Emergency landing today Troutdale, OR

On Feb 2, 9:49 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
It looks like you know more than I do.
In what way does this make more sence?

A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
maintenance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Still doesn't make sence to me.
Used aircraft can have a brand new engine.

-Kees

wrote:
True, but the article only mentioned "mechanical problems" and a
"sputtering engine".
That can mean anything and not just a failing engine.
Kees.

Quote the article "He was on his way home to Ohio when his engine began to
sputter and went out."

They are not saying "the engine failed" in exactly those words, but I am
hard-pressed to interpret that sentence in any other way.

Anno.

writes:

Used aircraft can have a brand new engine.

True, but that is hardly the default case.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It looks like you know more than I do.
In what way does this make more sence?

A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
maintenance.

I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better cared for
than average 172.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better cared for
than average 172.

So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
sure sounded like an engine problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 2, 3:48 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:
I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better cared for
than average 172.

So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
sure sounded like an engine problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

No, it did not sound as an engine problem.
It did sound as a sputtering engine, and that sir is something
completely different.
You are not a pilot, fine with me.
You only fly sims, also fine with me.
But not being able to read and understand a simple news article,
Hmmmm???
Didn't you teach English? Hmm Hmm.

-Kees

Recently, Anno v. Heimburg posted:

wrote:
True, but the article only mentioned "mechanical problems" and a
"sputtering engine".
That can mean anything and not just a failing engine.
Kees.

Quote the article "He was on his way home to Ohio when his engine
began to sputter and went out."

They are not saying "the engine failed" in exactly those words, but I
am hard-pressed to interpret that sentence in any other way.

I would expect the same observation if the plane ran out of fuel.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better
cared for than average 172.

So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
sure sounded like an engine problem.

I have no idea. As post by myself and several others it could be Fuel, Pilot
or Engine. That is assuming that the very short news piece we read is even
close to what really happened.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:48:31 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

From accident reports. When I compare GA reports to commercial
airliner reports, the prominence of engine problems as a contributing
factor in accidents is difficult to ignore.

Number of engines enters into it, too. When the vast majority of GA aircraft
have an engine failure, they're going down. Airliners have more than one engine
(by regulation) and mere engine failure only rarely results in an accident.
Thus, even if the powerplant reliability rates were the same, airliners would
have lower accident rates.

The other factor is that turbine powerplants are more reliable than recips.
Compare airline accident rates in the 50s vs. today. You don't have airliners
ditching because of a problem with one of their powerplants.

Ron Wanttaja

Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A
Harmon Rocket, I believe.

Still, the same principles apply: A new aircraft shouldn't have engine
trouble. If the pilot paid to have it constructed, the constructor
owes him something.

You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the aircraft
and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.


Picky Picky!

That sort of thing may not be fully modelled in MSFS...

Peter ;-)))