On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:05:21 GMT, Kevin Horton
wrote:

In article
, BRUCE
FRANK wrote:

Automotive durability
tests exceed, by about 400%, anything required to certify an aviation type
engine. (both in hours and precentage of power output)
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL

I am happy to concede that some automotive engines may have undergone
durability testing that is more severe than that required for aviation
engines. However, it is overstating the case significantly to say that
these automotive engine tests exceed by 400% the power output required
for the aviation engine tests.

The aviation engine tests have many sections at 100% power. If you
exceed that by 400% you have to run at 500% power.

It doesn't help your credibility to state "facts" that are obviously
wrong. Type a bit slower next time.

--
Kevin Horton - RV-8
Ottawa, Canada

Kevin, you have to read what Bruce said carefully. He said that the
**DURABILITY TESTS** "exceed, by about 400", anything required to
certify an aviation type engine." He did not say anything about
exceeding the 100% power tests for aircraft certification.

Looks like it's time for me to re-post that article from an automotive
engineer about the typical engine development durability tests. I'll
post it in a seperate article so as not to muck up this thread.

Corky Scott
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/