Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 07:52:55 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4989501@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=liegner@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=moGIpMkRby6EJbRkJ0t+MnJLnGAZITjDXxRRaKqHo0ZD64BMfxaQhya8XP2n7TUW;
  h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
From: liegner@earthlink.net
Reply-To: liegner@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [LML] L-IV Choice of Engine
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nicholas,

I am one of those builders with V8 experience.  I wish I had Coyln's advice=
 when I made the 2003 decision to pursue the V8 alternative.  After three y=
ears of design/installation, lots of money, and three months of test flying=
, I was not pleased with the continued engineering problem solving required=
 to make the installation safe and effective.  It was my awareness of the m=
ultitude of challenges in Sept 2006 that led me to remove the engine and pu=
t a standard TSIO-550E on my LIVP.  I am very glad I did.  Without highligh=
ting the significant issues associated with such an endeavor, I would couns=
el to stick with the standard engine configuration.  Always.

I note that you have been building since before 2003, with wings done in 20=
03-2004, inquiry about engine choice in 2005, empennage questions in 2006, =
followed by (presumably) some time away from the project there in the Vanco=
uver BC area until more recently.

Like I was, you are probably anxious to get flying this kitplane that has o=
ccupied your engineering attention for so many years.  The fastest way to g=
et that kit flying is to stay with standard features like the engine choice=
.  Avoid reworking a solidly good design, despite the uncertain forecast re=
lated to 100LL fuel.

If you want to contact me off list, you are welcomed to do so.

Jeff L
LIVP in New Jersey


Nicholas,

I hate it when people don't answer the question I asked but I'm not going t=
o answer your question as posed. =C2=A0I don't actually know much about eng=
inair.

I will editorialize that it takes a test program from hell PLUS many thousa=
nd copies in the field to fully get through debugging just about any signif=
icant piece of engineering.   That's because to hit every unique combinatio=
n of circumstances that might kill you just takes a lot of exposure.....if =
you look at the probabilities.=20

To say that something has a 95% chance of working only means that 5% of the=
 uses will result in a 100% failure. =C2=A0A 100% failure of an engine in a=
 L-IV has a very high correlation to death.

Aircraft engines, technically, are nothing inspiring compared to the latest=
 auto technology.
When you buy an aircraft engine, what you are really buying is a de facto p=
retty good test program: =C2=A0hundreds of thousands of hours with all the =
relevant combinations of things that happen in airplanes.

Don't agonize. =C2=A0Get a real aircraft engine.....and keep at least one m=
agneto.
One way to get a really good aircraft engine is to buy one that is near TBO=
 and have Barrett Performance Engines rebuild it.

Colyn


On May 19, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Nicholas Paczkowski wrote:

I am ready to hang an engine on my L-IV project (not-pressurized) and am ag=
onizing over the choice of engine. I have a good grasp on the problems with=
 the Enginair V8 conversions a few years ago but is there ANYONE out there =
who has successfully hung one of the GM LS V8 engines on a Lancair IV (or L=
egacy). Alternatively  I was hoping to find anyone who has unsuccessfully d=
one so and is willing to talk about it.
=20
Thanks
=20
 Nicholas Paczkowski
   Office: (604) 643 1720
   Fax:     (604) 924 8270
   Direct: (604) 929 8285
E-mail: npaczkowski@telus.net