Hamid,
I am not here to nitpick semantics on
stating a particular fact or concern other than it seems to me there have been
higher rate of unexplained engine failures (stoppages for whatever reason) in
turbine powered IVs than piston IVs. I had always thought the turbines
would be more reliable. I recall somewhere in the cobwebs of my mind the in-flight
shut down rate of a turbine engine is 1 in every 135,000 flight hours in
commercial operations. I have thought about upgrading to a turbine for
that very reason.
I think a reasonable failure definition is
its working then its not and that wasn’t part of the flight plan.
Michael Smith
From: Lancair Mailing List
[mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Hamid
A. Wasti
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006
9:07 AM
To: Lancair
Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair down in
Georgia
Mike Smith wrote:
>I didn’t say Walters
failures. What is said was it seemed like there were a disproportionate
crash rate among turbine powered IVs.
Mike,
I am quoting the following from your original post (with my emphasis) to
refresh your memory:
Regards,
Hamid
Mike Smith wrote:
Listers,
It seems to me there have been a disproportionate number of unexplained turbine
engine failures that have resulted in
wrecked airplanes, lost lives, and heartaches. I thought they had the
edge in reliability. Is there a common thread in the install? I can
think of enough crashes that suggest maybe there is more safety in a standard
piston install.
Michael Smith