Re: KRnet> Re: engine cost 0200 corvair

[Jeff Scott via KRnet]

I'm saying based on my budget and 50 years experience in Experimental Aircraft, the reliability of aircraft engines is worth it to me. As for BRS, I'm not interested in hauling that weight around. Hull insurance also doesn't interest me. In my mind, my airplanes are toys. If one gets destroyed, I'll write it off and build another. I put my money in not destroying them in the first place. I have no interest in flying behind a converted auto engine. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't. Only that it is the right decision for me based on my experiences and airplane budget. Do Continentsls and Lycomjngs fail? You bet they do. But they rarely fail without some strong indications that things aren't right. You only have to listen to them. -Jeff Scott Arkansas Ozarks -- Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 4/23/23, 2:04 AM Steve Loebs via KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org> wrote: Hello Jeff, you wrote: The days of a $10,000 overhaul for an aircraft engine are gone and this makes the Corvair a more attractive engine for planes like the KR.  Would I go that route?  No.  But that's me and based on my experience and my budget.  My opinion by no means should be construed to say choosing another engine platform is wrong for anyone else. Are you saying that the extra expense of the O200 is worth it for the additional reliability that it provides? If so, would your opinion change about the Corvair if your plane were fully insured and had a BRS parachute? How do you feel about the 100 hp Revmaster 2300 with the turbo? -- KRnet mailing list KRnet@list.krnet.org https://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet

-- 
KRnet mailing list
KRnet@list.krnet.org
https://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet