RV6A down in Seattle area

I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa (30
mi north of seattle).

The aircraft registration
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...mndfin d.y=12

Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
crash she was losing power.
Another victim of a Lycosaur.

Ron Webb wrote:
I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa (30
mi north of seattle).

The aircraft registration
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...mndfin d.y=12

Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
crash she was losing power.
Another victim of a Lycosaur.



Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?

I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
Lyco engines is kind of tacky.

Building my 601XL w/Corvair conversion.

Gig 601XL Builder schreef:
Ron Webb wrote:
I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa
(30 mi north of seattle).

The aircraft registration
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...mndfin d.y=12


Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before
the crash she was losing power.
Another victim of a Lycosaur.


Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?

I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
Lyco engines is kind of tacky.

Hm. Was thinking much the same, even if I like neither
the medieval US engines nor me-too usenet replies.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Ron Webb wrote:
I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa
(30 mi north of seattle).

The aircraft registration
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...mndfin d.y=12

Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
crash she was losing power.
Another victim of a Lycosaur.

Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?

I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
Lyco engines is kind of tacky.

Building my 601XL w/Corvair conversion.



No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
manifold with coolant.

As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.

But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
not happen.

My point is that the factors that have combined to make sure this
hypothetical engine does not exist (legal and regulatory) have cost many
lives over the past 40 years in the name of safety.

"Ron Webb" wrote

But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
not happen.

It could be that the pilot neglected to make sure there was enough fuel in
the tank, or that a fuel valve was in the correct position.

Wait for the report before you pop off. Good advice for everyone to follow.
--
Jim in NC

On Feb 18, 3:11*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Ron Webb" wrote



But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
not happen.

*It could be that the pilot neglected to make sure there was enough fuel in
the tank, or that a fuel valve was in the correct position.

Wait for the report before you pop off. *Good advice for everyone to follow.
--
Jim in NC

Agreed, since the number of potiential causes for "loss of power" are
lengthy and few are directly related to the engine manufacturer.

Lets offer condolences to the family instead of speculation on the
causes.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:38:29 -0900, "Ron Webb" wrote:

As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.

I did a study of homebuilt accidents over a ~8 year period. Didn't have fleet
sizes for Lycosaur and Auto conversions, but instead looked at how often the
engine was the *cause* of the accident.

Out of 744 homebuilt accidents involving Lycoming, Continental, Franklin,
Jacobs, or Pratt and Whitney engines, 104 were due to some form of engine
failure.

Out of 219 homebuilt accidents in the same period involving auto-engine
conversions, 63 were due to engine failure.

Lycosaur: 14%
Auto Engines: 28%.

Offhand, I'd say the Lycosaurs are safer.

For the purpose of my analysis, I counted the following as "due to engine
failure":

Internal failures (pistons, cranks, etc.)
Fuel System on the engine side of the firewall
Ignition systems
Drive systems (e.g., PSRUs)
Oil System
Carburetor or fuel injector failure
Cooling system failure
Undetermined loss of power


Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:38:29 -0900, "Ron Webb" wrote:

As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.

I did a study of homebuilt accidents over a ~8 year period. Didn't have fleet
sizes for Lycosaur and Auto conversions, but instead looked at how often the
engine was the *cause* of the accident.

Out of 744 homebuilt accidents involving Lycoming, Continental, Franklin,
Jacobs, or Pratt and Whitney engines, 104 were due to some form of engine
failure.

Out of 219 homebuilt accidents in the same period involving auto-engine
conversions, 63 were due to engine failure.

Lycosaur: 14%
Auto Engines: 28%.

Offhand, I'd say the Lycosaurs are safer.

For the purpose of my analysis, I counted the following as "due to engine
failure":

Internal failures (pistons, cranks, etc.)
Fuel System on the engine side of the firewall
Ignition systems
Drive systems (e.g., PSRUs)
Oil System
Carburetor or fuel injector failure
Cooling system failure
Undetermined loss of power


Ron Wanttaja


I've followed your articles on accident stats for several years; thank
you for doing the research. I wonder, though, if your conclusion about
Lycs is really valid.

If we factor in the reality that Lyc installations are more or less
'standardized', with help almost always available from knowledgeable
predecessors, compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique,
and we factor in the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the
people most willing to do an auto conversion are the least qualified to
tackle it, how much should we weight the percentages? Only if you add
the word 'installation' to each category can you reach the conclusion
that Lycs are actually safer, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Charlie

"Charlie" wrote

compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique, and we factor in
the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the people most willing to
do an auto conversion are the least qualified to tackle it,

If you are trolling, nice try. Otherwise, how do you support this
conclusion?

Nice slap in the face to all those guys that have auto installations humming
happily along. There are bunches of them, and it WOULDN'T be a stretch to
say that they are pretty darn clever bunch, indeed.

Anyone capable of building a kit with all the holes drilled and all the
parts included can hang a Lyconental. It takes a clever person to use an
auto engine. I would hardly classify that as "least qualified."
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:44:57 -0600, Charlie wrote:

If we factor in the reality that Lyc installations are more or less
'standardized', with help almost always available from knowledgeable
predecessors, compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique,
and we factor in the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the
people most willing to do an auto conversion are the least qualified to
tackle it, how much should we weight the percentages? Only if you add
the word 'installation' to each category can you reach the conclusion
that Lycs are actually safer, in my opinion.

What do you think?

I understand your logic, but don't agree with it. I look at the powerplant as a
*package*. If the engine itself is more reliable, but it's difficult to achieve
an installation that allows it to show its reliability, I don't feel that it
exonerates the engine as an aircraft powerplant. That's why my statistics
include fuel system problems FWF as an engine-related failure...if all else were
equal, Lycomings and, say, Fords should see the same rate of fuel FWF accidents.
If there's a difference, that means one is more picky as to the quality of the
fuel system install. FWIW, auto-engine conversions seem to have fewer instances
of FWF fuel system problems than certified engines.

The very standardization of the LyConts means that the average builder has a
better chance of achieving a reliable installation.

One has to understand what statistics in these cases really *mean*. The fact
that 25% of aircraft accidents aren't caused by "N" DOESN"T mean that *you* have
a 25% chance of having an accident due to "N". It means, out of 100 owners, 25
of them will suffer that kind of accident. If "N" is due to installation
errors, and you spend extra care on your installation, get advice, use quality
materials, etc., then you are less likely to experience that kind of accident.

BTW, I do track installation errors (I call them "builder errors") in my
analyses.

Ron Wanttaja