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
|
|||
|
|||
Aero Advantage closing shop.
Got this Email today in my mail. I found it a big troubling as I just
installed the Dual pump in September last year in my B35. (Works great BTW) Does anyone else know the specifics behind the failure of the vanes, and if there is an AD pending? Important Information for Customers Customer experience has uncovered a type of pump failure never experienced in years of field and laboratory testing of the dual rotor vacuum pump design, including the deliberate destruction of over 300 test pumps. These failures resulted in malfunctioning of both pumping chambers simultaneously. The failures are concentrated on the 300 horsepower Lycoming IO-540 engines. We believe that these engines generate a resonant frequency resulting in breakage of both graphite rotors. Multiple replacement pumps have failed on three different engines. At this point, we can't be certain about similar failures occurring on other engines. A failure rate of 3%, while seemingly small, is not acceptable for our product. Although the dual rotor pumps are performing well in the other 97% of installations, shipping of dual rotor pumps has been halted. The tens of thousands of dollars of orders on hand will not be filled. Aero Advantage refuses to continue marketing a product that might not perform satisfactorily for all its customers. Aero Advantage was founded, in good faith, to improve safety of flight and to allow greater peace of mind for its customers by eliminating sudden loss of the vacuum source. While the precise changes that are needed to improve reliability may already be in place, they would likely require between 3 and 9 months to finalize and place into production. The company can not survive the financial burden of having no sales for that length of time and is closing its doors. Closure of the business was an extremely difficult decision for me, the inventor and company founder, since I have invested five years of work and most of my life's savings in the business. Several parties have expressed an interest in procuring the current technology and continuing the development of the necessary product improvements. It is with much regret that I announce the above decision. I believe it is the correct one for all concerned. Sincerely, David A. Boldenow |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It is with much regret that I announce the above decision. I believe
it is the correct one for all concerned. Wow -- that's sad. It sure sounded like a good idea -- too bad it didn't work out for him. (And those of you who did the installation on your birds...) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
It sure sounded like a good idea -- too bad it didn't work out for him. (And those of you who did the installation on your birds...) It did sound like a good idea. I came close to buying one when my last vacuum pump failed, but the wait time was too long. Afterwards, I read the Air Safety Foundation report that everyone cites on the danger of vacuum pump failures: it turns out that they did not find a *single* fatal accident from 1983 to 1997 involving a vacuum-pump failure for a fixed-gear plane flying IFR -- losing control partial panel seems to be a retractable thing. Does anyone know of any vacuum-pump-related fatal accidents from 1997-2004 in fixed-gear planes flying IFR? All the best, David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It did sound like a good idea. I came close to buying one when my last
vacuum pump failed, but the wait time was too long. This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is ridiculous in the first place. I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse. Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Vcqnc.11795$xw3.806601@attbi_s04... Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd. Then figure out a way to go to a wet pump. I worry about wet pump failure as much as I worry about my tires going square. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message ... "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Vcqnc.11795$xw3.806601@attbi_s04... Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd. Then figure out a way to go to a wet pump. I worry about wet pump failure as much as I worry about my tires going square. Electric would clearly be the way to go. There are some wonderful advancements in A/C instrumentation that would be a clear advantage to the recreational aviation crowd. You will likely not see them until sport pilot and/or some form of simplified certification is allowed. We are flying stuff certified in the forties simply because there are too many liability lawyers in the world. If anything fails, for any reason, at any time, ever, somebody will be sued. I'm all for corporate responsibility, but the situation as it exists now is deadly for everyone. Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because the company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage that can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets, there are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs? Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits. Sorry I didn't mean to get into a rant when I started this letter but I stand behind every opinion. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
zip wrote:
Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because the company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage that can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets, there are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs? Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits. It's an easy problem to fix, if you American voters cared enough to make it an election issue: just revise the law so that punitive damages in a law suite go to the government instead of the plaintiff. For example, if I get injured by someone, and the judge and jury determine that my injuries are worth 500K plus legal costs, then I get 500K plus legal costs. If they also decide to award 50M punitive damages to teach the defendant a lesson, that money should go to the government like any other fine would. If lawyers cannot hope for a cut of the (enormous) punitive damages, they'll be less likely to take on trivial litigation. Another alternative is the system that we have here in Canada (and, I think, in the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries, though I'm not sure). The loser in a civil case normally pays the winner's costs, so I'm not about to go out and sue Lycoming or Piper unless I'm pretty sure I'll win: otherwise, they might send me a bill for millions in legal expenses. That one might not go over so well, though, since it discourages people from suing even when they do have a legitimate case. All the best, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is ridiculous in the first place. I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse. Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd. I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric motor to spin the gyro at that speed. It can obviously be done, but I suspect the parts neccessary to do it might be a little more exotic and expensive than vaccum gyro parts. Add to that the immense liability that a manufacturer of such devices are taking on, you start to see why all of these devices are expensive (even the vaccum devices, really). Turn coordinators spin a gyro with an electric motor, but I bet the fact that horizons have to pivot in two directons (roll and pitch) makes the internal design way more complex. --- Jay -- __!__ Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___ http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! http://www.oceancityairport.com http://www.oc-adolfos.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
There certainly are good ideas out there for changing our civil
liability system, but doing anything about punitive damages is not likely to change anything. Punitive damages are awarded in less than 5% of the cases where plaintiff wins (which means it's an even smaller percentage of all cases) and the median punitive damage award is $50,000. Hardly "enormous". Do you wonder why large punitive damages are so newsworthy? It's because they are so rare. I do think some modification of the second part of your idea would be a good thing. On Sun, 09 May 2004 16:55:31 GMT, David Megginson wrote: zip wrote: Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because the company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage that can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets, there are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs? Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits. It's an easy problem to fix, if you American voters cared enough to make it an election issue: just revise the law so that punitive damages in a law suite go to the government instead of the plaintiff. For example, if I get injured by someone, and the judge and jury determine that my injuries are worth 500K plus legal costs, then I get 500K plus legal costs. If they also decide to award 50M punitive damages to teach the defendant a lesson, that money should go to the government like any other fine would. If lawyers cannot hope for a cut of the (enormous) punitive damages, they'll be less likely to take on trivial litigation. Another alternative is the system that we have here in Canada (and, I think, in the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries, though I'm not sure). The loser in a civil case normally pays the winner's costs, so I'm not about to go out and sue Lycoming or Piper unless I'm pretty sure I'll win: otherwise, they might send me a bill for millions in legal expenses. That one might not go over so well, though, since it discourages people from suing even when they do have a legitimate case. All the best, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1913 Aero & Hydro Magazine | barry | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 19th 04 10:39 PM |
Shop Layout Questions | GreenPilot | Home Built | 37 | July 6th 04 02:47 PM |
Things I Have Learned As First Time Buyer/Owner (long) | MRQB | Owning | 12 | April 19th 04 02:12 PM |
Avionics Shop Is Done Nice Sticker In My Log Book Total Costs | MRQB | Owning | 0 | April 3rd 04 08:21 AM |
Q re Instrument lighting upgrade by Aero Enhancement: anyone with experience? | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 5 | March 22nd 04 07:37 PM |