X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 983916 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:47:22 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.38; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060214014526.YXSD15695.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:45:26 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:46:44 -0800 Message-ID: <002901c63108$82834c20$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C630C5.74600C20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C630C5.74600C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A very interesting comparison would be accident/incident rates for experimental with certified engines vs experimental with 'alternative' engines. =20 Al =20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure =20 Rusty, 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? Bulent "Buly" Aliev Ser# 066 / N484BD http://tinyurl.com/dcy36 =20 On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Russell Duffy wrote: =20 =20 On the subject of failures in general, am I the only one who thinks = there have just been way too many of these in the last couple years? In = virtually every case, the engine has been the victim, rather than the cause of the problem, but to the casual observer, it looks bad for the rotary. I'd = hate to calculate the number of flight hours per serious problem for = currently flying rotaries. I'd also hate for the insurance companies to do it. = Let's hope this trend doesn't continue. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (one rotor, no prop)=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C630C5.74600C20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A very interesting comparison would be = accident/incident rates for experimental with certified engines vs experimental with = ‘alternative’ engines.

 

Al

 

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure

 

Rusty,

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?

Bulent "Buly" Aliev

Ser# 066 / N484BD



 

On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:03 PM, = Russell Duffy wrote:

 



 

On the subject of failures in general, am I the only one who = thinks there have just been way too many of these in the last couple = years?  In virtually every case, the engine has been the victim, rather than the = cause of the problem, but to the casual observer, it looks bad for the = rotary.  I'd hate to calculate the number of flight hours per serious problem for = currently flying rotaries.  I'd also hate for the insurance companies = to do it.  Let's hope this trend doesn't = continue.  

 

Cheers,

Rusty (one rotor, no prop) 



 

------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C630C5.74600C20--