Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43691BE7.5060704@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:04:55 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil level sensor
References: <list-812223@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-812223@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mark R Steitle wrote:

>Probably none, except it might save a little weight.  I was thinking
>that he didn't have the stock sensor in his pan.  This would be a more
>cost effective solution.
>
>  
>
"Cost effective" is always and excellent solution.

FWIW, my engine came with the switch being converted to a plug by having 
all the parts either broken or cut off.  I got another when I bought a 
junkyard engine.  I'm not comfortable using some used parts (injectors, 
for instance), and for some it just doesn't matter unless the part is 
obviously damaged (like the oil pan).  I'm on the fence about this 
switch, the oil pressure sender, temp senders and such.

I'd be interested in hearing other opinions.  All new parts, just in 
case?  Or the airplane doesn't know it's out of oil...if it works, fly 
with it?

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |