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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Richard Lamb wrote:
Jerry Springer wrote: Richard Lamb wrote: Jerry Springer wrote: A good share of these stories are about factory built certified aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe. Jerry Only if they don't fly, Jerry... And there are a lot of homebuilts that hardly ever leave the ground. Richard Not sure what you mean they are safe only if they do not fly? Are you speaking of all aircraft in general or are you speaking only of experimental aircraft? If you read the "2004 Nall" report you will find that homebuilt aircraft have about the same rate of accidents as factory built aircraft do. Ron W posted some statistic that relate to first flight accidents, most of which are caused by fuel problems. This risk can be eliminated by proper fuel flow testing before the first flight IMO. To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft were safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and friends that will be flying in these creations. Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer Easy Jerry, Didn't mean to offend (or frighten) anyone. Yes, among the RV gang, most of them DO fly - some a lot. But there are others who simply don't. And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly. Now, according to Ron's statistics... Factory test flights don't seem to have the same kind of numbers. But, of course, YMMV... Richard Richard, I did not take offense nor was I frightened. :-) Having attended FIRC every two years for 30 years I see the numbers and they are not much different than those of factory built aircraft. I was trying to figure out if you thought homebuilts were more dangerous than any other type of aircraft? I got the impression that the original poster was glad that he had not bought a kitbuilt airplane because they were more dangerous. Anyone that is interested in some interesting statistics can dnload the Nall report from the AOPA web site: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/ All of us that fly I believe understand that there is a certain amount of risk involved. Jerry |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
"john smith" wrote in message
... In article , "Peter Dohm" wrote: In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled the power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway. Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power. Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas). This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag. When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in. Try it and see how your results change. To split hairs, idle power on a recip is really much less applied drag. However your point is well taken. And the difference would be radically more pronounced with a constant speed prop--as on a Turbo 210! It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine failures. As it is, "if you want to make omelet, you have to break eggs" and I suspect that we are "breaking fewer eggs" with the current small number of poorly handled engine failures than would be the case if we attempted to train more intensively. The acrobatic/airshow guys do an amazing job, but also encounter the problem more often. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Joe Schneider
It makes me feel bad that I can't recall his name. I tried a Google search of the newsgroup archives and didn't find it. Google "N2992". Dave S. wrote: The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine ...... Nothing definitive was determined from a cause standpoint, but one of the fuel injectors (which was used, not new) was found to be faulty from a flow standpoint. That is slightly misleading. If you're talking about what caused the engine to stop producing power, there were a few likely possibilities. If you're talking about why the aircraft crashed the way it did, the answer was pretty clear. For those interested, see: http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Ac...val/index.html for an alternative (and IMNSHO, a far more accurate) evaluation. -- Marc J. Zeitlin http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2006 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.
That "almost" is a real concern. I presume that pilot proficiency is as important as the aircraft. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on
the second flight. ;-) -- Sorry to be a copy-cat. But, so will I! ;-) Peter |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
... "John Ammeter" wrote in message ... My "first flight" WAS my second flight... I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA obviously I had not flown.... right?? John that makes me wonder, how does one report such a flight? technically you broke the rules, and if no one saw you do it, it must not have happened. but I like being an honest guy and would report myself anyway. what's the penalty? I've been guilty of that "being an honest guy thing" and will again. It's some sort of curse, and I need an exorcist ... OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that a long bounce in ground effect is flying. As an example with plenty of witnesses, Lindberg was said to hve bounced twice and then flown on his departure to Paris... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message .. . I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on the second flight. ;-) -- Sorry to be a copy-cat. But, so will I! ;-) heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly? sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes up. make sure to sandbag for CG! |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Jerry Springer wrote:
Richard, I did not take offense nor was I frightened. :-) Having attended FIRC every two years for 30 years I see the numbers and they are not much different than those of factory built aircraft. I was trying to figure out if you thought homebuilts were more dangerous than any other type of aircraft? I got the impression that the original poster was glad that he had not bought a kitbuilt airplane because they were more dangerous. Anyone that is interested in some interesting statistics can dnload the Nall report from the AOPA web site: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/ All of us that fly I believe understand that there is a certain amount of risk involved. Jerry That's good news, Jerry. Limited to text alone it is real easy to give the wrong impression or get the wrong impression. I've built several airplanes, depending on how you count them. Four of my own parasols, a dozen or so with Beeson, and fairly deeply involved in maybe a dozen others in one way or another. I had about half finished my Tailwind when my medical was denied. That was several years ago, but I'm still hoping to get it back some day. I vowed, the day my Tailwind left home, that WHEN (gotta think positively!) it is restored, I'd order materials for a new Tailwind that very day. Richard http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/ I put some new pics up this evening. 2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty Boop". tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts. therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy... |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly? sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes up. make sure to sandbag for CG! I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a BD-5 was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor man's true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been done with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Peter Dohm wrote:
And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly. That "almost" is a real concern. I presume that pilot proficiency is as important as the aircraft. Absolutely, Peter. The smaller machines can be a handful at first. Even when perfectly balanced, they can be very quick to respond. Way much more so than anything built in Wichita or Florida. My parasol, as an example, flies strictly by thought control. (Stole the set-up from the Russians You only THINK about moving the stick. If you actually MOVE it, you're going for a roller coaster ride! Mind you, it's not unstable, twitchy or anything like that. It's just quick! The control pressure is very light, and the pressure gradient (i.e.: the increase in stick pressure due to control deflection) is less than a pound per G. It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick. Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage for the first flight(s?). Until they get used to it. Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck. Richard |
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 |
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p? | Montblack | Piloting | 38 | February 9th 06 02:00 PM |
Fatal Injury: hit by the prop | [email protected] | Piloting | 43 | January 27th 05 04:26 PM |
Pilot's 2nd Fatal Accident | Aardvark | Piloting | 44 | May 21st 04 02:34 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |