If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Accident Statistics: Certified vs. Non-Certified Engines
A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident
statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue deeper. I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures. The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes." Instead, we can take another tack: We can catalog the number of each type of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a loss of engine power was a factor in the accident. The figures don't include cases where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the pilot running out of fuel. Presentation of data: The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one of four types: "Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins, Pratt and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter. "Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis, Fords, Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI. "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway. "Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth, 2SI, and Cuyuna. The next column is "ACC". This is the number of accidents in the 1998-2000 timeframe that involved each category of engine "PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of engine was installed. "LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was involved. "LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of power. --------------------------------------------------------- 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. Two-strokes were even higher; almost a third of their accidents involved a power failure. 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%. An interesting side note: Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by nearly four to one.... Ron Wanttaja |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
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% Thanks for taking the time and effort to compile this data. One small correction, the certified PCT should be 53% (52.61%) based on your numbers. David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:11:48 -0500, David O
wrote: Ron Wanttaja wrote: 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% Thanks for taking the time and effort to compile this data. One small correction, the certified PCT should be 53% (52.61%) based on your numbers. Thanks, you're right. I was actually adding two numbers on the fly (US-manufactured and foreign-manufactured) and did it wrong. Ron Wanttaja |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
"Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway. Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ? Russell Kent |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:26 -0600, Russell Kent wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote: "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway. Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ? Yep. 'Nother slip, 'tween Excel and the Net.... Ron Wanttaja |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:26 -0600, Russell Kent wrote:
Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ? Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE *CYCLE*, non-certified, ..." ? Rich "BOb noticed it, I'm sure" S. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:54:04 -0800, "Rich S."
wrote: On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:26 -0600, Russell Kent wrote: Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ? Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE *CYCLE*, non-certified, ..."? Evahbuddy's a critic. :-) To make it clear, there were three engines that fit that particular category: Jabiru Rotorway Rotax/Bombardier 9XX series Ron Wanttaja |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote Evahbuddy's a critic. :-) To make it clear, there were three engines that fit that particular category: Jabiru Rotorway Rotax/Bombardier 9XX series Ron Wanttaja WWeeeeeelllllll, actually, the Rotax 912 has been certified, also, right? Otherwise, good work. g -- Jim in NC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE, non-certified, ..." ? Did you really mean to say "... are four-STROKE *CYCLE*, non-certified, ..." ? Rich "BOb noticed it, I'm sure" S. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yep. Rich is a winner. Give the man a bottle of Geritol and 120 tablets of Ex-lax. For our less than savvy youngsters.... http://geritol.com/ http://www.manekineko.us/catalog/pro...83&language=en Barnyard BOb |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Rich "BOb noticed it, I'm sure" S. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yep. Rich is a winner. Give the man a bottle of Geritol and 120 tablets of Ex-lax. For our less than savvy youngsters.... http://geritol.com/ http://www.manekineko.us/catalog/pro...83&language=en Barnyard BOb --- a really 'regular' guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |