Hi Ted,
Is the engine you are talking about an EngineAir V8 or is it something new you have designed? We decided as a group (the owners and I) to remove the EngineAir V8 especially since the Doug Pohl's son Nick begged us not to use it. Nick is an A&P and would repair his fathers engine when it was broken, Doug was a doctor. Nick told me his father averaged an engine failure of some sorts about every 75 hours and had about 8 failures before he passed away. Doug died in his EngineAir V8 powered Lancair 4P after the engine quit on take off from the Pembroke Pines airport in Fl.
We just did not have the warm fuzzy feeling for V8's after the above events. We removed it and sold it to another person with an EngineAir V8 in his Lancair 4P. He needed the gearbox because he had a broken shaft in his and the owner of the EngineAir V8 company had passed away. (See above).
Ted, you are right about the fuel line not being the engine but it is part of the powerplant installation. Please use only aviation hoses and fittings on your installation, I think they are safer. I was told that Bud Warren had a fuel line problem and that it caused the death of him and his daughter. Bud told me a few years ago when I was talking to him at Sun-N-Fun that a fuel line caused him an engine failure in his Wheeler Express and it was a total loss after it burned.
Good Luck with your test flight program,
Swaid Rahn
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Mark, I'm a doctor. I know that "safe" is a relative evaluation, even if plaintiff's attorneys don't. 90% of all engine failures in aircraft may be directly traced to the design compromises required by 1930's technology air cooling. About 9% may be traced to 1930's magnetos. That leaves 1% for "other."
Those numbers are what drove me to liquid cooling.
Ted
On 5/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:
Ted,
If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe" choices, may I direct you to the FAA accident database? It is full of evidence to the contrary.
Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary group ( www.flyrotary.com) of which I have participated in since the mid 90's. A couple of other good rotary sites are www.rotaryeng.net and www.rotaryaviation.com. There are many flying examples of the rotary engine being a viable alternative engine. While it is definitely not a plug-n-play solution and nor is it for everyone, it has proven to be a reliable aircraft powerplant. But, as they say, the devil's in the details. As with the Lycoming or Continental options, I wouldn't call the rotary a totally "safe" choice either. A broken oil line can ruin your day as quickly as a broken crankshaft. If you address the peripheral systems, the engine itself is extremely robust. (My 350hp peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4 moving parts, all of which spin rather than stop and start, but that's a topic for another posting.) The rotary has shown to be more than capable of producing very high power in racing applications. In the Mazda series they typically run the engines for one or two seasons without overhaul. The rotary is a very tough little engine!
Is the Lycoming engine "safer"? Maybe, maybe not. But if "safe" is the target to which we aim, then we should all stay on the ground.
Mark
Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor
--
Swaid L. Rahn
Indigo Aviation, Inc.
940 Mock Road
Springfield, Ga. 31329
Cell 912.655.0966
|