![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:44:57 -0600, Charlie wrote:
If we factor in the reality that Lyc installations are more or less 'standardized', with help almost always available from knowledgeable predecessors, compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique, and we factor in the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the people most willing to do an auto conversion are the least qualified to tackle it, how much should we weight the percentages? Only if you add the word 'installation' to each category can you reach the conclusion that Lycs are actually safer, in my opinion. What do you think? I understand your logic, but don't agree with it. I look at the powerplant as a *package*. If the engine itself is more reliable, but it's difficult to achieve an installation that allows it to show its reliability, I don't feel that it exonerates the engine as an aircraft powerplant. That's why my statistics include fuel system problems FWF as an engine-related failure...if all else were equal, Lycomings and, say, Fords should see the same rate of fuel FWF accidents. If there's a difference, that means one is more picky as to the quality of the fuel system install. FWIW, auto-engine conversions seem to have fewer instances of FWF fuel system problems than certified engines. The very standardization of the LyConts means that the average builder has a better chance of achieving a reliable installation. One has to understand what statistics in these cases really *mean*. The fact that 25% of aircraft accidents aren't caused by "N" DOESN"T mean that *you* have a 25% chance of having an accident due to "N". It means, out of 100 owners, 25 of them will suffer that kind of accident. If "N" is due to installation errors, and you spend extra care on your installation, get advice, use quality materials, etc., then you are less likely to experience that kind of accident. BTW, I do track installation errors (I call them "builder errors") in my analyses. Ron Wanttaja |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seattle to So Cal Area | 81mm | General Aviation | 2 | April 14th 06 04:45 AM |
Seattle to So Cal Area | Montblack | Piloting | 0 | April 12th 06 04:45 PM |
Seattle to So Cal Area | 81mm | Owning | 1 | April 12th 06 04:45 PM |
Seattle to So Cal Area | 81mm | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 12th 06 02:41 PM |
Seattle to So Cal Area | 81mm | Restoration | 0 | April 12th 06 02:40 PM |