Hi We need more data. This is experimental aviation and experiments need data to succeed. I’m sure certified aircraft engines went through that process but then they practically slowed down development to a creep.
Engine reliability and management boils down to statistics and with billions of available potential alternative engines all over the world we should be flooded with information. > > The debate around alternative engines is probably never going to be > concluded, but at the end of the day flying is about managing risk, and a > big part of that is knowing what your own risk appetite is. Using only > certified parts (a "real aircraft engine") is one approach. But if > everyone took that approach nothing would ever change - new developments > don't come from using proven products in established ways. And it's not > like certified parts never fail - despite their much higher cost and > presumed higher quality and reliability. > Until low cost reliable engine monitoring is available then the debate will not stop. What is the most common failure modes for alternative engines? Overheated valves? Overheated cylinder heads? Pistons? Con rod failure? Oil leaks? Shouldn’t we be inspecting our engines more frequently until we have enough statistics on particular engine configuration? _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
