Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:05:44 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b7) with ESMTP id 1711443 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:37:32 -0400 Received: from StarAerospace@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id q.174.d7c00f3 (4410) for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:37:28 -0400 (EDT) From: StarAerospace@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <174.d7c00f3.2a9a61c7@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:37:27 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Lycoming AD X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124 Does the recent engine mount / crankshaft failure AD cover Lycoming TIO-540's in Lancairs? If so, what is the response? Are the Lycoming TIO-540 Lancair IV's grounded? On a second note, how does this compare with the Continental crank AD of two years ago? For the uninformed, ALL (repeat ALL) 300+ HP turbo Lycomings have been grounded for crank and/or mount failures after two fatal accidents. After all the vitriol leveled by the Lyc crowd at the Con supporters over the last two years, it should be interesting to see how the shoe fits the other foot. A final question. What would the market acceptance be for Jet A powerplants that achieve demonstrated reliability (all the way to TBO at rated power plus meeting FAA cert requirements), lower fuel burn, and lower cost than the current Lyc-Con offerings? This is asked from the perspective that only AFTER such things are proven would the question be valid. Selling this before it is proven is not in the cards.