|
Good suggestion Al. I've already measured the Lyc fail rate. On my web
page. You guys can easily arrive at incident rate using your list.
Step one to making your planes safer is facing the risks. I'm impressed
that Rusty is willing to stick his neck out. Much easier to be quiet.
Anecdotally you guys have the highest risk install out there. That doesn't
mean abandon it. Just need to face it, then take advantage of all the tools
that can mitigate your risks.
Immediately jumping to Lycoming comparisons whenever someone has forced
landing is a denial technique. It prevents you from taking effective
action.
The rotary has some excellent characteristics. It's got a few marginal ones
too. There are always numerous things you can do to reduce risk of the marginal
ones.
A very interesting comparison
would be accident/incident rates for experimental with certified engines vs
experimental with ‘alternative’ engines.
Al
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure
Rusty,
Couple of years ago we lost 3 Cozy's
within few months due to Lycoming engine problems. Not landing with engine
problem, but total lost of all 3 aircraft. Nobody said a word. Like it was the
most ordinary thing?
On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:03
PM, Russell Duffy wrote:
On the subject of
failures in general, am I the only one who thinks there have just been way too
many of these in the last couple years? In virtually every case, the
engine has been the victim, rather than the cause of the problem, but to the
casual observer, it looks bad for the rotary. I'd hate to calculate the
number of flight hours per serious problem for currently flying
rotaries. I'd also hate for the insurance companies to do
it. Let's hope this trend doesn't
continue.
Rusty (one rotor, no
prop)
-al wick
Artificial intelligence in
cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on
engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk
assessment, Glass panel design
info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
|