Real stats on engine failures?

"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.

Captain Wubba opined on engine failures snipped

One partial, a bad mag, on a twin in 1400 hours.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

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)

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)

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*

"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

"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.

"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

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.

"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