Date:         Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:57:12 -0400
Reply-To:     Angus Gordon <agordon@BRIGHT.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Angus Gordon <agordon@BRIGHT.NET>
Subject:      Re: Increasing horsepower - Long -Boring
In-Reply-To:  <20021019.101503.1292.2.wilden1@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

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