X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:42:37 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4999338 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:47:49 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p4VHl57n017747 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:47:05 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.106f.7261180 (43996) for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.169]) by cia-dd06.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD065-b2354de529911f6; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:47:01 -0400 Received: from webmail-d070 (webmail-d070.sim.aol.com [205.188.92.108]) by smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE022-b2354de529911f6; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:46:57 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine X-Original-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:46:56 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 75.58.187.133 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CDEDD1DE9DECF6_1E64_11DF26_webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33708-STANDARD Received: from 75.58.187.133 by webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com (205.188.92.108) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 31 May 2011 13:46:56 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CDEDD1DE815C52-1E64-97086@webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CDEDD1DE9DECF6_1E64_11DF26_webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ted, I am an aircraft accident investigator. The majority of all reported "engi= ne failures" are too much air and not enough fuel. Best Regards, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Ted Noel To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, May 31, 2011 12:41 pm Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine Mark, I'm a doctor. I know that "safe" is a relative evaluation, even if plainti= ff's attorneys don't. 90% of all engine failures in aircraft may be direc= tly traced to the design compromises required by 1930's technology air coo= ling. 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:=20 Ted, =20 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.=20 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 ever= yone, it has proven to be a reliable aircraft powerplant. But, as they sa= y, the devil's in the details. As with the Lycoming or Continental option= s, I wouldn't call the rotary a totally "safe" choice either. A broken oi= l line can ruin your day as quickly as a broken crankshaft. If you addres= s the peripheral systems, the engine itself is extremely robust. (My 350h= p 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 powe= r in racing applications. In the Mazda series they typically run the engi= nes 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. =20 Mark=20 Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor ----------MB_8CDEDD1DE9DECF6_1E64_11DF26_webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Ted,
 
I am an aircraft accident investigator. The majority of all reported= "engine failures"  are too much air and not enough fuel.
 
Best Regards,
 
Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, May 31, 2011 12:41 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine

Mark,

I'm a doctor. I know that "safe" is a relative evaluation, even if plainti= ff'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% fo= r "other."

Those numbers are what drove me to liquid cooling.

Ted

On 5/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:=20
Ted, =20

If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe" choi= ces, may I direct you to the FAA accident database?  It is full of ev= idence to the contrary. 

Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary group (www.flyrotary.com) of which I have parti= cipated in since the mid 90's.  A couple of other good rotary sites= are www.rotaryeng.n= et and www.= rotaryaviation.com.  There are many flying examples of the rotary= engine being a viable alternative engine.  While it is definitely no= t 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 th= e 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 wh= ich spin rather than stop and start, but that's a topic for another postin= g.)  The rotary has shown to be more than capable of producing= very high power in racing applications.  In the Mazda series they ty= pically 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 grou= nd.  

Mark 
Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor
 ----------MB_8CDEDD1DE9DECF6_1E64_11DF26_webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com--