'And on top of that, it's still not economically practical...at least
in the US. The money involved in performing the conversion and
resolving the aforementioned legal requirements plus a who knows what
kid of prop cost added to the upfront
aquisition costs($14K or so last time I looked) still cannot undercut
the overhauling cost for a Ranger. At least while there is still an
available source of parts/ services available. As long as a Ranger
can be OH'd for $22K or less there's no cost advantage. Unless of
course it burns 25% less fuel (who's data we going to trust here?
It's uncertified so you'll have to trust the manufacturer...sure).
I hope LOM's are built better inside than the castings looked on the
outside. The 2 I saw had very sloppy foundry work....cracks in their
sand molds, mismatched halves, coarse snag grinder marks , trowel
tracks all over the pattern. Probably holds an extra gallon of oil in
all the snags and holes on the inside, think about the drain back
rate..the faster it drains back, the sooner it's scavenged, the
quicker it gets to the cooler and into the tank ready for another
round, smoother is better. The castings and engines may be
completely sound, but they left a very poor impression. That Ranger
crankcase and cam housing castings are premium foundry work...smooth
as a baby's butt. One half doen't shadow the other at the mating
surfaces over 1/32"...and these were made during war time with no
civil
customer to impress. What's LOM's excuse?
Besides, I don't have any metric tools in my aircraft tool box!
--- In
fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, danMichael wrote:
>
> Mirek:
>
> > Was anybody of You considered ever exchanging Ranger with LOM
engine ?
>
> Ive had the same thought and talked with the LOM reps at Oshkosh
in
> years past. The problem is that the LOM isnt a certified engine
in
> the US, so installing it in an airplane with a standard type
> certificate in the US is nigh impossible without restrictions so
> severe that its useless.
>
> Besides that, there would be some systems and airframe issues to
> resolve since the engine is fuel-injected and rotates in the
opposite
> direction from the Ranger.
>
> :Dan
> :NC81323
>
'