X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from m12.lax.untd.com ([64.136.30.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with SMTP id 983983 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:49:15 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.30.75; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from m12.lax.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m12.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABB9CTHZAENDZR2 for (sender ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:48:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from alwick@juno.com) by m12.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id LG5WCUWJ; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:47:40 PST To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:46:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure Message-ID: <20060213.184656.1396.1.alwick@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_598a.4a38.6e35 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6,8-9,11,14-15,18-19,22-33,35,38-44,47-60,67-80,81-32767 From: al p Wick X-ContentStamp: 22:11:3381198947 X-MAIL-INFO:0d1313d3be5eabaaf7df3ad3da3ade473fcf373a3b8f433ebe3b37cf3bc33b07bb4f5a9b1387d333d3efbe9fdeaedb9faa5eca4fe7e70ad77f0a671b47bf2b472fbf3a0b6a17ee0f8e1e4ef3ae8ea717177b5a372f63de1ea3e72f577b022b02e7bffab32bfbaf8f67fb X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkF5iJInQyJQye5UZGGkix/hJh5R0E+rfMA== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m12.lax.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_598a.4a38.6e35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Good suggestion Al. I've already measured the Lyc fail rate. On my web page. You guys can easily arrive at incident rate using your list. Step one to making your planes safer is facing the risks. I'm impressed that Rusty is willing to stick his neck out. Much easier to be quiet. Anecdotally you guys have the highest risk install out there. That doesn't mean abandon it. Just need to face it, then take advantage of all the tools that can mitigate your risks. Immediately jumping to Lycoming comparisons whenever someone has forced landing is a denial technique. It prevents you from taking effective action. The rotary has some excellent characteristics. It's got a few marginal ones too. There are always numerous things you can do to reduce risk of the marginal ones. -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:46:44 -0800 "Al Gietzen" writes: 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 http://tinyurl.com/dcy36 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) -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html ----__JNP_000_598a.4a38.6e35 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good suggestion Al. I've already measured the Lyc fail rate. On my web= =20 page. You guys can easily arrive at incident rate using your list.
 
Step one to making your planes safer is facing the risks. I'm = impressed=20 that Rusty is willing to stick his neck out. Much easier to be quiet.<= /DIV>
Anecdotally you guys have the highest risk install out there. That = doesn't=20 mean abandon it. Just need to face it, then take advantage of all the = tools=20 that can mitigate your risks.
 
Immediately jumping to Lycoming comparisons whenever someone has = forced=20 landing is a denial technique. It prevents you from taking effective=20 action.
 
The rotary has some excellent characteristics. It's got a few marginal= ones=20 too. There are always numerous things you can do to reduce risk of the = marginal=20 ones.
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by= =20 stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland,=20 Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel = design=20 info:
http:= //www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
 
 
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:46:44 -0800 "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net> writes:

A very interesting = comparison=20 would be accident/incident rates for experimental with certified engines = vs=20 experimental with ‘alternative’ engines.

 

Al

 

Subject= :=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure

 

Rusty,

Couple of years ago we lost 3 = Cozy's=20 within few months due to Lycoming engine problems. Not landing with = engine=20 problem, but total lost of all 3 aircraft. Nobody said a word. Like it = was the=20 most ordinary thing?

Bulent=20 "Buly" Aliev

Ser# 066 = /=20 N484BD

http://tinyurl.com/dcy36



<= /SPAN>

 

On Feb 13, 2006, = at 2:03=20 PM, Russell Duffy wrote:

 



<= SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> 

On the subject = of=20 failures in general, am I the only one who thinks there have just been = way too=20 many of these in the last couple years?  In virtually every case, = the=20 engine has been the victim, rather than the cause of the problem, but to = the=20 casual observer, it looks bad for the rotary.  I'd hate to calculate= the=20 number of flight hours per serious problem for currently flying=20 rotaries.  I'd also hate for the insurance companies to do=20 it.  Let's hope this trend doesn't=20 continue.  

<= SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> 

Cheers,<= /FONT>

Rusty (one = rotor, no=20 prop) 



<= /SPAN>

 

 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in= =20 cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on=20 engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, = Risk=20 assessment, Glass panel design=20 info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
----__JNP_000_598a.4a38.6e35--