AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]** · February 14th 08, 06:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote
innews:VA.000077db.005
:

Peter,

AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
Thielert concept from the get-go.

But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert

You lose.

Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.

There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.

You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
electricity?

Read it again.

That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours

In a cub trainer, in fact.

I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
working airplanes, though.

Bertie