X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:13:10 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from alnrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.225.92] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.2) with ESMTP id 1561134 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:01:47 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.225.92; envelope-from=mmichaelian@comcast.net Received: from msmemachine (c-67-174-254-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[67.174.254.50]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc12) with SMTP id <20061113160126b1200n0ei5e>; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:01:26 +0000 From: "Marshall Michaelian" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Turbine crash X-Original-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:04:28 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C706FA.5789D570" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C706FA.5789D570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As a turbine operator, I'm interested in your comments. You state that the plane had a Lancair fuel system and Joe says it did not. What's up? And regardless of whose system it is, what did THIS plane's fuel system have which you think caused the fuel starvation? M Michaelian(SQL) -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of Bill McDonald Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:43 PM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Turbine crash Such an interesting set of events here. Airplane has lots of fuel, but has a fuel starvation problem and crashes.. There have been numerous statements here about the Lancair 4PT fuels system. For one,, having a belly tank as a header tank is dangerous and stupid.' Anyone that flies a retractable plane knows that a gear problem could mean landing on a bellyful of fuel. I have looked at this Lancair fuel system and it shows a COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY RISK. You cannot interrupt fuel flow to a turbine like you can with a piston engine. So, if you cannot get the air out, you are going to have a flame out. SIMPLE. Using the belly as a header tank, although at first glance seems convenient, is clearly not the best solution, (even if you can get the air out on a continuous basis). ANYONE BUILDING A LANCAIR 4PT REALLY NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT THE FUEL SYSTEM. Since my last posting, I have spoken to a guy named John Cook and he designed a beautiful and simple little pressure header tank to be installed in the engine compartment. It has a simple bleed to purge air, (as that is one of the prime reasons to even have a header tank). His fuel system uses the belly tank, but he always consumes the belly FIRST. Then he consumes the wing fuel. On larger planes, we always try to use fuselage fuel first because from a fatigue standpoint, there is less wing flexing in turbulence, if we can get the fuselage weight lower. I am not a DER for these little planes, but I can't imagine the fatigue rules being any different. John also told me that he has spoken, written, and posted warnings to Lancair and Joe Bartel about the dangers of the existing Lancair PT fuel system. It was also a surprise to me to hear that Lancair had an engine out failure at Lakeland one year and John Cook diagnosed the problem, and it was the Lancair fuel system that caused it. Lancair is using solenoids that close the belly/header tank breather lines when master power is on.; Basically you are locking air out, but if air gets into the system (like running a wing tank dry), it also locks the air in. I am not a Lancair customer or builder, I was hired to determine the best fuel/engine system for a current Lancair customer. I don't have an axe to grind, but it is really disturbing to see this fuel system and it absolutely amazes me that Lancair doesn't do the right thing. From what I understand now, the failure in Georgia has nothing to do with the engine. Therefore, you have lots of fuel, and a good engine, I would be willing to bet that the failure was caused by the Lancair fuel system. It was bound to happen. It is a pity someone had to have a loss of life. Bill McDonald Systems DER Large aircraft. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C706FA.5789D570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As a=20 turbine operator, I'm interested in your comments.   You = state=20 that the plane had a Lancair fuel system and Joe says it did not.  = What's=20 up?  And regardless of whose system it is, what did THIS=20 plane's fuel system have which you think caused the fuel=20 starvation?
 
M=20 Michaelian(SQL)
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of = Bill=20 McDonald
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:43 PM
To: = Lancair=20 Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Turbine = crash

Such an interesting set of events here.
Airplane has lots of fuel, but has a fuel starvation problem and=20 crashes..
There have been numerous statements here about the Lancair 4PT = fuels=20 system.
 
For one,, having a belly tank as a header tank is dangerous and=20 stupid.'
 
Anyone that flies a retractable plane knows that a gear problem = could=20 mean landing on a bellyful of fuel.
I have looked at this Lancair fuel system and it shows a = COMPLETELY=20 UNNECESSARY RISK.
You cannot interrupt fuel flow to a turbine like you can with a = piston=20 engine.
So, if you cannot get the air out, you are going to have a flame = out.=20 SIMPLE.
Using the belly as a header tank, although at first glance seems=20 convenient, is clearly not the best solution, (even if you can get the = air out=20 on a continuous basis).
ANYONE BUILDING A LANCAIR 4PT REALLY NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT THE = FUEL=20 SYSTEM.
 
Since my last posting, I have spoken to a guy named John Cook and = he=20 designed a beautiful and simple little pressure header tank to be = installed in=20 the engine compartment.
It has a simple bleed to purge air,  (as that is one of the = prime=20 reasons to even have a header tank).
His fuel system uses the belly tank, but he always consumes the=20 belly FIRST. Then he consumes the wing fuel.
On larger planes, we always try to use fuselage fuel first = because from=20 a fatigue standpoint, there is less wing flexing in turbulence, = if we can=20 get the fuselage weight lower.
I am not a DER for these little planes, but I can't imagine the = fatigue=20 rules being any different.
John also told me that he has spoken, written, and posted = warnings to=20 Lancair and Joe Bartel about the dangers of the existing Lancair PT = fuel=20 system.
It was also a surprise to me to hear that Lancair had an engine = out=20 failure at Lakeland one year and John Cook diagnosed the problem, and = it was=20 the
Lancair fuel system that caused it.

Lancair is using solenoids that close the belly/header tank = breather=20 lines when master power is on.;
Basically you are locking air out, but if air gets into the = system (like=20 running a wing tank dry), it also locks the air in.
 
I am not a Lancair customer or builder, I was hired to determine = the best=20 fuel/engine system for a current Lancair customer.
I don't have an axe to grind, but it is really disturbing to see = this=20 fuel system and it absolutely amazes me that Lancair doesn't do the = right=20 thing.
 
From what I understand now, the failure in Georgia has nothing to = do with=20 the engine. Therefore, you have lots of fuel, and a good engine, I = would be=20 willing to bet
that the failure was caused by the Lancair fuel system. It was = bound to=20 happen. It is a pity someone had to have a loss of life.
 
Bill McDonald
Systems DER
Large aircraft.
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C706FA.5789D570--