Accident Statistics: Certified vs. Non-Certified Engines

[Ron Wanttaja]

A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident
statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an
awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue
deeper.

I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, 1999,
and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures.

The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe
the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA
registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely
described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an
entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have
accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes."

Instead, we can take another tack: We can catalog the number of each type
of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a loss of
engine power was a factor in the accident. The figures don't include cases
where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the pilot running out of
fuel.

Presentation of data:

The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one of
four types:

"Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins, Pratt
and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter.

"Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis, Fords,
Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI.

"Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion
engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway.

"Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth, 2SI,
and Cuyuna.

The next column is "ACC". This is the number of accidents in the 1998-2000
timeframe that involved each category of engine

"PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of engine
was installed.

"LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was involved.

"LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft
mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of power.

---------------------------------------------------------
The Results:

ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP%
------ --- --- --- ----
Certified 332 51% 57 17%
Auto 95 15% 27 28%
Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19%
Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34%

Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a
loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes, vs.
28% for auto-engine conversions. Two-strokes were even higher; almost a
third of their accidents involved a power failure.

It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing
practically as well as the certified engines. The Rotax 912/914 series
alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%.

An interesting side note: Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by nearly
four to one....

Ron Wanttaja

[David O]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

>The Results:
>
>ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP%
>------ --- --- --- ----
>Certified 332 51% 57 17%
>Auto 95 15% 27 28%
>Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19%
>Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34%


Thanks for taking the time and effort to compile this data. One small
correction, the certified PCT should be 53% (52.61%) based on your
numbers.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:11:48 -0500, David O >
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>>The Results:
>>
>>ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP%
>>------ --- --- --- ----
>>Certified 332 51% 57 17%
>>Auto 95 15% 27 28%
>>Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19%
>>Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34%
>
>
>Thanks for taking the time and effort to compile this data. One small
>correction, the certified PCT should be 53% (52.61%) based on your
>numbers.

Thanks, you're right. I was actually adding two numbers on the fly
(US-manufactured and foreign-manufactured) and did it wrong.

Ron Wanttaja

[Russell Kent]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion
> engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway.

Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ?

Russell Kent

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:26 -0600, Russell Kent > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion
>> engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway.
>
>Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ?

Yep. 'Nother slip, 'tween Excel and the Net....

Ron Wanttaja

[Rich S.]

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:26 -0600, Russell Kent > wrote:
>
> Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ?

Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE *CYCLE*, non-certified, ..."
?

Rich "BOb noticed it, I'm sure" S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:54:04 -0800, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:26 -0600, Russell Kent > wrote:
>>
>> Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ?
>
>Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE *CYCLE*, non-certified, ..."?

Evahbuddy's a critic. :-)

To make it clear, there were three engines that fit that particular
category:

Jabiru
Rotorway
Rotax/Bombardier 9XX series

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote

> Evahbuddy's a critic. :-)
>
> To make it clear, there were three engines that fit that particular
> category:
>
> Jabiru
> Rotorway
> Rotax/Bombardier 9XX series
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
WWeeeeeelllllll,
actually, the Rotax 912 has been certified, also, right?

Otherwise, good work. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[RU ok]

>> Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ?
>
>Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE *CYCLE*, non-certified, ..."
>?
>
>Rich "BOb noticed it, I'm sure" S.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yep.
Rich is a winner.
Give the man a bottle of Geritol and 120 tablets of Ex-lax.

For our less than savvy youngsters....

http://geritol.com/
http://www.manekineko.us/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=783&language=en



Barnyard BOb

[RU ok]

>>Rich "BOb noticed it, I'm sure" S.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Yep.
>Rich is a winner.
>Give the man a bottle of Geritol and 120 tablets of Ex-lax.
>
>For our less than savvy youngsters....
>
>http://geritol.com/
>http://www.manekineko.us/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=783&language=en
>
>
>
Barnyard BOb --- a really 'regular' guy

[Rich S.]

"RU ok" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> Barnyard BOb --- a really 'regular' guy
>

You "Otto" be regular!

Rich S. :^O

[Bob Martin]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident
> statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an
> awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue
> deeper.
>
> I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, 1999,
> and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures.
>
> The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe
> the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA
> registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely
> described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an
> entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have
> accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes."

Does this take into account things like modified Lycomings? We have
an O-360 with an Ellison TBI. It isn't a certified engine, but it's
not an auto conversion or rotax or something either.

[Frank]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
>> Evahbuddy's a critic. :-)
>>
>> To make it clear, there were three engines that fit that particular
>> category:
>>
>> Jabiru
>> Rotorway
>> Rotax/Bombardier 9XX series
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>>
> WWeeeeeelllllll,
> actually, the Rotax 912 has been certified, also, right?
>
> Otherwise, good work. <g>

Uhuh; but you can still get the uncertified version also.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 11 Jan 2004 07:47:52 -0800, (Bob Martin) wrote:

>> The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe
>> the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA
>> registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely
>> described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an
>> entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have
>> accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes."
>
>Does this take into account things like modified Lycomings? We have
>an O-360 with an Ellison TBI. It isn't a certified engine, but it's
>not an auto conversion or rotax or something either.

The database engine description column does not provide indication of
accessories, but the narratives mention non-standard components if they
have anything to do with the accidents. I suspect the NTSB investigator
probably lists "Lycoming" if the engine is *mostly* Lycoming...like in the
case of one Seawind crash, where the plane had one standard mag and one
non-certified electronic ignition.

I went through the 1998-2000 accident reports and did my own assessment as
to causes. Allow me to summarize the causes for those cases involving a
loss of power due to mechanical problems. Here's an explanation of the
categories:

"Undetermined": Loss of engine power for unknown causes
"Engine Internal": Failures in the interior of the engine, such as a valve
or connecting rod
"Fuel - System": Problems in the fuel system from the tank caps to the
gascolator, inclusive
"Fuel - Engine": Problems "forward" of the gascolator (or "aft" if it's a
pusher).
"Ignition": Problems with the ignition, wires, or plugs
"Drive system": PSRU or drive shaft
"Oil System": Oil pumps, oil lines, etc.
"Carb Mech": Mechanical problems at the carburetor

I've lumped the Lycoming and Continental numbers together. The percentages
are the ratio between the cases with the particular cause, and all the
non-fuel-exhaustion loss-of-power incidents involving that engine.

Be advised that the results below do NOT necessarily reflect the NTSB
"Probable Cause" for the accidents. In loss of power accidents, the NTSB
investigators often list the cause of the engine failure as a secondary
cause, and fault the pilot for not being able to land the airplane
separately. I read the reports (yes, over 800 of them) and made my own
determination. The data below includes both the primary and secondary
causes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:

(As ever, this displays better if you've got your reader set to a
fixed-spaced font)
Lyconts Auto
Undetermined 31.5% 25.9%
Engine Internal 20.4% 29.6%
Fuel - Engine 3.7% 0.0%
Fuel - System 25.9% 14.8%
Ignition 1.9% 14.8%
Drive system 1.9% 3.7%
Oil System 7.4% 0.0%
Carb Mech 7.4% 7.4%
Carb Ice 9.3% 0.0%
Cooling System 0.0% 3.7%

Sample Size 54 27

Note that the sample size is low enough that one anomalous event runs the
percentages higher.

Ron Wanttaja

[ET]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident
> statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was*
> an awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the
> issue deeper.
>
> I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998,
> 1999, and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures.
>
> The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually
> describe the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately,
> the FAA registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts
> are merely described as having experimental engines; a number don't
> even have an entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto
> engined-airplanes have accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered
> planes."
>
> Instead, we can take another tack: We can catalog the number of each
> type of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a
> loss of engine power was a factor in the accident. The figures don't
> include cases where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the
> pilot running out of fuel.
>
> Presentation of data:
>
> The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one
> of four types:
>
> "Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins,
> Pratt
> and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter.
>
> "Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis,
> Fords,
> Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI.
>
> "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion
> engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the
> Rotorway.
>
> "Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth,
> 2SI,
> and Cuyuna.
>
> The next column is "ACC". This is the number of accidents in the
> 1998-2000 timeframe that involved each category of engine
>
> "PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of
> engine was installed.
>
> "LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was
> involved.
>
> "LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft
> mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of
> power.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> The Results:
>
> ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP%
> ------ --- --- --- ----
> Certified 332 51% 57 17%
> Auto 95 15% 27 28%
> Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19%
> Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34%
>
> Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where
> a loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered
> planes, vs. 28% for auto-engine conversions. Two-strokes were even
> higher; almost a third of their accidents involved a power failure.
>
> It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing
> practically as well as the certified engines. The Rotax 912/914
> series alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%.
>
> An interesting side note: Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by
> nearly four to one....
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
>
>
>

I wonder what these figures really tell us.... I believe type of
accidents as a percent of total accidents really can't tell us anything.

What if accidents of other types (the rest of the %) where actually
lower in homebuilts with auto engines?

What if things like icing, or VFR into IMC was more prevalent in
certified aircraft, skewing the engine related numbers into a lower
percent...

It would also be my guess (and only a guess it is) that a greater
percentage of homebuilts with non-certified engines are fair-weather
daytime fliers, and therefore more likely to not be as subject to night
perception problems, flying into mountains.. etc., therefore reducing
the total number of "other" type accidents and making the engine-out %
higher.

I also wonder if homebuilts on average experience less other mechanical
type failures such as control linkage, etc., since the builder is
intimately familiar with the workings of the aircraft.

IMHO the ONLY valid percentages would be total registered auto engine
powered aircraft vs engine-out accidents compared to the same in
certified... now I do realize that those figures would be near
impossible to compile short of contacting every single person with a
registered aircraft that the engine type is not listed in the FAA
database... and even more accurate would involve total hours… ok, that's
highly improbable…..


Please note the above is based on no research whatsoever...I am likely
completely off base since I'm new to aviation in general.. ;-)


ET

Future student pilot and future Sonex builder.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:39:57 GMT, ET > wrote:

>I wonder what these figures really tell us.... I believe type of
>accidents as a percent of total accidents really can't tell us anything.
>
>What if accidents of other types (the rest of the %) where actually
>lower in homebuilts with auto engines?

That was basically the start of this exercise, several months ago. The FAA
registration database lists the type of engine, but for about 3,600
homebuilts, it is either blank or merely lists "AMA/EXPR" for an engine.
That's about 13% of all homebuilts. Many of these are undoubtedly auto
conversions, but most are probably stock Lycomings or Continentals.

My January 6 2004 database shows 113 homebuilts with Ford engines. But how
many of those 3,600 "AMA/EXPR" engines are Fords? If even a twentieth of
them are Ford conversions, that would double the "known" quantity.

In the almost 700 homebuilt accidents in the 1998-2000 time period, the
NTSB records show only one "AMA/EXPR" engine installed on an accident
aircraft. Either those 3,600-odd airplanes aren't flying at all, or the
NTSB investigators are looking at what was *actually* installed under the
cowling.

>What if things like icing, or VFR into IMC was more prevalent in
>certified aircraft, skewing the engine related numbers into a lower
>percent...
>
>It would also be my guess (and only a guess it is) that a greater
>percentage of homebuilts with non-certified engines are fair-weather
>daytime fliers, and therefore more likely to not be as subject to night
>perception problems, flying into mountains.. etc., therefore reducing
>the total number of "other" type accidents and making the engine-out %
>higher.

Heh, heh...you don't think I downloaded 21 megs of accident reports (at 56
kbaud!), read a thousand or so individual reports, and generated about a
gigabyte of databases and Excel spreadsheets for just a RAH posting on auto
engine conversions, do you?

I've just completed an in-depth analysis of homebuilt accident statistics.
In it, I not only determine the causes of homebuilt accidents during the
1998-2000 time period (35 basic accident categories, plus some
sub-categories), but I compare the accident rates for homebuilts to a
representative sample of certified light aircraft (Cessna 172s and 210s,
leaving out accidents occurring during primary training). And determine
the accident rates for first flights and in the test period, as well.

I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run
sometime in the summer. Since I don't address the engine issues in the
series (I figured three articles was enough) I could post them here without
"stealing my own thunder."

>I also wonder if homebuilts on average experience less other mechanical
>type failures such as control linkage, etc., since the builder is
>intimately familiar with the workings of the aircraft.

Sadly, no.

Ron Wanttaja

[Corrie]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...

> I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run
> sometime in the summer.

In which publication?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 13 Jan 2004 14:35:24 -0800, (Corrie) wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>
>> I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run
>> sometime in the summer.
>
>In which publication?

Whichever one accepts it. :-)

I'm a freelancer, so I never can count on an article getting printed. I
submitted the accident series to KITPLANES, but haven't heard whether
they're going to take it, yet.

Ron Wanttaja

[andy asberry]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:28:02 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On 13 Jan 2004 14:35:24 -0800, (Corrie) wrote:
>
>>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>>
>>> I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run
>>> sometime in the summer.
>>
>>In which publication?
>
>Whichever one accepts it. :-)
>
>I'm a freelancer, so I never can count on an article getting printed. I
>submitted the accident series to KITPLANES, but haven't heard whether
>they're going to take it, yet.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

I curious, Ron. How long after submission do you wait for
acceptance/rejection before submitting to another publication?
Is there an industry standard?
Thanks

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:05:24 GMT, andy asberry >
wrote:

>>I'm a freelancer, so I never can count on an article getting printed. I
>>submitted the accident series to KITPLANES, but haven't heard whether
>>they're going to take it, yet.
>
>I curious, Ron. How long after submission do you wait for
>acceptance/rejection before submitting to another publication?
>Is there an industry standard?

In the pre-email age, it used to take three months to find out whether an
editor was going to take an article or not. Actually, it generally took
three months or more to find that the editor was NOT going to take
it...they'd usually get hold of you fairly fast if they decided to go for
it.

For individual authors, it's considered bad form to send a piece to more
than one publication at a time. For some weird reason, it's perfectly OK
for an author's *agent* to do that. So I'd never send an article to a
second magazine until I got a definite "no" from the first one. In the
past, I've waited three months before politely "pinging" the editor.

It's best to be sure before sending the article on to another editor...if
the editor of the first magazine thought he'd told you and put the article
in the production cycle, the SECOND editor will be very miffed if he or she
sees the article they bought appear somewhere else, first.

Now that email is so prevalent, notification comes a lot quicker. The
accident series is the first non-solicited article I've sent the new editor
at KITPLANES. While I've done several articles for him on assignment, one
doesn't really need confirmation of acceptance on those, since one already
knew the editor wanted an article on a particular subject. But in this
case, it came "out of the blue" for him...and since the editorial office
just moved to the opposite coast, things are still shaking down.

If he decides it isn't right for him, there are other outlets (Like CBS or
ABC's "20-20" :-). If all else fails, I just post it.

The wait for notification could be worse. My wife (a romance novelist) has
had editors take ten months or more to get back to her about novels she's
submitted.

Ron "It's fun helping with research" Wanttaja

[andy asberry]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:46:42 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:05:24 GMT, andy asberry >
>wrote:
>
>>>I'm a freelancer, so I never can count on an article getting printed. I
>>>submitted the accident series to KITPLANES, but haven't heard whether
>>>they're going to take it, yet.
>>
>>I curious, Ron. How long after submission do you wait for
>>acceptance/rejection before submitting to another publication?
>>Is there an industry standard?
>
>In the pre-email age, it used to take three months to find out whether an
>editor was going to take an article or not. Actually, it generally took
>three months or more to find that the editor was NOT going to take
>it...they'd usually get hold of you fairly fast if they decided to go for
>it.
>
>For individual authors, it's considered bad form to send a piece to more
>than one publication at a time. For some weird reason, it's perfectly OK
>for an author's *agent* to do that. So I'd never send an article to a
>second magazine until I got a definite "no" from the first one. In the
>past, I've waited three months before politely "pinging" the editor.
>
>It's best to be sure before sending the article on to another editor...if
>the editor of the first magazine thought he'd told you and put the article
>in the production cycle, the SECOND editor will be very miffed if he or she
>sees the article they bought appear somewhere else, first.
>
>Now that email is so prevalent, notification comes a lot quicker. The
>accident series is the first non-solicited article I've sent the new editor
>at KITPLANES. While I've done several articles for him on assignment, one
>doesn't really need confirmation of acceptance on those, since one already
>knew the editor wanted an article on a particular subject. But in this
>case, it came "out of the blue" for him...and since the editorial office
>just moved to the opposite coast, things are still shaking down.
>
>If he decides it isn't right for him, there are other outlets (Like CBS or
>ABC's "20-20" :-). If all else fails, I just post it.
>
>The wait for notification could be worse. My wife (a romance novelist) has
>had editors take ten months or more to get back to her about novels she's
>submitted.
>
>Ron "It's fun helping with research" Wanttaja

I can see why freelancers would shy away from time sensitive subjects.
The article could be near stale before the first editor rejected it.

Thanks.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:50:04 GMT, andy asberry >
wrote:

>>The wait for notification could be worse. My wife (a romance novelist) has
>>had editors take ten months or more to get back to her about novels she's
>>submitted.
>
>I can see why freelancers would shy away from time sensitive subjects.
>The article could be near stale before the first editor rejected it.

Well, it's not *quite* so bad if the freelancer in question has an
established relationship with the editor. If I had a truly time-sensitive
article idea, I could just email or phone the editor at KITPLANES and say,
"Hey, Brian, what about...."

If he gives me the go-ahead, I'm then on assignment, generally with a
deadline. So things happen quite a bit quicker. Being on assignment is
handy for a freelancer; it does get you a little better attention. If I
call a company and say, "I'm Ron Wanttaja, a freelancer, working on an
article about...." I may or may not get much help. But if I can say, "I'm
Ron Wanttaja, on assignment for KITPLANES..." it opens doors quite nicely.

That's one of the fun bits with my name...it sounds a lot different from
what people think it does. Usually, once they see my name written, they
realize they've seen my stuff in print. But when they hear "Ron
Wahn-Tie-Ah" over the phone, they figure it's just some dumb hick trying to
break into the business. :-)

BTW, for those who didn't see my "Avwriter's Primer" posted here a while
back, I stuck it up on my web page.

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/avwriter.htm

Ron Wanttaja

[StellaStar]

Ron Wanttaja sez:

> My wife (a romance novelist) has
>had editors take ten months or more to get back to her about novels she's
>submitted.
>
>Ron "It's fun helping with research" Wanttaja

Ooh, ooh, I feel a muse coming on!

His strong hands preflighted her thoroughly as her pulse quickened. Had she
ever doubted that this ruddy-cheeked, leather-helmeted kitplane pilot was the
one for her?

The muscles of his mighty arms rippled as he tore off his shirt (tail). As he
plucked at her bodice strings they sang like the flying wires on an
overstressed FlyBaby. "Oh, not here in the open cockipit," she moaned.

I think I've got this. Who's your wife's editor?

[jls]

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja sez:
>
> > My wife (a romance novelist) has
> >had editors take ten months or more to get back to her about novels she's
> >submitted.
> >
> >Ron "It's fun helping with research" Wanttaja
>
> Ooh, ooh, I feel a muse coming on!
>
> His strong hands preflighted her thoroughly as her pulse quickened. Had
she
> ever doubted that this ruddy-cheeked, leather-helmeted kitplane pilot was
the
> one for her?
>
> The muscles of his mighty arms rippled as he tore off his shirt (tail). As
he
> plucked at her bodice strings they sang like the flying wires on an
> overstressed FlyBaby. "Oh, not here in the open cockipit," she moaned.
>
> I think I've got this. Who's your wife's editor?

Um, Stella, I had just started to hyperventilate and the ticker sped up when
you abandoned this titillation.