|
|
One reason why the various statements pertaining to rotary engine risk analysis may be leading to a circular logic that "folds back upon, and contradicts its own fundamental assumptions" is that the statements actually refer to how the writer FEELS about the subject rather than how the writer THINKS about it. This is especially true when the writer has to limit himself to technical details and mathematical codifications. Mathematics itself is a creative language that can be put to any purpose the writer desires at the time. What is the intent that is being attempted to communicate? Or...what is the "risk analyst" trying to say?
Dale
jesse farr wrote:
Just remember fellows, two engine planes have four times the failure rate ?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bulent Aliev" <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
On 6/7/05 10:45 AM, "cardmarc@charter.net" <cardmarc@charter.net> wrote:
Hell, they way you guys are talking, we all should add a complete second
engine and all its control systems.
Where does this crap stop? Go fly on a four engine airliner.
Marc Wiese
Very well said Marc. This is turning into a mental masturbation for few
people :) GO FINISH YOUR PLANES!
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|