LJHusky1 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%
I do not have enough knowledge in this field to enter the debate, but felt it necessary to state the obvious. This is good information at a high level, but really doesn't support either side simply because "Loss of Power" is far too vague to explain which is a better engine design. For example, what about fuel starvation? This has to explain a number of the accidents and may nothing to do with the engine itself. Also, It's unclear from the email if the study only looked at experimental aircraft. Obviously, when you have Joe Homebuilder building the plane in his garage, it is going to be subject to inconsistent results. Some builders will build the firewall forward wrong and show up on an NTSB report. If the study is not specific to experimentals, then I would expect these results, simply because I suspect you will have a higher number of accidents in training aircraft (certified engines), due to pilot error, which drives your numerator up and your percentage for loss of power accidents down. Another obvious point, the plans call for an auto conversion (VW) engine... This should not be taken to be an attack on the author, Just stating the obvious (at least to me) :-) ps. What about a prop strike which results in loss of power.... :-) Dean Cooper Jacksonville, FL Email me at dean_coo...@bellsouth.net See my KR project at www.geocities.com/djramccoop1/KR2_Home.html
