X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:50:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mxsf42.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.174] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c4) with ESMTP id 862963 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:52:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.174; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from mxip07.cluster1.charter.net (mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.137]) by mxsf42.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j39CpLMj029106 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:51:21 -0400 Received: from 68-114-24-98.cpe.ga.charter.com (HELO Farnsworth) (68.114.24.98) by mxip07.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 09 Apr 2005 08:51:21 -0400 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.92,90,1112587200"; d="scan'208"; a="840180528:sNHT297528380" From: "Farnsworth" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Engine Failure X-Original-Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:52:18 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Love the idea of a fully feathering prop, but I am afraid it ain't in the rage of affordable safety. It is insurance, but I doubt it is cheap insurance. Therefore, the next best thing is to set in place procedures which give the best option under extreme circumstances. Regards Dom Crain """ Why don't you just install a feathering prop. That way, with loss of oil pressure it automatically goes to feather. """ Dom, I guess each of us looks differently at what is in the range of affordable safety. If you look at the cost of propellers for a TSIO-550, as listed on the Lancair Web Site, you'll see the difference in cost of non feathering Vs feathering is $1,170. I think that is cost effective. Not to bring up bad memories, but when Shannon went down, I was prompted to examine the prop issue with a view toward glide ratios. I bought a feathering prop. I hope Dave Morss will excuse me for this, but he feel strongly about this subject. Dave told me, that after a few test flights in the Thunder Mustang, he refused to make any more flights unless a feathering prop was installed. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth one was installed. Shortly thereafter, on take off, about 300 feet in the air, the engine quit. The prop immediately feathered and Dave used that 300 feet to reverse course and land on the runway from which he had just departed. Had Dave not insisted on the change, he may not have survived the off airport landing, but, certainly the Thunder Mustang program would have been dead. Yes, I'm convinced it is cheap insurance. Regards, Lynn