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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Franks" wrote in message
... Knowing *NOTHING* about turbocharged engines, I was wondering. Would a loss of the turbocharger still allow the engine to produce the same power as a non-turbo engine of the same size at the same altitude? Depends on the failure, but sure...a failure like Bob describes simply results in partial power loss, turning the engine into a close approximation of the normally-aspirated version. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Captain Wubba opined on engine failures snipped
One partial, a bad mag, on a twin in 1400 hours. -ash for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Captain,
well, the stats are not easy to come by. Those who manage to get back to the airport without incident never show up in the stats. Then you'd have to exclude the "obviously dumb" things like running out of fuel or fuel mismanagement. Those will be the VAST, ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING majority. The comes the problem of maintenance. Obviously, many people are willing to fly with total junk that's never been maintained properly. Does that fall under "mechanical engine failure" or "pilot error"? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
You are probably more likely to have an engine failure from maitenance than
from lack of maitenance. Mike MU-2 "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Captain, well, the stats are not easy to come by. Those who manage to get back to the airport without incident never show up in the stats. Then you'd have to exclude the "obviously dumb" things like running out of fuel or fuel mismanagement. Those will be the VAST, ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING majority. The comes the problem of maintenance. Obviously, many people are willing to fly with total junk that's never been maintained properly. Does that fall under "mechanical engine failure" or "pilot error"? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
My fovorite ezample are those pilots who are
confident that they could handle an IMC gyro failure when the record shows that many (most?) cannot. Give me an engine failure any day. Gyro failure is my worst nightmare. -John *You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North American* |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net... You are probably more likely to have an engine failure from maitenance than from lack of maitenance. Cute. But not really all that true, IMHO. It depends on over how long a period of time you're talking about. If you mean the instant after some maintenance is done, well sure...it's true (but obviously so, and not interestingly so). But if you look at the same question over 2000 hours of operation or one or two decades, I suspect that lack of maintenance will show up as much more of an issue. The lack of oil changes alone are likely to be a major problem, never mind the myriad of fixable problems that would normally be detected during routine maintenance. Pete |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... But if you look at the same question over 2000 hours of operation or one or two decades, I suspect that lack of maintenance will show up as much more of an issue. The lack of oil changes alone are likely to be a major problem, never mind the myriad of fixable problems that would normally be detected during routine maintenance. Lack of use is the big killer. People base a lot of things on how many hours in service an engine has, but they accumulate problems while sitting as well. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
No you are not making much sense. If you live and fly in the Midwest then the chances of survival after an engine failure are very different than flying over rough terrain. Interestingly, this may not to be the case. The vast majority of engine failure fatalities are the result of failure to maintain flying speed and subsequent departure from controlled flight, not collision with terrain. Michael |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
2500 hours. No failures where there was fuel in the tanks.
-- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
True but I would assume that they thought that they had given the subject adequate consideration. It is arogant to believe that everyone else is a fool and you are not. My fovorite ezample are those pilots who are confident that they could handle an IMC gyro failure when the record shows that many (most?) cannot. Yeah, I've heard that song before. Even believed it. Then I had my AI tumble. At night. In IMC. On the climbout. While being rerouted. In spite of what everyone told me, it was a complete non-event. Used the copilot side AI for a while, but quickly decided it was too much hassle, and flying partial panel was easier. Since I still had the copilot side AI, I was legal to continue the flight - and I did. Shot the NDB at my destination, but the weather was crap and the runway lights were inop, so I couldn't get in. Wound up shooting the ILS to near mins in the rain at my alternate. No big deal. Gyro failure is not a big deal if you train properly. I could even argue that without the backup AI, I would have been safer that night because I would have had to turn back and land. On the other hand, an engine failure in a single engine airplane under the same conditions would have been very, very ugly. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V-8 powered Seabee | Corky Scott | Home Built | 212 | October 2nd 04 11:45 PM |
Dennis Fetters Mini 500 | EmailMe | Home Built | 70 | June 21st 04 09:36 PM |
My Engine Fire!! | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | March 31st 04 01:41 PM |
Engine... Overhaul? / Replace? advice please | text news | Owning | 11 | February 17th 04 04:44 PM |
Gasflow of VW engine | Veeduber | Home Built | 4 | July 14th 03 08:06 AM |