Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43F1F335.1090903@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:11:49 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure
References: <list-983913@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-983913@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Al Gietzen wrote:

> A very interesting comparison would be accident/incident rates for 
> experimental with certified engines vs experimental with ‘alternative’ 
> engines.
>
That would only be applicable if by 'experimental', you mean a one-off 
design on both sides. No fair comparing 100 Lycoming equipped 
quick-build RVs with drill-matched holes and a factory built motor mount 
and baffling, to a rotary equipped plans-built Delta that has a 
screwball doing his own design work. The former has a budget for a host 
of engineers and instrumentation to work out all the kinks on a 
prototype. The latter has an email list and what documentation he can 
grab from wherever he can.

A Lycoming equipped one-off will be in the same situation as the latter, 
unless he chooses to make a 100% copy of a successful installation.

-- 
         ,|"|"|,               Ernest Christley     |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----     Dyke Delta Builder    |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |