X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 983902 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:42:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.73; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm69aec.bellsouth.net ([70.149.0.133]) by imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060214014140.VIKG4624.imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm69aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:41:40 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (really [70.149.0.133]) by ibm69aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060214014138.RKQK2237.ibm69aec.bellsouth.net@[192.168.0.100]> for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:41:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-512873858 Message-Id: From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:42:27 -0500 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) --Apple-Mail-4-512873858 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Does not matter how thin you slice it. These aircraft had Lycoming engines. You can say: Loss of oil, not engine's fault Blown jug, metal fatigue, not engine's fault Swolowed valve, not engine's fault Etc. Etc... Just having a certified engine does not guarantee you anything. Or there would be no GA accidents due to engine problems. But I know it is a slippery slop discussion, so you have the last word. GO! :) Buly On Feb 13, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Russell Duffy wrote: > Couple of years ago we lost 3 Cozy's within few months due to > Lycoming engine problems. Not landing with engine problem, but > total lost of all 3 aircraft. Nobody said a word. Like it was the > most ordinary thing? > > Hi Buly, > > Lycomings certainly do fail, even under the best conditions, but I > find 3 Cozy's in a few months hard to believe. I just searched the > NTSB database, and found 3 accidents between 8/03 and 12/03, which > must be what you're referring to. The first was a fuel > contamination issue. The second was an actual mechanical failure. > The third was pilot error on landing (at idle). Are these the > "Lycoming engine problems" you're referring to? > > Rusty --Apple-Mail-4-512873858 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Does not matter how = thin you slice it. These aircraft had Lycoming = engines.

You can = say:

Loss of oil, not = engine's fault=A0

Blown jug, metal = fatigue, not engine's fault

Swolowed valve, not = engine's fault

Etc. = Etc...

Just having a = certified engine does not guarantee you anything. Or there would be no = GA accidents due to engine problems. But I know it is a slippery slop = discussion, so you have the last word. GO! :)
=

Buly

On Feb 13, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Russell = Duffy wrote:

Couple of years ago we lost 3 Cozy's within few = months due to Lycoming engine problems. Not landing with engine problem, = but total lost of all 3 aircraft. Nobody said a word. Like it was the = most ordinary thing?=A0

=A0

Hi = Buly,

=A0

Lycomings certainly do fail, even under the best = conditions, but I find 3 Cozy's in a few months hard to believe.=A0 I = just searched the NTSB=A0database, and found 3 accidents between 8/03 = and 12/03, which must be what you're referring to.=A0 The first was a = fuel contamination issue.=A0 The second was an actual mechanical = failure.=A0 The third was pilot error on landing (at idle).=A0 Are these = the "Lycoming engine problems"=A0you're=A0referring = to?=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0

=A0

Rusty = =A0=A0=A0

= --Apple-Mail-4-512873858--