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.