Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.1) with ESMTP id 993440 for rob@logan.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:17:38 -0500 Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.50]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:21:35 -0500 Received: from 11cust30.tnt1.delaware.oh.da.uu.net ([67.211.69.30] helo=jenny) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16HSR5-0000aS-00 for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:22:15 -0800 From: "Joe Trepicone" To: "Lancair. List" Subject: Re: TSIO 550 vs. Engineair Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:18:29 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I can't help be feel like an instigator of some of this controversy surrounding the Continental / Engineair debate. When I posted the question on December 12 I had no idea of the heated discussions that would result. Unfortunately for a man like me, trying to learn, this forum is my life line for making informed decisions. I feel privileged to be a part of it. When I think back to Oshkosh 2001 I recall that it was a very nice gentleman at the flyin, with a truly spectacular aircraft, who spurred my interest in the Engineair. He story of an air traffic controller referring to his IV-P as a "Lancair on steroids" certainly put a sparkle in my eye and a big grin on my face. However, I may be an "F.N.G." in the Lancair world but I'm experienced enough to know consistent reliability is the absolute most important thing to each and everyone of us and things do in fact change. Life is full of tradeoffs and the aviation world is no exception. I, personally am not trilled about the Continental TSIO 550E. I am not thrilled about an engine that should / must be run at 65% (227 hp) at altitude to achieve an expectable engine life span. It seems to me that the IV craves horse power more than most aircraft where perhaps additional power yields very little addition performance. I am not trilled about the direction I see aviation fuel heading and it's ramifications on an engine with a thirst for 100LL. It may very well be that the smart choice for me will be to install the TSIO 550 in my IV-P. It is unquestionably the safe road to take, but it will not be until I've explored and exhausted every single other possiblity first. To you fine people at Engineair I wish you Godspeed. Happy Holidays, Joe Trepicone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore assist with the management of the LML. Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>