On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:30:08 -0400, charles.k.scott wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:39:31 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

I agree, common sense says, we'll see a happier engine resulting from
better managed temps, but is there anything that supports what a "happier
engine" translates into?

Greg

What Deakin HAS said, and frequently, is that there are no engine
development engineers at Lycoming anymore. They've all retired.

Lycoming doesn't manufacture it's own parts anymore, they just
assemble what's sent them from outside sources.



Okay. I've read enough to see Deakin really tear up two
engine manufacturers. Just the same, if people want to assert that using
an engine monitor is going to (greatly?) extend an engine's life, let's
see some data. If we accept Deakin's arguments at face value, that there
are fundimental design issues and no expertise to fix, then we should be
having a serious problem with any of the two manufacturer's engines
reaching TBO. Yet, many are reporting TBO and beyond. Likewise, if engine
monitors are really adding life back to an engine, surely someone (engine
monitor manufacturer?) can say, x% of engines which had monitors, on
average, lasted y% longer then those that did not. Until there is some
supporting evidence, I think Mr. Campbell (George?) makes a good stand on
his position about LOP, and by extention, engine monitors.

Do we have direct evidence to support that LOP adds life to an
engine? Do we have dirrect evidence to support that an engine monitor
will increase longevity? From what I'm hearing, in spite of Deakin's very
interesting reads, the answer is no.

Please, feel free to correct as needed!

Cheers!

Greg