X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c4) with ESMTP id 760313 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:14:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.137; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r5.5.) id q.1a0.3e13d7c6 (4394) for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: <1a0.3e13d7c6.307bd10a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:13:30 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] More Lycoming Problems To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1128953610" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5017 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1128953610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/10/2005 9:03:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: And you wonder why we prefer a Rotary over an expensive, certified engine??. I think the certification part only means it is certified to break and cost mucho money. You would think after their crankshaft fiasco they would be more careful in QA. Repair cost (even with free parts) apparently will cost on the order of $16,000. Dave, here is another one for your file. Ed A As an Ex QA guy, I suggest that they have no Quality Assurance system at all. The most vestigial of systems could have saved them (and the flying public) millions. A recent visit to a well known propeller manufacturer revealed that the utter lack of a recognized quality system is not unusual in the aircraft industry. When in doubt, specify MIL-I-45208. And then watch them crap their pants trying to pass the first visit from your friendly government employee. Lynn E. Hanover DOD/DLA/DSCC/ABA retired. -------------------------------1128953610 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/10/2005 9:03:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

And you wonder why we prefer a Rotary over an expe= nsive,=20 certified engine??. I think the certification part only means it=20 is certified to break and cost mucho money. You would thin= k=20 after their crankshaft fiasco they would be more careful in QA. Repa= ir=20 cost (even with free parts) apparently will cost on the order of=20 $16,000.

Dave, here is another one for your file.

Ed A

As an Ex QA guy, I suggest that they have no Quality Assurance system a= t=20 all.

The most vestigial of systems could have saved them (and the flying pub= lic)=20 millions.

A recent visit to a well known propeller manufacturer revealed that the= =20 utter lack of a recognized quality system is not unusual in the aircraft=20 industry.

When in doubt, specify MIL-I-45208. And then watch them crap their pant= s=20 trying to pass the first visit from your friendly government employee.

Lynn E. Hanover

DOD/DLA/DSCC/ABA

retired.

-------------------------------1128953610--