Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:18:59 -0700
From: erosiak@postoffice.pacbell.net
Subject: Brand C vrs Brand L
To: "lancair.list@olsusa.com" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Reply-to: erosiak@pacbell.net
Message-id: <38FD5DE3.927E06AA@postoffice.pacbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
I find the inevitable argument regarding brand C vrs brand L an
interesting one.  When one adds the auto conversions to the mix, we get
a thought provoking decision to make for our power plant.

I think that when you look at the major engine options, you have to
agree that each is based upon an old design.  There is no argument that
aircraft engine technology is based upon old designs, updated slooowly
over the years. However, the Chevy 265 came out in 1955 if I recall, and
while that may be only a distant relative to the new aluminum Chevy
blocks of today, there still is a heritage.

While no one can argue that Continental has had its problems over the
past few years, so has Lycoming.  The auto conversions have also had
their fair share of problems.  Each of us has his or her prejudices
regarding the brand, and type power plant we want to use.  That's good.
It is from this diversity that positive change is implemented.  Who
wouldn't agree that the aircraft manufacturers have been pushed (hard)
by the Experimental Movement?

I think Charlie Kohler and John Barrett both made valid points.  I
believe Continental is acting responsibly and I don't think you can
realistically compare an aircraft engine with a Cadillac Northstar (by
the way, has anyone really made it 100,000 miles without a tune-up?) or
Lexus, or what have you.

I think a better automotive analogy might be a Ferrari.  A Ferrari is a
performance machine that we can all agree needs as much tender loving
care as an aircraft.  Costs are probably similar too.  There are others
too.  One of my T210 partners owns a Porsche.  Not the Turbo model, but
the (air cooled) high horsepower model under it.  He says there are two
tune-up options on his Porsche. Minor (about $1200.00) and major (about
$5000.00).  He did tell me one day that he had the clutch replaced and
the bill was $3700.00 after they also did a few more things.  The clutch
plate alone was $1000.00.  Hell after that, I felt good about what our
owner assisted annuals cost on the 210.

TBO is another good discussion.  An important factor to consider in
attaining TBO on any engine is pilot operating technique.  While I am
not an engine expert, I do read about their systems as much as
possible.  Our TSIO-520 in the 210 has a TBO of 1400 hours.  We have had
a few problems with exhaust valves, but other than that I expect we will
make TBO (we are at 1100+ now).  We change oil every 25 hours, filter
every other oil change and participate in oil analysis.  We also fly
conservatively.  Usually at 65%, using a higher MP over RPM.  So far so
good (and it's been nine years).

I for one enjoy all of the points of view shared here, but I have to
tell you it wouldn't have changed my mind on the 550 I already purchased
(for my ES in progress).  Let's keep those ideas and concerns coming so
we can all benefit from thinking all of this information through.

Ed Rosiak
ES (in progress)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

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