Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with ESMTP id 801192 for rob@logan.com; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:57:04 -0400 Received: from loki.funb.com ([63.104.62.104]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:07:22 -0400 Received: from clt-msw-01.capmark.funb.com ([168.175.76.103]) by loki.funb.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA27425 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cltastr02.capmark.funb.com (unverified) by clt-msw-01.capmark.funb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:15:29 -0400 Received: from clt-conn-01.capmark.funb.com (unverified) by cltastr02.capmark.funb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:14:56 -0400 Received: by clt-conn-01.capmark.funb.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:14:17 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Hapgood, Matt" To: "'lancair.list@olsusa.com'" Subject: RE: 345hp lycoming Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:14:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -- I won't comment on the horsepower or the ceramics issue, but I -- can tell you this: -- Matt --________________ -- -- For the benefit of those of us who cherish hard data (rather than -- Jack Kane ________________________________ Jack - I'm happy with my EFI system because it does what I want - it simplifies my pilot workload by eliminating the need to play with mixture. It is also incredibly smooth, as compared to the few other Lycoming 320 / 360's I am used to. Does it create more HP? Run cooler? Lengthen TBO??? I don't know, nor did I state any opinion that it did. Does my "opinion" = "hard scientific data"? I don't know. Do I care? No. However, if you want to pay for the scientific testing of my opinion, I will fully cooperate. Will it survive a direct lightning strike? I have no earthly idea. Would a stock mag survive a direct lightning strike? I have no idea, nor do I have any idea whether the rest of my plane or FAA approved avionics (Garmins, Sandel...) would survive. The beautiful thing about this, and any other product or opinion, is that YOU don't HAVE to buy it. It is also my anecdotal opinion that if you were to come and hold it in your hand, and then it were to get struck by simulated lightning, it would burn the crap out of you, or maybe worse. I might be willing to test it that way, but only if you are willing to pay for any damage and cleanup. As for another anecdotal opinion... Lancairs are like, well, experimental planes. And the beauty of that is that I don't have to document, test or strike with simulated lightning, my toy. Now for my less cynical side. I too cherish hard data. It would make purchasing decisions much easier. However, sometimes it isn't available - then the decisions get difficult and more touchy feely. Why isn't the data available? Maybe it is expensive to gather the data. I don't sell this product, so I'm not going to spend $0.10 trying to develop data (again, I don't care if you or anyone else on the list buys it). I made an unscientifically supported purchase decision several years ago. I am happy with the end result. Would a Bendix be better? I don't know. If you are willing to come to my hangar, replace the entire fuel system, ignition system, and intake system, I will be more than happy to report the results to the list. Seriously. And would I keep the Bendix if it performed better? Sure, why not. You're welcome. Matt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>