X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:47:14 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp-ext-02.mx.pitdc1.expedient.net ([206.210.69.142] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTPS id 3205566 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:11:51 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.210.69.142; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from dlhtpax009 (static-71-178-198-10.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.198.10]) by smtp-ext-02.mx.pitdc1.expedient.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A2FC7C27A for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 00:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Robert Pastusek" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Oil Drain Sumps for the Continental engine X-Original-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 00:11:14 -0400 Organization: Holmes-Tucker International, Inc. X-Original-Message-ID: <013301c929c5$12633f00$3729bd00$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0134_01C929A3.8B519F00" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ackpl8/OoDTNIZS5QvecQYXZjpHXSQAK8qbQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0134_01C929A3.8B519F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Hafen wrote: Is there any reason I would NOT want to use [a quick drain] on the Lancair Continental? Have any of you had experience with these suckers, good or bad, on the Lancair? I have a quick drain (different manufacturer, but same concept) installed on my IV-P, and love it so far. (only about 130 flight hours/four oil changes to date) It has all the benefits you describe, and my engine is clean and dry to this point. We tried to install one on the "twin" to my airplane but even the very low profile unit was too close to the nose gear strut when retracted. This being a pretty critical item, we went back to the regular plug. As a result of this experience, I had Ron Monson at Performance Engines install a drain plug on the side of the oil pan where it is well clear of the nose gear linkage. This has been a good solution with no adverse effects I can determine. I recommend you very carefully check the clearances with the gear linkage when you install one of these. With that consideration, I think they are a great addition to the airplane. Bob ------=_NextPart_000_0134_01C929A3.8B519F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oil Drain Sumps for the Continental engine

John Hafen wrote: Is there any reason I would NOT want = to use [a quick drain] on the Lancair = Continental?   Have any of you had experience with these suckers, good or = bad, on the Lancair?

I have a quick drain (different manufacturer, but same = concept) installed on my IV-P, and love it so far. (only about 130 flight = hours/four oil changes to date) It has all the benefits you describe, and my engine is = clean and dry to this point.

 

We tried to install one on the “twin” to my = airplane but even the very low profile unit was too close to the nose gear strut = when retracted. This being a pretty critical item, we went back to the = regular plug. As a result of this experience, I had Ron Monson at Performance Engines = install a drain plug on the side of the oil pan where it is well clear of the = nose gear linkage. This has been a good solution with no adverse effects I can = determine.

 

I recommend you very carefully check the clearances with = the gear linkage when you install one of these. With that consideration, I think = they are a great addition to the airplane.


Bob

------=_NextPart_000_0134_01C929A3.8B519F00--