the excerpts from the post. If the poster said something like "I need 200 hp to get off the ground on my small strip, but once in the air I only use 80 HP." It was just to me the poster was bragging that he got great mileage by only using 80 hp. Which is fine, nothing wrong with powering back. There is such a thing as optimal power though. A place where you get the best mileage for the least weight or HP. It also goes to the kind of flying you do. If you are powering back to 80 hp most of the time you obviously do not need much more than 100 or so. My 260 Viking has the IO 470 260 hp the "Viking" has the 300 hp engine which is heavier and the engine mount had to be beefed up then the wings then the landing gear. Now my plane is faster than it, because it is lighter.



I was mostly commenting on "I only use 5 or 6 gph because I only use  80 hp out of my engine."



Dan



--- On Mon, 9/21/09, ogoodwin(at)comcast.net <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]

From: ogoodwin(at)comcast.net <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>

Subject: Re: Re:  Paul Lamar. !!!

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 9:40 AM



#yiv438438901 p {margin:0;}

If you're replying to me, I wasn't commenting on the use of a Geo, but suggesting a reason for having an engine that has more power than might be considered absolutely necessary.  Obviously, a Geo isn't near enough. 

  

Olen 



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum