X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:11:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4523771 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:15:45 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=gliderguy89@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=CarK4gUgiREtjFukhBdoXsgVLDRbHb6ywHYvqItwBApPa/VUCSaOUIu4Jf4N0U7y; h=Received:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [64.185.145.252] (helo=VM1561) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1P9KGq-0002jH-20 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:15:08 -0400 From: "Rick Lafford" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Questions - Performance Engines Perfidity X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:15:08 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <00c301cb7204$4bc8fd50$e35af7f0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C4_01CB71E2.C4B75D50" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Actx/FYTsQ6I/MXGQIm7cHK+wG39qgAB4gIw Content-Language: en-us X-ELNK-Trace: 5cf1c2b2e8c4339655a1d8a776dae97f9ef193a6bfc3dd48e76fea496a6097aaeab6621aa7d541e33b5efdd33357ec02350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.185.145.252 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C4_01CB71E2.C4B75D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We fly behind an O-360 rebuilt by PE with 10:1 pistons and have not had any operational problems after >600hrs. on the clock. We do see some valve guide wear in one cylinder, which will have to be addressed soon as we get oil leakage into the cylinder on the ground. Oil usage is less than 1qt /10hrs. Rick (RV N146RV) From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Frederick Moreno Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:18 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Questions - Performance Engines Perfidity John Barrett is out of country and asked me to forward his post below. Fred As owner of a TSIO 550 engine sold as new/experimental, I have been following this discussion with growing concern. I was involved with a group of three customers including Fred M. who negotiated with Monson and ordered engines simultaneously. I have not had first flight yet although I have run the engine on the aircraft enough to dial it in for first flight. Some questions and thoughts come to mind: 1. Since the rush to purchase Performance Engines products was fueled by testimonials on the LML from one or more participants in the races at Reno, what can these owners tell us about their experiences with PE products in the intervening time since those testimonials? 2. Are there PE customers out there who are satisfied with their engines? What maintenance issues have surfaced for them and how many hours have they got on theirs? 3. As owners of PE engines that have not (yet?) had problems, what should we do to minimize risk to life and limb? Should we treat this as if it were an AD note for complete tear down, or is there some less painful alternative at this point? John Barrett ------=_NextPart_000_00C4_01CB71E2.C4B75D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We fly behind an O-360 rebuilt by PE with 10:1 pistons = and have not had any operational problems after >600hrs. on the clock. We do = see some valve guide wear in one cylinder, which will have to be addressed soon = as we get oil leakage into the cylinder on the ground. Oil usage is less than = 1qt /10hrs.

Rick (RV N146RV)

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Frederick = Moreno
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:18 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Questions - Performance Engines = Perfidity

John = Barrett is out of country and asked me to forward his post below. = Fred

As owner of a TSIO 550 engine = sold as new/experimental, I have been following this discussion with growing = concern. I was involved with a group of three customers including Fred M. = who negotiated with Monson and ordered engines simultaneously. I have not = had first flight yet although I have run the engine on the aircraft enough to dial = it in for first flight.

Some questions and = thoughts come to mind:

1. Since the rush to purchase = Performance Engines products was fueled by testimonials on the LML from one or more participants in the races at Reno, what can these owners tell us about = their experiences with PE products in the intervening time since those = testimonials?

2. Are there PE customers out = there who are satisfied with their engines? What maintenance issues have = surfaced for them and how many hours have they got on theirs?

3. As owners of PE engines that = have not (yet?) had problems, what should we do to minimize risk to life and = limb? Should we treat this as if it were an AD note for complete tear = down, or is there some less painful alternative at this = point?

John Barrett

------=_NextPart_000_00C4_01CB71E2.C4B75D50--