josok wrote:
> Just for the record: 1: The blades did not go in reverse but in
> superfine pitch.
It would be extremely helpful if you describe what exactly happened.
> 2: This is the first time that a mechanical stop is
> ever mentioned.
I red already on the Woodcomp site about the mechanical endstops before
your accident. Maybe they changed something after you purchased your prop?
> The problems i encountered were because of non suitable
> microswitches, diode and motor.
Were they from the Woodcomp supplied parts? Or your own, but "similar"
to the hardware Woodcomp supplies?
> It's everybodies (and in the UK the LAA's) choice of how much risk
> you want to take.
Flying is a risk. Any addition of functionality (like variable pitch
prop) introduces an additional risk factor. Add "reverse", and the risk
grows even further. What you don't have can not fail. To assess the
risk, I would like to know how many Woodcomp users experienced the same
problem. You know, Rotax engines also have failed sometimes, but that
doesn't mean that one has to scrap all Rotax engines. An importing thing
is to understand what exactly happened so one can avoid it, and that's
why I asked my first question: What exactly has happened, and what
introduced it? As long as I don't know this, I can only look at the
statistics, and see that Woodcomp has not an exceptional high failure rate.
--
Best regards,
Frans Veldman
|