Emergency landing today Troutdale, OR

Jim Logajan writes:

The aircraft was built in 1997. The reporter was wrong to call it a brand-
new plane. It was recently purchased by the latest owner.

Ah. That makes much more sense.

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

On Feb 2, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:
The aircraft was built in 1997. The reporter was wrong to call it a brand-
new plane. It was recently purchased by the latest owner.

Ah. That makes much more sense.

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

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

-Kees.

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.

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

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

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.

Or the absence of air or igition - which are still not an 'engine problem'.
For all that is known at this point there could have a raccoon living in the
air intake, or bad wiring on an aftermarket ignition. Probability is more
likely with fuel, but a 'sputtering' engine could have been a lot of things.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.