Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.82.50; envelope-from=editor@contactmagazine.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <list-5361358@logan.com>
References: <list-5361358@logan.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:41:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPZjv+g0dAZPp4bqBefBJyEDDOVUXPsrfmQd26fX9NQAKwhL7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion
From: Patrick Panzera <editor@contactmagazine.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444e9f1e066bb04b7366173

--f46d0444e9f1e066bb04b7366173
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Before we got too far into throwing around the term "cheap" to mean
inexpensive, please consider that just because you pay more
for something doesn't automatically make it better.

When comparing aircraft engines to automobile engines the "economy of
scale" becomes a major cost-cutting factor. When Lycoming and Continental
make maybe 200-500 engines a year, and GM makes that many engines in an
hour, don't you think the overhead in producing engines by the millions
each year has a lower cost per unit than making them by the hundreds?

In addition to this is the liability insurance on each aircraft engine.
Would you believe that you could be paying more in insurance alone on that
new certified engine that what you could pay for an entire automobile
alternative?

So if you think your hard-earned money is going into quality assurance when
you overpay for an antiquated aircraft engine or part, you're fooling
yourself. It's going into insurance premiums (that your family will likely
never benefit from since it's going into an experimental) and
an inefficient production and marketing process.

--f46d0444e9f1e066bb04b7366173
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Before we got too far into throwing around the term &quot;cheap&quot; to me=
an inexpensive, please consider that just=A0because=A0you pay more for=A0so=
mething=A0doesn&#39;t=A0automatically make it better.<div><br></div><div>Wh=
en comparing aircraft engines to automobile engines the &quot;economy of sc=
ale&quot; becomes a major cost-cutting factor. When Lycoming and Continenta=
l make maybe 200-500 engines a year, and GM makes that many engines in an h=
our, don&#39;t you think the overhead in producing engines by the millions =
each year has a lower cost per unit than making them by the hundreds?
</div><div><br></div><div>In=A0addition=A0to this is the liability insuranc=
e on each aircraft engine. Would you believe that you could be paying more =
in insurance alone on that new certified engine that what you could pay for=
 an entire automobile alternative?</div>
<div><br></div><div>So if you think your hard-earned money is going into qu=
ality assurance when you overpay for an antiquated aircraft engine or part,=
 you&#39;re fooling yourself. It&#39;s going into insurance=A0premiums (tha=
t your family will likely never=A0benefit=A0from since it&#39;s going into =
an experimental) and an=A0inefficient=A0production and marketing process.=
=A0=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>

--f46d0444e9f1e066bb04b7366173--