"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
Matt Barrow schrieb:

Thomas offers data and evidence, Lycoming offers anecdote and legend.
Lycoming offers running engines. Thomas offers words.

Try something other than "Argument from Authority", such as EVIDENCE.

Evidently, Lycoming knows how to build engines. Evidently, Lycoming has a
lot of experience by looking at used engines while overhawling them. I
don't know how many engines Thomas has built or overhauled. I don't even
know where his data comes from and how it was collected.

Lycoming's take is based on legal protection of it's assets, not the engine
owners.


Or, if you can show that Lycoming HAS NOT been shown to frequently be
FOS,

No idea what a FOS should be. Please write in a language I understand.

It took them quite a while to recognize the :OP was not a disaster in the
making. GAMI's engine stand data pretty much showed both Lycoming and TCM to
be way off base. GAMI did years of hard research, Lyc and TCM did their
appraisals based on what their legal counsel recommended, not their
engineers (who evidently didn;t even understand the engine stroke sequence.)


then you can make their case.

I'm not making anyone's case. In fact, I couldn't care less, as I'm happy
enough to operate a liquid cooled engine with 21th century technology.

A heavier engine is SOTA?

Also, how does a liquid cooled engine vary from the physics of an engine
sequence?

No small wonder that aviation is the home of so many myths, legends, and
OWT's.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY