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.