X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:51:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sfa.gami.com ([68.89.254.162] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2086474 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:32:53 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.89.254.162; envelope-from=gwbraly@gami.com Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sfa.gami.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A8E29C06E for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:32:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sdf1.mail.taturbo.com (unknown [10.10.10.173]) by sfa.gami.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C9129C05E for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:32:16 -0500 (CDT) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Subject: RE: [LML] Hickman's Accident: NTSB Probable Cause Report X-Original-Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:32:16 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Hickman's Accident: NTSB Probable Cause Report Thread-Index: Acen4281vtLsIyDZT+2zuO7Wa45AxwACJR2w References: From: "George Braly" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.3.2 (20050629) (Debian) at gami.com >>If I needed a big 6-cylinder engine for my aircraft, I would not choose a fuel-injected Continental.<< So which large bore six cylinder engine would you select - - and why do you think it is "better" ? Regards, George -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of bob mackey Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:36 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Hickman's Accident: NTSB Probable Cause Report Dave Hickman's fatal accident remains a tragedy. With better training or skills, perhaps it would have been an "ordinary" engine out landing instead of a stall and uncontrolled descent. Why did the engine quit? If in fact selecting the high-boost switch caused the engine to flood and stop producing power, then there is a serious flaw in the fuel injection system of that particular engine and airframe. I've said it before and I'm saying it again... If varying the input fuel pressure (within a reasonable range) to the engine changes the fuel flow, then the fuel flow regulation system is flawed. In this case, you could say fatally flawed. The fuel flow should be determined by the mass airflow and the mixture setting. Not by which fuel pumps are on. If the fuel pumps in the system can exceed the pressures that the injection system is able to regulate, then those pumps should be removed. It's not just a matter of switch placement. There should be no auxiliary controls in the cockpit that cause the engine to quit working. The primary engine controls (e.g. magneto switch, fuel cutoff) are all the only ones that should stop the engine. If I needed a big 6-cylinder engine for my aircraft, I would not choose a fuel-injected Continental. -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html