X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:48:55 -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 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5778993 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:50:19 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=panelmaker@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=dh1Fe+wa3ZSRbLEoq0FsODzqXmfNdTR5w+ki9VPkJoqphGM3FtqlhojFQJYiJQ9l; h=Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [209.173.71.64] (helo=COMPUTER1) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TGXOJ-0000Np-Q4 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:49:44 -0400 From: "Jim Nordin" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: Shipping the Performance Engine X-Original-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:49:55 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <0A94B3443251406E9B986410F99005F7@COMPUTER1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD9B0B.7FD89BA0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Ac2bKBjCF/fTI4nKSDugQgL9jn5yOgACIaOw X-ELNK-Trace: bdfc62829fd2a80cc8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c2609af4ac90708e2db0be1d7602e7f057887350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 209.173.71.64 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD9B0B.7FD89BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "I had the same VERY old rocker arms of same vintage that Fred had in his." Is there something else that needs said? What excuse (I'll give the benefit of doubt here as perhaps the word needs to be reason) could be given for putting very old rocker arms in a rebuild? Very old rocker arms of unknown service length (if not new) should be tossed. If new and of old vintage, it should be examined for SBs or what ever document pertinent. If they're acceptable, they're acceptable. Not answering phone calls of a query or a complaint, if a solution is unresolved, is inexcusable. Service is a benefit of paying big bucks for work. A paid for benefit. Answering the phone is one way of displaying acceptance of responsibility. Acceptance of responsibility is more than a yellow tag with a signature. After all this discussion and sharing of experience - which experience do you think you might get? Enough said? Why pursue this further? Jim -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Barrett Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:15 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Shipping the Performance Engine It's intriguing to see the input regarding this thread. I'm curious about the marked differences in experience from those in the Fred Moreno camp to those in the Dennis Johnson camp. It would certainly be useful to know the statistics. For instance, how many have what they consider good engines from Performance Engines and how many do not? How many have had early overhauls and at how many hours and so on? How many engines has Barrett Performance Aircraft overhauled (and/or others) at what hours and how many of those were deemed OK (didn't really need the overhaul or IRAN)? Could manufacture date be a significant factor in the differences? Were there changes at Performance Engines at some point that brought about the problems? Have those been corrected and are the current engines being built any better? One issue is that their (Performance Engine's) reticence to talk with customers once the money is paid hurts their credibility. I have firsthand experience with this problem and I gave up trying to contact them two or three years ago once Stuart Featherstone left the company. Clearly from the aluminum my engine has been making, tear down is the only choice, but I don't have a clue yet, what is causing the aluminum wear or if Performance Engines did anything suspect to bring this about. I do know that I had the same VERY old rocker arms of same vintage that Fred had in his. I removed and had them magna fluxed: they all passed. Will know more later. Good luck with those Karma gods, Dennis. John Barrett LIVP - 55 hours. -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:47 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Shipping the Performance Engine As another data point, I have 550 hours on my Performance Engines IO-550 without problems and I know others with similar experience. Mine was not a racing engine. Of course, posting this message will certainly induce the karma gods to make my engine fail on my flight tomorrow! Dennis Legacy, 550 hours -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD9B0B.7FD89BA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"I had the same VERY = old rocker arms of same vintage that Fred had in his."

 

Is there something else that needs said? What excuse (I'll give = the benefit of doubt here as perhaps the word needs to be reason) could be = given for putting very old rocker arms in a rebuild? Very old rocker arms of = unknown service length (if not = new) should be tossed. If new and of old vintage, it should be examined for SBs or = what ever document pertinent. If they’re acceptable, they’re = acceptable.

Not answering phone calls of a query or a complaint, if a = solution is unresolved, is inexcusable. Service is a benefit of paying big bucks for = work. A paid for benefit. Answering the phone is one way of displaying = acceptance of responsibility. Acceptance of responsibility is more than a yellow tag with a = signature.

After all this discussion and sharing of experience – = which experience do you think you might get? Enough said?

Why pursue this further?
Jim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = John Barrett
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:15 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Shipping the Performance Engine

 

It's intriguing to see the input regarding this thread.  = I'm curious about

the marked differences in experience from those in the Fred = Moreno camp to

those in the Dennis Johnson camp.  It would certainly be = useful to know the

statistics.  For instance, how many have what they consider = good engines

from Performance Engines and how many do not?  How many = have had early

overhauls and at how many hours and so on?  How many = engines has Barrett

Performance Aircraft overhauled (and/or others) at what hours = and how many

of those were deemed OK (didn't really need the overhaul or = IRAN)? Could

manufacture date be a significant factor in the = differences?  Were there

changes at Performance Engines at some point that brought about = the

problems?  Have those been corrected and are the current = engines being built

any better? 

 

One issue is that their (Performance Engine's) reticence to talk = with

customers once the money is paid hurts their credibility.  = I have firsthand

experience with this problem and I gave up trying to contact = them two or

three years ago once Stuart Featherstone left the = company.

 

Clearly from the aluminum my engine has been making, tear down = is the only

choice, but I don't have a clue yet, what is causing the = aluminum wear or if

Performance Engines did anything suspect to bring this = about.  I do know

that I had the same VERY old rocker arms of same vintage that = Fred had in

his.  I removed and had them magna fluxed: they all = passed.  Will know more

later.

 

Good luck with those Karma gods, Dennis.

 

John Barrett

LIVP -  55 hours.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of

Dennis Johnson

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:47 AM

To: lml@lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Re: Shipping the Performance = Engine

 

As another data point, I have 550 hours on my Performance = Engines IO-550

without problems and I know others with similar = experience.  Mine was not a

racing engine.

 

Of course, posting this message will certainly induce the karma = gods to make

my engine fail on my flight tomorrow!

 

Dennis

Legacy, 550 hours

 

 

 

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

 

 

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD9B0B.7FD89BA0--