Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7)
  with ESMTP id 801497 for rob@logan.com; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:59:31 -0400
Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.99]) by pop3.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35)
          with ESMTP id com for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>;
          Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:36:31 -0400
Received: from Epijk@aol.com
	by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id k.10d.1961af6 (4545)
	 for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:44:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Epijk@aol.com
Message-ID: <10d.1961af6.28622cf6@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:44:38 EDT
Subject: Re: 345hp lycoming
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Matt:

Your response contained the opener: 

<<..Does it create more HP?  Run cooler?  Lengthen TBO???  I don't know, nor 
did
I state any opinion that it did...>>

I suspect you may have misread my simple letter. Nowhere in my 
single-sentence question did I state, or even imply that you made any of the 
above claims, so I'm not clear on the point of that spurious series of 
responses.

My question was simply in response to your dogmatic statement that: 

<< I have an electronic fuel injection / ignition system in my Lancair
 360 that I purchased from Zehrbach.  I wouldn't trade it for any Bendix unit
 - stock, enlarged, modified, 18kt gold plated...  >>

The clear implication from that statement is that prior to installaing the 
Zerbach-Magic, you had gathered some form of data on the performance of a 
Bendix RSA system ON YOUR ENGINE to which you could then knowledgeably 
compare the performance of other systems. (Anecdotal comparisons to 
Wichita-Wonders fail for a number of quite obvious reasons.) 

<<..Does my "opinion" = "hard scientific data"?  I don't know.  Do I care?  
No.
However, if you want to pay for the scientific testing of my opinion, I will
fully cooperate...>

It is more than apparent from your response that you don't care about hard 
scientific data. Again, from your original statement, there was the clear 
suggestion that you did, indeed, have some data (as opposed to double-knit 
leisure-suit marketing claims)  upon which your statement was based. What 
makes you think that I would be interested in paying for the research you 
should have already done?? After all, you are the one with the ZM stuff on 
your airplane.

<<Will it survive a direct lightning strike?  I have no earthly idea.  Would a
stock mag survive a direct lightning strike? I have no idea...>>

There is the clear expectation, supported by hard experience, that a stock 
mag will survive a lightning strike. That's one of the major benefits of that 
type of ignition.

<<..., nor do I have any idea whether the rest of my plane or FAA approved 
avionics (Garmins, Sandel...) would survive....>>

On that one you're probably right; plastic airplanes have a checkered history 
of explosive delamination as a result of lightning strikes. 

The implied equivalence between a critical engine-support subsystem 
(ignition) and a non-essential magic box doesn't even deserve a reply. 
Suffice it to say that the Feds understand the difference. The expectation is 
that if the engine stays running, the pilot will have pretty good chance of 
landing safely, regardless of whether one or more of the IC-Magic in the 
panel is toast (Although from the BFR's I've done recently,  I wouldn't bet 
anything I cared about that many of these guys could keep an airplane 
right-side-up on a partial panel).

<<..As for another anecdotal opinion...  Lancairs are like, well, experimental
planes.  And the beauty of that is that I don't have to document, test or
strike with simulated lightning, my toy...>>

The fact that, by virtue of an extremely liberal provision in the FAR's, we 
get to design, build and fly our own aircraft does not in any way suspend the 
laws of physics (although many in the experimental community seem to believe 
otherwise). Indeed, you don't have to abide by many design and structure 
FAR's. Nevertheless, FAR 23, 33, 35 (and others) didn't just appear by the 
magical stroke of the bureaucratic pen; they have evolved from knowledge, 
experience and the school of hard knocks, and as such, comprise a body of 
knowledge from which a prudent designer/builder can learn a great deal about 
survival.

And you, too, are welcome. 

Jack Kane

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>