Please, How on earth can you compare 332-Certified Engines, to a miserly
70-Non-C/4 Engines!
Maybe we can have a fair representation of engine specific performance
issues, based equal numbers of engines for the group(s), not shown in the
Original Message. This smacks of Rotax advertisement. Lets take a look at
an equal data pool provided by Certified vs. Non-C/4 engines, shall we.
Based on the numbers provided, if one extrapolated to equal quantities of
(Cert engs vs Non-C/4 engs) engines:
ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP%
------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified 332 51% 57 17%
Non-C/4 332 52% 62 19%
Beam me up,
Larry A Capps
Naperville, IL
"Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains"
-----Original Message-----
Here is an email that I received on another group. Might help you guys in
this debate.
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.
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%.
