How on earth does a first run engine from the Continental factory with only 1100 hours on it end up with original cylinders that are beyond being honed/bored? You guys running that thing with no oil?
Maybe the compression problem and the wrist pin failure are related after all.
I have never owned an aeroplane with a Continental engine, but surely this cannot be indicative of the longevity and reliability of these powerplants? Any ideas as to why the internals of this engine have suffered such premature wear?
No, your instinct is correct, it's about right for a TCM.
Joking aside, it is my opinion N models are not HP rated responsibly. These things are really best left where they came from, a -G model engine rated at 250-280HP and 2500RPM. Then to make matters worse, Cirrus caps it to run at the already whacked out 2700RPM limit by not putting a blue knob, because its customers' heads would explode with a third knob, and you're essentially running a Malibu up there. If you were to install a -G model in the Cirrus, which runs at 2500 and could reasonably get away without a blue knob at that limit, you'd see a lot of these failure and premature wear problems disappear. But that would kill its marketing. That flying molded bathtub doesn't mask a 40HP shave, especially not in a bloated G5.
Yes, I am of the opinion a Lyco NA engine is more robust and insensitive to WOT ops. The cylinders are also without doubt much more lasting when indexed for average use. The fuel injection systems, even as agricultural old as they are, are also superior to the Kelly setup in the Contis, especially the fuel pumps and their specific installation differences. I understand people need to dance with the one that brung them, and in the case of Cirrus they have little choice due to the company's allegiances.
My only bone to pick is when this gets rolled up into the chute narrative. That one is being subsidized by an irresponsible engine installation (550N safety wired at 2700) and then calling the predictable failures evidence that flying in the parachute airplane is safer than airplanes whose engines are not grenading by orders of magnitude in the first place. It's a bit much cultish for my taste. Can you imagine piston Malibus with a chute, and Piper declaring them safer by suggesting more people are not killing themselves by experiencing more engine failures versus people who are simply
not experiencing engine failures AND
not killing themselves? They'd get laughed out the building. But Cirrus cranks the propaganda machine and the zealots at COPA circle the wagons and watch out; they make the RV tools look like vulnerable and impressionable girl scouts selling cookies door to door by contrast.
They need to admit that engine application is flawed and downrate the hell out of that thing. Or take the chute, personally I don't care. I'm cool flying behind my little Lyco, that thing is just...Stoic. That's really the word for it.
We run it per the poh instructions
Honestly, in the context of GA, that and a buck twenty gets me a cup of coffee.