From: "Hannes TRNKA" <hbtrnka@arn.net>
To: <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Alternative engines
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:45:47 -0500
Message-ID: <01bdf393$805925b0$0100007f@desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
This is in response to Peter Fields posting:

I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but one of the main reasons I
chose the EngineAir V-8 for my IV-P was that I felt it was more reliable
than the TSIO-550. I have great confidence in smaller displacement Lycoming
and Continental engines but the larger displacement turbocharged engines are
a different story - especially if operated in the thin air at high
altitudes.

Another advantage of a well designed V-8 is its lower vibration level. Next
to the engine itself vibration attacks alternators, magnetos,
governers, fuel system components and lines, and wiring. Vibration can
easily turn a reliable engine into an unreliable powerplant by damaging its
accessories. Lower noise and vibration levels also contribute to safety by
decreasing pilot fatigue.

It's true that automotive engines run at higher RPM's but that doesn't mean
the piston speed increases by the same amount. These engines turn faster to
begin with to compensate for their smaller displacement, which in turn means
that their stroke is usually shorter.

Bearing loads caused by gyroscopic forces can be decreased by using props
with lighter blades - composites vs. aluminum.

As Peter pointed out correctly, Lyc.'s and Cont.'s are reliable when
operated properly. As good a pilot as any of us might be, we are all human
and even though we might be able to operate our engines properly most of the
time, there are those instances where ATC, the weather or a bad night's
sleep might cause us to do otherwise. At these time it's nice to have an
engine that can forgive us.

Hannes Trnka