On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:40:15 -0400 "Colin & Bev Rainey" <crain...@cfl.rr.com> writes: > I don't know of any engine that goes 2400 hours between overhauls! > That is just the stated TBO, not what they do in practice. In > practice they all eat valves, develop leaks and problems where half > the engine has been replaced by the time you get to the 2400 TBO. > The main difference is entry cost and upkeep cost. For the initial > cost of a Rotax or Lyc you can buy 3 to 5 VW type engines, and > rebuild them 4 or 5 times for the cost of one rebuild from Lyc > mech. > > Colin & Bev Rainey > KR2(td) N96TA > Sanford, FL > crain...@cfl.rr.com > http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html
Hmm. OK, I'll answer up to this one. Discussing engines seems to be like discussing religion. You believe what you believe and to call your's pretty almost always turns into a case of calling someone elses baby ugly. I'll try not to do that. First misconception. Out here in the mountains, many Lyc and Cont engines run well over TBO without ever pulling a cylinder. They rarely pull their rated HP as they spend most of their time above 5000'. Our rental C-172s typically run 2500 hours between engine swaps and come off still showing mid to upper 70s for compression and no metals in the oil. That is more the norm here, although at low altitudes I'm sure that's the exception. I'm running my second Continental engine on my KR. I picked up a high time C-85 for $2500 while I was building the plane. I flew it for 350 hours to finish running it out. It would be difficult to build any engine for that kind of $$. While flying behind the C-85, I kept my eye and mind open for the right deal on the next engine, not necessarily a Continental. I found a low time O-200 out of a C-150 with a damaged crank for $3500. It cost me $3000, including a new crank to rebuild. The C-85 was donated to a charitable organization as parts, which generated about the same $$ in tax refunds as the cost to rebuild the O-200. Now I'm flying behind an engine that I fully expect to outlast the airframe. Compare the economics. It doesn't have to cost a fortune to fly behind a Continental. Those that say they are too expensive are using that as an excuse to justify their choice, but in my opinion, the economics don't necessarily add up. Ok, I think I did that without being an engine biggot. If you think I am, then you might be surprised to find that the other plane I built after the KR was flying behind a VW. One last thing that weighs heavily on my mind with my choice of engines. I live and fly in the high mountains. I've had one engine failure at night and count myself fortunate to be here. As hot and flat as my KR lands, I don't ever want to have a forced landing in it. It's hard to beat the millions of hours of experience behind a Lycoming or Continental. Note that I am not and will not say that any other engine is inferior. Only that this is my justification for the engine in my plane. See you in Mt Vernon. Jeff Scott ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
