Reducing the Accident Rate

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
My experience suggests decimal dust.
I think it is hard to know how many accidents are due to maintenance issues
by reading NTSB reports

I concur, and do not base my opinion on NTSB reports.

Anecdotally I hear about a lot less engine failures among people flying
engines within TBO by hours and also under 10 years

That's because few airplanes reach hourly TBO within 10 years. My
experience indicates that those engines fail about as often - there
are just fewer of them.

it would be interesting to tabulate the data someday in a
statistically valid manner.

Yes it would. The very fact that the manufacturers COULD do it if
they chose, and choose not to, indicates that they don't want the
facts known. That suggests to me that the failures (a) happen far
more often than is generally believed and (b) are not prevented by
regular factory overhauls.

Fundamentally, I think most failures are a design problem rather than
a maintenance problem. So why are we still using clearly obsolete
designs? FAA.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...


Fundamentally, I think most failures are a design problem rather than
a maintenance problem. So why are we still using clearly obsolete
designs? FAA.

What piston engine design would be more reliable? (Economics make turbine
engine comparisons unfair, even if turbines are more reliable -- and I am
not certain that they are.)

I have experienced a lot more engine problems driving cars than flying
airplanes for sure.

Experimental airplanes do not seem to have any lower incidence of engine
failures anecdotally, nor do I recall reading any data to suggest there
exists a more reliable experimental piston engine design.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
What piston engine design would be more reliable? (Economics make turbine
engine comparisons unfair, even if turbines are more reliable -- and I am
not certain that they are.)

First off, turbine engines are not out of the questions at all. The
reason they are so incredibly expensive has a lot to do with the FAA
and milspecs. Second, turbine engines are inherently more reliable -
there are far fewer moving parts, and no reversals of direction. In
addition, they separate the combustion stages (suck, squeeze, bang,
blow) in space rather than in time - and that means only a relatively
small part of the engine has to be tough enough to accomodate the most
difficult portion of the cycle. In other words, pound for pound the
turbine will always be more reliable.

Second, we've learned a lot about piston engine reliability in the
past half century. Little of that has made it into aircraft engine
designs. For example, separate cylinders are disasters. There's not
sufficient mechanical stability, so everything moves too much. Note
that the two modern aviation piston engines - the Thielert and Orenda
- have abandoned that nonsense.

That's just one example. There are countless others in the ignition,
fuel, and other systems.

I have experienced a lot more engine problems driving cars than flying
airplanes for sure.

Driving cars made in the last 20 years? I find that amazing.

Experimental airplanes do not seem to have any lower incidence of engine
failures anecdotally, nor do I recall reading any data to suggest there
exists a more reliable experimental piston engine design.

Experimentals are amateur-designed. The engine installations are
amateur-designed too. The very fact that after the first 50 hours are
flown off the accident rate appears to even out with the certified
airplanes should suggest to you what a disaster the FAA-mandated
professional engineering is. Amateurs can do almost as well working
in their garages.

Michael

For example, separate cylinders are disasters.

What are "separate cylinders" and what's the alternative? (unless you mean the
wankel)

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

For example, separate cylinders are disasters.

What are "separate cylinders" and what's the alternative? (unless you mean the
wankel)

Each cylinder on a typical Lycoming or Continental engine can be removed
independently. All of the cylinders in a typical automobile engine are cast in a
single unit (known as the block). This is also true of many water-cooled aircraft
engines and many motorcycle engines.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

(Teacherjh) wrote
What are "separate cylinders" and what's the alternative? (unless you mean the
wankel)

Separate cylinders are exactly that - you can unbolt a cylinder from
an engine and replace it without affecting the other cylinders. The
alternative is an engine block.

Michael

Thanks... now why are separate cylinders a disaster?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

(Teacherjh) wrote
Thanks... now why are separate cylinders a disaster?

Because the engine comes out either too heavy or not rigid enough.
The engine block provides rigidity. Separate cylinders provide none -
they just hang out there by themselves.

Insufficient rigidity is the cause of many ills. For example, if you
manage to crack the block on an engine, it will still continue to make
some power for at least a few minutes. Crack a cylinder, and you can
easily jam the piston/rod and seize the engine. Does that really
happen? Yes, I've lost friends that way.

Insufficient rigidity also contributes to valve/seat/guide problems.

Note that NONE of the new aviation engines (Orenda, Thielert, Honda,
Bombadier) have separate cylinders. No automotive engines do this
either. In fact, ONLY obsolete aviation engines do this.

The reason? It's a rare aviation cylinder, especially on a big
engine, that is built well enough to make TBO. The quality assurance
process mandated by the FAA is a bad joke, and in fact keeps
manufacturers from being able to improve the process.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

First off, turbine engines are not out of the questions at all. The
reason they are so incredibly expensive has a lot to do with the FAA
and milspecs. Second, turbine engines are inherently more reliable -

So why hasn't someone developed an inexpensive, reliable turbine engine for
experiental airplanes?


sufficient mechanical stability, so everything moves too much. Note
that the two modern aviation piston engines - the Thielert and Orenda
- have abandoned that nonsense.

What planes are these used in? Do you have any references about these?

Driving cars made in the last 20 years? I find that amazing.

Well as one example I experienced a sudden catastrophic engine failure this
year in my 1999 Toyota minivan. An engine cooling fan circuit malfunctioned
and the engine overheated while driving in a snowstorm. I pulled over right
away but nonetheless the engine block had melted and I needed a new block
and new cylinders... $8000 in warranty work repairing the engine due to
failure of a $125 part.

Experimentals are amateur-designed. The engine installations are
amateur-designed too. The very fact that after the first 50 hours are
flown off the accident rate appears to even out with the certified
airplanes should suggest to you what a disaster the FAA-mandated
professional engineering is. Amateurs can do almost as well working
in their garages.

Well can anyone do BETTER than FAA certified airplanes? Who in your mind
can produce an airplane with a more reliable engine than an FAA certified
engine?



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
So why hasn't someone developed an inexpensive, reliable turbine engine for
experiental airplanes?

First off, that's in process. There's already an RV-4 flying with
one, and there's a company now developing them.

sufficient mechanical stability, so everything moves too much. Note
that the two modern aviation piston engines - the Thielert and Orenda
- have abandoned that nonsense.

What planes are these used in? Do you have any references about these?

The Thielert is used in the new Diamond twin. The Orenda is used in
certain agricultural aircraft, and is an STC'd replacement for the
King Air.

Well as one example I experienced a sudden catastrophic engine failure this
year in my 1999 Toyota minivan. An engine cooling fan circuit malfunctioned
and the engine overheated while driving in a snowstorm. I pulled over right
away but nonetheless the engine block had melted and I needed a new block
and new cylinders... $8000 in warranty work repairing the engine due to
failure of a $125 part.

You are the only person I know who has had that happen. It's
extremely rare. On the other hand, I can name quite a few such
situations with certified engines that happened to people I know.
I've had an engine die because a little rust clogged the fuel
injectors. Turns out the drain plug in the fuel servo was steel. No,
it was not an illegal replacement - it was steel by design. If I were
to replace it with non-rusting brass or aluminum, that would be
illegal. A friend had an engine die because the drive to his dual-mag
sheared. Bad metal. Another had an engine die on takeoff because the
scat tube that carried the air collapsed. It was an STC'd
installation. When he replaced the scat tube with aluminum, that was
illegal. I could go on and on.

Well can anyone do BETTER than FAA certified airplanes? Who in your mind
can produce an airplane with a more reliable engine than an FAA certified
engine?

Any professional operation. Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, Bombadier -
ANYONE. But not some guy working in his garage. The fact that some
guy working in his garage on a shoestring budget can come close should
tell you what a disaster the certified engine is.

Michael