X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3585589 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:42:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.45; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090418164159.ZITH27308.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:41:59 -0400 Received: from wills ([68.105.85.56]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id h4hx1b00D1CvZmk044hzvg; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:41:59 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=pWy-yOj8J_-VKXkhpKQA:9 a=7iJtkJGa2PD-M-vbiucA:7 a=RsxU1k-dOhPrnKOOBC7zKSJWGyYA:4 a=yy1RE9i7xN_cvfCr:21 a=o2qcCfh0zZy4a0C-:21 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=csV1EG7juNSDxUQ8mvgA:9 a=GotinFdL3dIKPulHUj4A:7 a=_VscMbItUhO4NLUcnC6P1wrciEYA:4 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <6D01EB3759B24EC78B8BE27371B50732@wills> From: "Mike Wills" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Forced landings Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:41:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0145_01C9C009.EA4949C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0145_01C9C009.EA4949C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Al, I understand and agree with what you are saying regarding the = experimental nature of these one off installations. But if you dont = compare them to the norm, what do you compare them to? I guarantee you = that is what the LyCont flyers are comparing them to. For that matter we all do that too. I guarantee you there isnt a person = on this list who hasnt said at one time or another that they chose to go = with this engine because it is better than a certified engine in some = respect. Cant have it both ways. Mike Wills RV-4 N144MW ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Al Gietzen=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:31 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Forced landings . I flew an RV-6A with a 160 Lyc for several hundred hours over 4 = years, incident free. The stuff you noted below may not have required a = precautionary landing or resulted in a forced landing, but they were = failures none the less. Mike Wills Mike; I'm sure what you say is true; but I also baulked at your comparison = to the certified engine, in this case. My view is that anyone = undertaking what is essentially a one-off alternative engine = installation must realize, and accept, at the outset that in the first = couple hundred hours the probability of a forced landing issue is likely = higher than it would be with a certified engine. If not, that person = would best pursue a different course of action. There is good reason = why the FAA requires us to have 40 hr phase I testing. Yeah; adding = 'experimental' engine to 'experimental' aircraft is not a decision to be = taken lightly. That realization is a driving force for us doing this to look hard = and long at each unproven thing we do in our installations until we are = confident that it will do the job. And certainly that includes learning = from others experience on a forum like this. The reason we are willing to take that risk is to have something = better in the long run. And among those 'better' factors of performance, = lower initial and operating costs, ease of maintenance; etc. is = comparable or better reliability. I find it somewhat mind boggling that = after 50 years and a million hours there are still so many failures in = certified engines. And, I think, not to be overlooked, is the challenge and the sense = of accomplishment. How do you measure the value of that? It is the = driving force that has driven explorers and experimenters for un-told = millennia. Al G. ------=_NextPart_000_0145_01C9C009.EA4949C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Al,
 
 I understand and agree with what = you are=20 saying regarding the experimental nature of these one off installations. = But if=20 you dont compare them to the norm, what do you compare them to? I = guarantee you=20 that is what the LyCont flyers are comparing them to.
 
 For that matter we all do that = too. I=20 guarantee you there isnt a person on this list who hasnt said at = one time=20 or another that they chose to go with this engine because it is better = than a=20 certified engine in some respect. Cant have it both = ways.
 
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Al = Gietzen=20
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 = 8:31=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Forced=20 landings

 

 

. I flew an RV-6A with a = 160 Lyc=20 for several hundred hours over 4 years, incident free. The stuff you = noted=20 below may not have required a precautionary landing or resulted in a = forced=20 landing, but they were failures none the less.

 Mike=20 Wills

Mike;

I=92m=20 sure what you say is true; but I also baulked at your comparison to = the=20 certified engine, in this case.  My view is that anyone = undertaking=20 what is essentially a one-off alternative engine installation must = realize,=20 and accept, at the outset that in the first couple hundred hours the = probability of a forced landing issue is likely higher than it would = be with=20 a certified engine. If not, that person would best pursue a = different course=20 of action.  There is good reason why the FAA requires us to = have 40 hr=20 phase I testing. Yeah; adding =91experimental=92 engine to = =91experimental=92=20 aircraft is not a decision to be taken lightly.

That=20 realization is a driving force for us doing this to look hard and = long at=20 each unproven thing we do in our installations until we are = confident that=20 it will do the job. And certainly that includes learning from others = experience on a forum like this.

The = reason we are=20 willing to take that risk is to have something better in the long = run. And=20 among those =91better=92 factors of performance, lower initial and = operating=20 costs, ease of maintenance; etc. is comparable or better reliability.  I find it = somewhat=20 mind boggling that after 50 years and a million hours there are = still so=20 many failures in certified engines.

 

And, I = think, not=20 to be overlooked, is the challenge and the sense of accomplishment. = How do=20 you measure the value of that? It is the driving force that has = driven=20 explorers and experimenters for un-told millennia.

 

Al=20 G.

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0145_01C9C009.EA4949C0--