X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:56:33 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [70.62.14.124] (HELO server1.USTEK) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.2) with ESMTP id 1548621 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:09:49 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=rsimon@ustek.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C70422.071D8DC8" Subject: FW: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:11:24 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia Thread-Index: AccEFig1LvNr6F4ITP6UVkJ9fzevUAAABKuQAACHAUAAAmRt0A== From: "Lancair" X-Original-Sender: "Robert Simon" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C70422.071D8DC8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Scott [mailto:sky@skysmith.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:35 AM To: Lancair Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia I too believe that there is typically a perception about better reliability and safety with a turbine engine. I also insure a number of turbine experimental aircraft (not just the Lancair) so I watch this market constantly. I personally haven't seen anything specific that correlates that a turbine or turbo prop is the problem. There are numerous factors from the insurance perspective besides just the engine. One thought is that it might be the type of engine that was purchased, the maintenance and overhaul before it was installed. Many of the turbine engines used in experimental aircraft are not brand new and are surplus (sometimes military) and imported. Unless they are completely rebuilt and upgraded with new components and to new standards, they are like any other used engine and have the risk associated with a used engine. Not to say that new engines don't fail but you know more about a 0 time engine and have certain expectations compared to a used engine. =20 =20 From an insurance perspective, you see turbines in corporate and commercial aircraft...so overall the marketplace perceives turbines as lower risk. BUT, even with that in mind, insurance for a turbine powered experimental (or even a certified aircraft) have higher pilot requirements and generally higher premiums. A few factors that contribute to insurance cost are: the cost to repair a turbine and the values of the aircraft they are installed in. Additionally the performance parameters of most turbine/turbo prop aircraft are substantially higher than a piston powered plane and often the pilot experience for the experimental aircraft seems to be lower. . =20 =20 Regards: =20 Scott Sky Smith =20 ________________________________ From: Robert Simon [mailto:rsimon@ustek.com] On Behalf Of Lancair Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:50 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Cc: sky@skysmith.com Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia Perhaps someone in the insurance industry could shed light on this issue. =20 They oughta know - they have big bucks riding on it. Scott at Skysmith care to weigh in on this? =20 Robert M. Simon, ES-P N301ES =20 ________________________________ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mike Smith Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:44 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia Listers, =20 It seems to me there have been a disproportionate number of unexplained turbine engine failures that have resulted in wrecked airplanes, lost lives, and heartaches. I thought they had the edge in reliability. Is there a common thread in the install? I can think of enough crashes that suggest maybe there is more safety in a standard piston install. =20 Michael Smith =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C70422.071D8DC8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: = Scott=20 [mailto:sky@skysmith.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 = 11:35=20 AM
To: Lancair
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair down = in=20 Georgia

I too believe that there is typically a=20 perception about better reliability and safety with a turbine=20 engine.  I also insure a number of turbine experimental aircraft = (not just=20 the Lancair) so I watch this market constantly.

I personally = haven't seen=20 anything specific that correlates that a turbine or turbo prop is = the=20 problem.  There are numerous factors from the insurance = perspective=20 besides just the engine.  One thought is that it might be the type = of=20 engine that was purchased, the maintenance and overhaul before it was=20 installed.  Many of the turbine engines used in experimental = aircraft are=20 not brand new and are surplus (sometimes military) and imported.=20  Unless they are completely rebuilt and upgraded with new = components=20 and to new standards, they are like any other used engine and have the = risk=20 associated with a used engine.  Not to say that new engines = don't fail=20 but you know more about a 0 time engine and have certain expectations = compared=20 to a used engine. 
 
From an insurance perspective, you = see turbines=20 in corporate and commercial aircraft...so overall the marketplace = perceives=20 turbines as lower risk.  BUT, even with that in mind, = insurance for a=20 turbine powered experimental (or even a certified aircraft) have higher = pilot=20 requirements and generally higher premiums.  A few factors = that=20 contribute to insurance cost are: the cost to repair a turbine = and the=20 values of the aircraft they are installed in.  = Additionally the=20 performance parameters of most turbine/turbo prop aircraft are = substantially=20 higher than a piston powered plane and often the pilot experience for = the=20 experimental aircraft seems to be lower. . =  
 
Regards:
 
Scott Sky=20 Smith
 

From: Robert Simon = [mailto:rsimon@ustek.com]=20 On Behalf Of Lancair
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 = 9:50=20 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Cc:=20 sky@skysmith.com
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair down in=20 Georgia

Perhaps someone in the insurance industry could = shed light=20 on this issue. 
They oughta know - they have big bucks riding = on=20 it.
Scott at Skysmith care to weigh in on=20 this?
 
Robert M. Simon,
ES-P N301ES
 

From: Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mike = Smith
Sent:=20 Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Lancair Mailing=20 List
Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair down in = Georgia

Listers,

 

It seems to = me there=20 have been a disproportionate number of unexplained turbine engine = failures that=20 have resulted in wrecked airplanes, lost lives, and heartaches.  I = thought=20 they had the edge in reliability.  Is there a common thread in the=20 install?  I can think of enough crashes that suggest maybe there is = more=20 safety in a standard piston install.

 

Michael=20 Smith

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C70422.071D8DC8--