From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: superchargers
To: lml
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:18:08 -0500
Message-ID: <web-812279@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <003201c52d15$ece01a00$660610ac@dslverizon.net>
References: <003201c52d15$ece01a00$660610ac@dslverizon.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Tom Gourley" <tom.gourley@verizon.net>:

  Well, it appears I have put my foot in my mouth once again.  Actually, it
seems to spend a lot of time there, which can be darned inconvenient when I
need it elsewhere.  I still don't remember such a close photo finish (which
worries me a bit, but 2003 wasn't my best year) so when I went to what I
thought would be the most authoritative source of information,
www.airrace.org, and saw a 1.99 second difference I bought it.  So much for
authority.
  
  But let's get back to the main subject of the thread, which is the relative
merits of supercharging vs. turbocharging.  This has been an interesting
discussion, with a variety of data having been presented, and I'd be
interested to see more.  However, since we don't have a universally agreed
upon set of criteria to rate the two systems, nor do I think we're likely to,
there are areas where I think folks should just agree to disagree.  It's sort
of like Ford vs. Chevy, Intel vs. AMD, or Continental vs. Lycoming.  Some
aspects are subjective and different pilots will feel differently about what's
most important.  The only conclusion I've come to is that both systems work,
and Darryl's and Rick's Legacys go really fast.
  
  Tom Gourley