Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:32:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailnw.centurytel.net ([209.206.160.237] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b4) with ESMTP id 1540025 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:31:59 -0400 Received: from c656256a (pppoe1209.gh.centurytel.net [64.91.48.231]) by mailnw.centurytel.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g611Vsp7025579 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:31:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <000d01c22096$e5021f60$0100a8c0@mshome.net> From: "Robert Smiley" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: First Flight Engine Testing? X-Original-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:33:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Dan, I agree with you. Here is an alternative approach. It is tought to test fly a new plane and break in a new engine. This presents a dilema. Low power taxi runs. stall and attidute testing the plane on first flight to safely return to terra firma. etc. Ground testing with the planes nose to the sky to test fuel draw at full power. Tie that plane down safely. etc. The shop that assembled my engine offered to run in the engine on the test stand for four hours. I said go for it and there under controlled conditions the rings were conditioned. The usual run in is about one hour; not enough time. So if you are in a dilemma regards to the above conundrum; ask your powerplant builder to run in your engine on the stand. Bob Smiley N94RJ