X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3579076 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:31:26 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.40; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090413143049.ELTY22254.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:30:49 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.135.181]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id f2Wp1b0023uzsQg042Wply; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:30:49 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Ejcpju7l4P81Rsaz0zwA:9 a=jqvaKZXnnIGMTeglDHsA:7 a=xfztScFXYbsKnZLseyJGmdmvWaAA:4 a=gJcimI5xSWUA:10 a=3UhNsU1jF5XuevD-:21 a=1igOK19v8k4rISs2:21 a=NNCW44rWkNSxmRBvTK8A:7 a=R7_DwZ9aUT7TVwfjfLFvSCFl-6oA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: Forced landings Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:31:20 -0800 Message-ID: <4D6F5A449FA9473EB7880665C2CE4CBF@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9BC09.D722A7F0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: Acm75V7ZYiX2GMwFQtiSF7s/Lxl+/gAYhvsg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9BC09.D722A7F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 . I flew an RV-6A with a 160 Lyc for several hundred hours over 4 years, incident free. The stuff you noted below may not have required a precautionary landing or resulted in a forced landing, but they were failures none the less. Mike Wills Mike; I'm sure what you say is true; but I also baulked at your comparison to = the certified engine, in this case. My view is that anyone undertaking what = is essentially a one-off alternative engine installation must realize, and accept, at the outset that in the first couple hundred hours the = probability of a forced landing issue is likely higher than it would be with a = certified engine. If not, that person would best pursue a different course of = action. There is good reason why the FAA requires us to have 40 hr phase I = testing. Yeah; adding 'experimental' engine to 'experimental' aircraft is not a decision to be taken lightly. That realization is a driving force for us doing this to look hard and = long at each unproven thing we do in our installations until we are confident that it will do the job. And certainly that includes learning from = others experience on a forum like this. The reason we are willing to take that risk is to have something better = in the long run. And among those 'better' factors of performance, lower = initial and operating costs, ease of maintenance; etc. is comparable or better reliability. I find it somewhat mind boggling that after 50 years and a million hours there are still so many failures in certified engines. =20 And, I think, not to be overlooked, is the challenge and the sense of accomplishment. How do you measure the value of that? It is the driving force that has driven explorers and experimenters for un-told millennia. =20 Al G. =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9BC09.D722A7F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

. I flew an RV-6A with a = 160 Lyc for several hundred hours over 4 years, incident free. The stuff you noted = below may not have required a precautionary landing or resulted in a forced = landing, but they were failures none the less.

=

 Mike = Wills

Mike;

I’m sure what you say is true; but I also baulked at your comparison to the certified engine, in this case.  My view is that anyone undertaking = what is essentially a one-off alternative engine installation must realize, = and accept, at the outset that in the first couple hundred hours the = probability of a forced landing issue is likely higher than it would be with a = certified engine. If not, that person would best pursue a different course of = action.  There is good reason why the FAA requires us to have 40 hr phase I = testing. Yeah; adding ‘experimental’ engine to = ‘experimental’ aircraft is not a decision to be taken lightly.

That realization is a driving force for us doing this to look hard and long = at each unproven thing we do in our installations until we are confident that it = will do the job. And certainly that includes learning from others experience = on a forum like this.

The reason we are willing to take = that risk is to have something better in the long run. And among those = ‘better’ factors of performance, lower initial and operating costs, ease of = maintenance; etc. is comparable or better reliability.  I find it somewhat mind boggling that after 50 years and a million hours = there are still so many failures in certified engines.

 

And, I think, not to be = overlooked, is the challenge and the sense of accomplishment. How do you measure the = value of that? It is the driving force that has driven explorers and = experimenters for un-told millennia.

 

Al G.

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9BC09.D722A7F0--