homebuilt safety

On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:54:38 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

:On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:29:04 -0400, charles.k.scott wrote:
:
: On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:09:43 +0100, anonymous coward
: wrote:

:
:The argument, provided I'm not confabulating it, was that there was a
:shortage of combat pilots so it was worthwhile building a 'plane that
:let them live to crash again.

I've never heard of crash-survivability being a factor in WW2 fighers,
but I have read that more Navy pilots were lost in training than in
combat.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 22:31:56 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

I'd be grateful if anyone can direct me towards links about the relative
safety of different types of homebuilt aircraft. Not figures I can use to
prove to myself that flying a homebuilt is safe, but a discussion of all
the factors that affect safety in homebuilt aircraft. I haven't found much
through google - perhaps it's a contentious subject?

Though I realise that most of the safety equation is down to the pilot,
presumably some types have safer flying characteristics than others? And
presumably crashes in some types are more survivable than crashes in
others in the same way as some car-wreck scenarios that would have been
lethal 20 years ago are easily survivable today?

AC

David Thurston wrote a book called "design for safety"
heavens! published by tab books 9 years ago.

homebuilts are usually lighter in weight which makes them quicker to
move in turbulence. control forces are usually quite light.
they arent any weaker. most designs are built to the same "g" range as
commercial designs.
every homebuilt is a one off constructed aircraft. it has subtle
differences from every other homebuilt ever built. as well they are
usually lighter built. keep all the switches

I took over a hundred hours to get really comfortable in my homebuilt
but now I wouldnt want to go back to commercially produced aircraft.
persist and you will grow to love the quick responsive flight
characteristics.

things break occasionally. I've lost the tailwheel 3 times now and I
am gradually evolving the design. I think I have it just about right
at last.
you can do that with a homebuilt because you dont have a certified
system to confine you. you also dont have the benefits of the
engineering and flight testing that went into sorting out a commercial
design.

more than any other aircraft type a homebuilt's safety rests squarely
on the abilities of the pilot. the upside of that reality is that you
will fly an aircraft you own for more hours and you will be a more
competent pilot as a result.

little things add to survivability. use a lap sash belt or a 5 point
aerobatic harness. dont have switches in the panel area just in front
of you. dont have a sharp edge to the top of the instrument panel.
dont fly the thing if there is a maintenance issue. fix it first.

I have never felt endangered in all the time I've flown mine.
once you get a real aircraft in your hands I'm sure you'll feel just
at ease.
Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 14 May 2004, anonymous coward wrote:

a discussion of all
the factors that affect safety in homebuilt aircraft.

My homebuilt airplane design has saved my bacon at least twice. It is
a canard pusher.

First, I landed very hard in high winds. I broke the nose gear linkage
and stopped quickly on the runway. A fellow canard builder flew in with
epoxy and cloth to patch the road rash, and another fellow mailed me some
brake calipers. A few weeks later, two men perished when they landed
hard in a tractor engine airplane. Their nose gear failed, the prop hit and
started a fire which they did not survive.

Second:
After one 1,000 mile long, very high flight (I have oxygen now), I turned
base to final too tightly, and the canard stalled. I leveled her off and builtup
speed, and did an extra trip around the pattern before landing.

I often read about stall/spin crashes, and am very glad to fly this bird.
It does prefer clean paved runways, it seems much more safe to me.

I learned to fly after I turned 50 years old, and do make newbie mistakes.


George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage http://bfn.org/~ca266

"George A. Graham" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 May 2004, anonymous coward wrote:

a discussion of all
the factors that affect safety in homebuilt aircraft.

My homebuilt airplane design has saved my bacon at least twice. It is
a canard pusher.

First, I landed very hard in high winds. I broke the nose gear linkage
and stopped quickly on the runway. A fellow canard builder flew in with
epoxy and cloth to patch the road rash, and another fellow mailed me some
brake calipers. A few weeks later, two men perished when they landed
hard in a tractor engine airplane. Their nose gear failed, the prop hit
and
started a fire which they did not survive.

Second:
After one 1,000 mile long, very high flight (I have oxygen now), I turned
base to final too tightly, and the canard stalled. I leveled her off and
builtup
speed, and did an extra trip around the pattern before landing.

I often read about stall/spin crashes, and am very glad to fly this bird.
It does prefer clean paved runways, it seems much more safe to me.

I learned to fly after I turned 50 years old, and do make newbie mistakes.


George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage http://bfn.org/~ca266


I saw a Long-Eze land gear-up at Oshkosh. All the emergency vehicles sped
to the downed aircraft. Adrenaline pumped. Not to worry, though. The
nose had a little bumper underneath which was barely even scuffed.