X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:44:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nschwmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.189.140] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4994064 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 May 2011 09:42:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.9.189.140; envelope-from=frederickmoreno@bigpond.com Received: from nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com ([121.221.28.42]) by nschwmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20110525134124.NNVT391.nschwmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com@nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com> for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:41:24 +0000 Received: from Razzle ([121.221.28.42]) by nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20110525134124.BCXK11080.nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com@Razzle> for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:41:24 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Message-Id: <4DDD06F4.000019.02656@RAZZLE> X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:41:11 +0800 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_KC7RENY1VA4000000000" X-Mailer: IncrediMail (6244788) From: "Frederick Moreno" X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-Priority: 3 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mail (lml@lancaironline.net)" Subject: Piston vs turbine? X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com from [121.221.28.42] using ID frederickmoreno@bigpond.com at Wed, 25 May 2011 13:41:23 +0000 X-SIH-MSG-ID: rhg1EdD6TFa2kTAvmTy2alorgFm6/gF5uMhSBI0wt0lHEVbCu8DAQciibaFJ34rkxFkZYgr4bygwYan0XIzbtti6I7hBWLDY5sI= --------------Boundary-00=_KC7RENY1VA4000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fred, =0D =0D =0D I think you just said that there can never be a new aviation piston engin= e because the test fleet would be too small.=0D =0D =0D Therefore, if you don't like the tested piston alternatives out there, yo= u should be looking at a turbine? (fuel specifics notwithstanding)=0D =0D =0D Colyn=0D =0D Hmmmm....=0D =0D "Never" is a very, very long time. I suspect nothing much new in aircraf= t piston engines in the next decade or two which is the same as "never" for= me It is just too painful and expensive for not much gain. See Thielert's experience. =0D =0D In rationally asking "which engine?" one has to concurrently ask "which mission?" and "at what price?" =0D =0D If it is an emotional decision, that's fine, nothing wrong with that (personal airplanes are mostly emotional), but recognize it as emotional, and do not try to rationalize. =0D =0D As for considering a turbine, if you remove money as a consideration, why not? =0D =0D Fearless Fred, emotionally attached to efficiency, reliability, and cost = effectiveness (among many other things). --------------Boundary-00=_KC7RENY1VA4000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Fred,=20

I think you just said that there can never be a new aviation piston = engine because the test fleet would be too small.

Therefore, if you don't like the tested piston alternatives out ther= e, you should be looking at a turbine? (fuel specifics notwithstand= ing)

Colyn

Hmmmm....

"Never" is a very, very long time. I suspect nothing much new = in aircraft piston engines in the next decade or two which is the same as= "never" for me. It is just too painful and expensive for not much = gain. See Thielert's experience.

In rationally asking "which engine?" one has to concurren= tly ask "which mission?" and "at what price?"

If it is an emotional decision, that's fine, nothing wrong with that= (personal airplanes are mostly emotional), but recognize it as emotional= , and do not try to rationalize.

As for considering a turbine, if you remove money as a consideration= , why not?

Fearless Fred, emotionally attached to efficiency, reliability, and = cost effectiveness (among many other things).

--------------Boundary-00=_KC7RENY1VA4000000000--