Skymaster Forum  

Go Back   Skymaster Forum > Messages
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-20-05, 07:30 PM
kevin kevin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hillsboro, OR (HIO)
Posts: 843
kevin is on a distinguished road
I agree with most of what you say Ernie. But what I am trying to point out is that:

1.) There are reasons to be concerned about the overall age of an engine.
2.) That just because you are not making metal, your oil consumption is normal, and your compressions are OK, that does not mean that you will not have a failure. Engines wear out, and the longer you run them, the more chance of a failure there is. In fact, my engine that failed met all three tests before the failure.

So yes, I do agree with you, I would rather fly behind an engine with 1500 hours than I would one with 20, but I also would rather reduce my risk by NOT flying behind a 2000 hour engine. The risk period for infant mortality is limited. The risk on a high time engine just keeps getting worse.

Kevin
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.