Reducing the Accident Rate

(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

"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

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

Jose

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

On 20 Jul 2004 07:53:04 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

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.

Hmmm, wait, you were driving in winter and the engine overheated
because the cooling fan malfunctioned? My cooling fan never comes on
in the winter. As long as I'm moving at any speed, the air through
the radiator alone is way more than enough to cool the engine without
the cooling fan coming on. It's only when I stop and idle for a while
that the fan may come on, and that only happens if it's relatively
warm (40 degrees).

Something isn't adding up.

Corky Scott

Michael wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote
Well, isn't flying a light plane on a long overwater leg dangerous
behavior? Or are you suggesting it's safe? See the problem here?

I see a linguistic trap. Nothing is safe but death (and I'm not even
sure of that {8^).

Right. That's why I don't believe that there is any such thing as a
safety seminar. The only really valid safety advice it could give is
to hide under the bed.

I don't see this. It sounds like you're requiring that a safety seminar
provide a means to achieve absolute safety. That doesn't seem reasonable.
We'd call those "absolute safety seminars", I expect laugh.

[...]

And the point I'm trying to get across is that there is no such thing
as safe. When you're flying for fun, you're taking unnecessary risks.
I don't have a problem with that, obviously, but I think you should
be honest about it.

Flying for any purpose involves unnecessary risk. Driving involves
unnecessary risk. Walking involves unnecessary risk (at least where I
live, given that we can have food delivered {8^).

But we don't really want to think about the risks involved in eating, do we
laugh?

I think we're in agreement in all areas but your definition of "safety
seminar". I don't see it as necessary that one such provide absolute
safety, nor do I have a problem with one describing how to increase the
safety involved in performing an unnecessary act.

- Andrew

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Why? FAA.

I say again... The FAA has few limitations on experimental airplanes.

Why hasn't someone developed an experimental airplane with a stellar safety
record by addressing all the safety issues you mentioned which are being
thrwarted by the FAA?


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

www.flyimc.com

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
snip
Right. That's why I don't believe that there is any such thing as a
safety seminar. The only really valid safety advice it could give is
to hide under the bed. It would be different if we HAD to fly.
Professional pilots, who MUST fly, can speak of safety and safety
seminars. For us, they basically have no meaning.

Michael, I have to poke in here for a minute to comment this seems
like a very non-standard usage of the word "safety".

You seem to be saying that it's not valid to speak of safety
for non-essential (or recreational) activities, and/or that
it's not valid to give safety advice except in absolute terms
("hide under the bed" = "take no unnecessary risks"??)

But there are many non-essential activities which can be carried
out in a manner which carries more risk, or a manner which decreases
risk, and it's quite common and accepted usage to speak of that
relative risk management as "safety" and to consider courses and
seminars which discuss the risks and provide advice about how to
manage them as valid and meaningful.

Basically, it seems to me that the only way you can assert that
"for us they basically have no meaning" or aren't valid, is to
define "safety" and "safety seminar" in a non-standard, individualistic
way which excludes non-essential activities, then argue from the
perspective of your own, unique definition.

FWIW,
Sydney

(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:

Note that NONE of the new aviation engines (Orenda, Thielert, Honda,
Bombadier) have separate cylinders.

Just a quick look with Yahoo turned up the Morane Renault, Zoche, and Jabiru engines
- all new designs with separate cylinders. I'd bet the guys going to Oshkosh will be
able to provide other examples when they get back.

In general, separate cylinders are advantageous for air-cooled engines and blocks are
preferred for water-cooled designs, but this is not a universal rule.

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

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

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.

So why dont' we see lots of homebuilts eliminating separate cylinders?
There are some great minds in the homebuilt community and minimal FAA
regulation.

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

www.flyimc.com