Stan wrote: >Let me qualify the 1000 hour and 2000 hour mandated rebuilds. >Our rental and charter aircraft all fell into the Mandated overhaul >frame...
Stan, you're blowing smoke :-) The commercial nature of the operation you mentioned would have required you to follow the manufacturer's recommended TBO. The FAA does not invent it's own overhaul period. This has nothing to do with a flat 1000 hour TBO for turbocharged engines, which is what you stated was required. Read the chart on page 2 of the Lycoming Service Instruction - http://home.earthlink.net/~tbo/SI1009.pdf and tell me what significant difference there is in TBO between say the normally aspirated IO-540 and turbocharged TIO-540 series. Your initial post indicated expected engine life would be halved by turbocharging. I'm showing you that this is not true. In over 15,000 hours in aircraft with n/a piston, turbocharged piston, turbo-prop and jet engines, I have had an equal number of each blow up (0). An engine designed to be turbocharged can in fact be reliable and long-lived.
Angus (quite happy with stock air-sucking waterboxers) ================================ Angus Gordon '89 Carat NW Ohio '86 Syncro |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.