Message-ID: <000901c1a353$1d2101c0$982cf718@up.chartermi.net>
From: "tom" <toms1@chartermi.net>
To: "lancair mail list" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Continental, everyting breaking
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:43:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
D.C.

    I have the same concerns with that product.  Seems it wasn't too long
ago Charlie posted something about his satisfaction with the Continental
Engine.  This is one of the reasons I've been hoping for a successful
alternate engine.  I just can't imagine putting "years" into this project
and experiencing one of these engine failures.  There have been far to many
failures for me to be comfortable with that product.
   Anyone read the latest Lancair Newsletter about the IVP Turbine find it a
little more appealing?  If the factory stats hold, it does become a little
more cost effective.  The lack of maintenance (if actually true) surely
closes some of the operating expense gap between it and the Continental.
Another issue my close friend and IA noted is the leaded avgas situation,
and his opinion is the cost spread between avgas and jet fuel is only going
to get larger.  If this holds true, turbine operating costs will close in on
the high end piston engines.
   Still no decision but watching and listening constantly.

Tom Sullivan
U.P. of MI.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore
assist with the management of the LML.

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