Author: "davidd010" <david010@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 8:00 am PST Link
Gentlemen,
The discussion on engines has reached the point of pain - in the
butt. We don't all have to go the same church to get to heaven nor
do we have to use the same engine to fly an airplane. This is an
"experimental" effort and the choice of power is up to the builder.
It gets boring when that decision becomes a crusade. Information on
building an airplane is interesting. Personal preference for an
engine (or paint scheme or radios or cushions) is not.
dd
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 9:18 am PST Link
I would never impose any of my own convictions (engine or otherwise)
on any one else. But if my opinion is asked or misinformation is
spread, or if emotionalism is put forth as fact, I may well comment
to the contrary.
Isn't that what we are here for? (it's the Lycoming devotees that
started this discussion!)
Keep on riveting.
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "davidd010" <david010@s...> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> The discussion on engines has reached the point of pain - in the
> butt. We don't all have to go the same church to get to heaven nor
> do we have to use the same engine to fly an airplane. This is an
> "experimental" effort and the choice of power is up to the builder.
>
> It gets boring when that decision becomes a crusade. Information
on
> building an airplane is interesting. Personal preference for an
> engine (or paint scheme or radios or cushions) is not.
>
> dd
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 9:31 am PST Link
I have responded a couple times quasi-negatively to robert paisley's
posts on Subaru's, but I do think it is an interesting discussion.
Robert is an RV builder, not just a Subaru Engine hawker, so I do
welcome the general discussion. Jan E. did kick all this off by
posting here about the RV9A now flying with a Subaru, and that was
just one post so I didn't have any problem with it. I think we could
all benefit from a knowledgeable debate about the auto conversions in
general and Subarus specifically. But presently I'm still in the
Lycoming camp because of various mechanical and proven long-term
reliability reasons.
Signed, I'm no expert - yet, in Los Angeles
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "robert_paisley" <robert@p...> wrote:
> I would never impose any of my own convictions (engine or
otherwise)
> on any one else. But if my opinion is asked or misinformation is
> spread, or if emotionalism is put forth as fact, I may well comment
> to the contrary.
> Isn't that what we are here for? (it's the Lycoming devotees that
> started this discussion!)
> Keep on riveting.
> Robert Paisley
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "davidd010" <david010@s...> wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > The discussion on engines has reached the point of pain - in the
> > butt. We don't all have to go the same church to get to heaven
nor
> > do we have to use the same engine to fly an airplane. This is an
> > "experimental" effort and the choice of power is up to the
builder.
> >
> > It gets boring when that decision becomes a crusade. Information
> on
> > building an airplane is interesting. Personal preference for an
> > engine (or paint scheme or radios or cushions) is not.
> >
> > dd
Author: Genev E Reed <Genevreed@...> Time: Thu Dec 27, 2001 4:59 pm PST Link
I think the concept of the Eggenfelner engine is great. The problem I
have with buying one is you are buying for $14,000 used enging with
unknown history. I'll wait a wile. Doyle RV7A