Message-Id: <s78936ad.001@ycc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:28:19 -0500
From: "Bill Gradwohl" <Bill@YCC.COM>
To: <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: RE: Engines
Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Anyone looking to go high and fast knows he/she has to spend a bundle of bucks
to do it. That's a given. One of the chief characteristics always thrown out
about certified aircraft engines is that they are reliable when used in the
relatively harsh aircraft environment. I contend that the really high output
recip aircraft engines can not make that claim.  
 
Specifying a high TBO and then not delivering as promised has an odor about it.
While growing up in New York, if someone was trying to pull a fast one we had an
expression that everyone understood. "Don't pee on my shoes and try to convince
me it's raining". Is asking for honesty in a transaction asking for too much? 
 
I remember a neighbor working on a Corvair engine when that car was all the
rage. Over a period of a few weeks, he was squeezing more and more power out of
it, until it blew up. I think that is where we are with the high output aircraft
engines. They've tinkered and modified these things to produce ample power but
over a much shortened life span. When they fail, they are more likely to fail
catastrophically. No coasting over to the side of the road as my friend did.  
 
Before the Japanese and Germans seriously entered the US car market, the big 3
automakers were supposed to be competing with each other to produce the best
product for the money. When they finally got some real competition they cleaned
up their acts and we've had better cars ever since. The major aircraft engine
manufacturers are comfortable in their respective markets. There is no
competition. If there were, we would have engines a shade more advanced than the
ones currently available. I mean look at them - they were old when steam
locomotives were used to ship them.
 
I'd bet there are engineers working for these companies that know what to do to
produce a better engine, but some bean counter won't let them. If these
companies ceased doing business for whatever reason, the tooling would be sold
along with the designs and a different hungrier set of bean counters would have
to risk something to make a buck and might give the engineers a free hand. If
there's no money in aircraft engines then why don't they just close up shop and
give someone else a chance? If there is money then why don't we get better
products? You can't have it both ways. 
 
I think we'll all grudgingly spend the money if what we get in return is a
quality product. Right now the money's being spent but the quality just isn't
there. I hope everyone looking for an engine stops long enough to realize that
there is something odd about sticking a 50 year old mill in the front of a
beautiful Lancair and gives the alternative engine manufacturers a good long
deliberate look before choosing.  


Bill Gradwohl
IV-P Builder


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML homepage:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html