X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:23:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4993165 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:08:08 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=HMbcTW4A9EycqV7/N+YM2Mh97FUdeQoFf9iyeTX6gib3DIoh+ehMJI/LM6rsopPA; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [70.109.164.164] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QOw0y-0000gv-Gy for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:07:32 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-503--611746187 Subject: Re: [LML] LIV choice of engine X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:07:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <5FA8B87D-5AE5-43B0-8D56-DC0A39801511@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940b4054a97f7443f79e9461cdf65214d72350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.109.164.164 --Apple-Mail-503--611746187 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Fred, I think you just said that there can never be a new aviation piston = engine because the test fleet would be too small. Therefore, if you don't like the tested piston alternatives out there, = you should be looking at a turbine? (fuel specifics notwithstanding) Colyn On May 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Frederick Moreno wrote: > "It's not the idea. It's the execution." > =20 > Ted Noel > =20 > I could not agree more. All the theoretical arguments seduced me = (and others) into wasting time and money on a V-8 adaptation to the = Lancair IV. > =20 > Product designers (I used to be one) learn time and again that = customers are highly inventive when it comes to developing ways to cause = failures. If it were not for the real world experiences, reliability = would be much higher. > =20 > However, I have learned (and probably always knew, if I were not such = a blind aviation optimist) that reliability comes from hundreds of units = operating each for thousands of hours racking up millions of cumulative = hours of fleet experience, all under the watchful eye of a closed cycle = monitoring and corrective action system that quickly detects faults and = immediately addresses them.=20 > =20 > One project can not test an engine enough to guarantee reliability. A = company with very deep pockets and a good reputation can test the hell = out of the engine to assure a reasonable chance of success, good enough = that some launch customer will sign up for initial production. But = customers find situations that the engine manufacturer did not dream of = or test. Consequently, only with large fleet experience and a an = excellent feedback system can you get the kind of high reliability we = now take for granted. > =20 > Could someone take some liquid cooled V-8 (or 12 or 6) and make it = reliable? Yes, if they can get hundreds of customers to shell out money = and continue the "test program" years after the initial phase is = completed on the test stand and some early aircraft flights. There is = no compelling reason to do this in general aviation with piston engines. = It is one reason why piston engines have stagnated, and turbine engines = keep creeping forward, getting better and better. Millions of hours of = operation, all closely watched. That is the key. > =20 > Sadly, I believe there is no other way.=20 > =20 > Fred Moreno --Apple-Mail-503--611746187 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Fred,

I think you just said that = there can never be a new aviation piston engine because the test fleet = would be too small.

Therefore, if you don't = like the tested piston alternatives out there, you should be looking at = a turbine?  (fuel specifics = notwithstanding)

Colyn

On= May 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Frederick Moreno wrote:

"It's not = the idea. It's the execution."
 
Ted = Noel
 
I could not agree more.  All the = theoretical  arguments seduced me (and others) into wasting time = and money on a V-8 adaptation to the Lancair = IV.
 
Product designers (I used to be one) = learn time and again that customers are highly inventive when it comes = to developing ways to cause failures.  If it were not for the real = world experiences, reliability would be much higher.  <sad.gif><= /div>
 
However, I have learned (and probably always = knew, if I were not such a blind aviation optimist) that reliability = comes from hundreds of units operating each for thousands of hours = racking up millions of cumulative hours of fleet experience, all under = the watchful eye of a closed cycle monitoring and corrective action = system that quickly detects faults and immediately addresses = them. 
 
One project can not test an = engine enough to guarantee reliability.  A company with very deep = pockets and a good reputation can test the hell out of the = engine to assure a reasonable chance of success, good enough = that  some launch customer will sign up for initial = production.  But customers find situations that the engine = manufacturer did not dream of or test.   = Consequently, only with large fleet experience and a an excellent = feedback system can you get the kind of high reliability we now take for = granted.
 
Could someone take some liquid = cooled V-8 (or 12 or 6) and make it reliable?  Yes, if they can get = hundreds of customers to shell out money and continue the "test program" = years after the initial phase is completed on the test stand and = some early aircraft flights.    There is no compelling = reason to do this in general aviation with piston engines.  It is = one reason why piston engines have stagnated, and turbine engines keep = creeping  forward, getting better and better.  Millions of = hours of operation, all closely watched.  That is the = key.
 
Sadly, I believe there is no other = way. 
 
Fred = Moreno
<= /span>

= --Apple-Mail-503--611746187--