RV-8 crash

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:31:40 GMT, ET wrote:

As I've thought more and more about getting my PPL and building a plane,
it's these engine failure on takeoff accidents that bother me the most.

It's been mentioned here that statistically, flying GA is about as
dangerous as driving a motorcycle. Statistics can be misleading, of
course. I used to ride motorcycles, and have done my share of "stupid"
things, but the most danger in riding a motorcycle is more the stupid
actions of other drivers, especially regarding the decreased visibility of
the MC to other drivers. So to increase safety in driving a motorcycle,
you constantly have to imagine your invisible and that every car that has
the potential to intersect your course probably will, and act accordingly
(in other words "ride paranoid")

It seems that a pilot has alot of control over "most" of the risks of dying
in his plane.... fuel exhaustion, flying into IMC, landing in crosswinds
beyond pilot/plane capability... etc., but For awhile I've thought these
were engine failure on takeoff were the most unavoidable accidents, since
it's basically instant failure and can happen at any time in an engines
life. I don't like feeling that there is a risk of dying that careful
planning and/or technique cannot reduce.

As I've done more research (yes I'm sure alot of this will be covered in
PPL training.. but..) I've learned and inferred some things. Obviously,
during takeoff is the time when the engine is under the most stress, that's
why, I assume, a good run-up is done before takeoff, so hopefully if
something is "about to fail" it will fail then and not on climbout.

Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
climb and engine output/stress?

In thinking about engine choices for my (hopefully) upcoming Sonex project,
this has lead me to lean more toward the (much) more expensive Jabiru 330,
rather then the AeroVee or Jab 220. With more power available, the plane
will climb to above my "no return" altitude quicker, and/or at a lower %
power setting. I have communicated with one Sonex pilot who totaled his
airplane after a prob hub failure (using a GreatPlanes VW setup, a faulty
hub attachment that has since been re-designed) and an attempted turnback
(roled the plane after a wingtip strike... fortunately lived to tell about
it). Very scary stuff....

I was also taught in my first GA plane ride (sr-22) by a CFI to use every
foot of available runway. We pulled onto a 5300 ft runway off the taxiway
that was about 100ft or so from the beginning of the runway and he still
turned, and looped around to use all of that 100 feet. He reasoned to me
that in the event of an issue at takeoff that 100 feet of runway could be
the difference between life and death, even though the sr-22 only needed
less than 1000 feet to takeoff....

I know this is very basic stuff to this group, but in my very short time of
"hanging around" 2 different small airports I have seen many folks jump in
there plane without doing "any" inspection, takeoff with no runup, etc. I
wonder how many of these statistics are a result of these breakdowns of
procedure....?

--
ET

ET, I also have your concerns, and I'm building a homebuilt airplane.
In addition, I'll be using a non certified auto conversion. Since the
majority of fatal accidents in homebuilts occur during the initial
flight, I am paying particular attention to this detail.

To that end, I intend to run the engine on a test stand I've
fabricated for many hours. I need to test the engine at full power
for at least ten to fifteen minutes a number of times. I also feel I
should document this so that the DAR can see that this testing has
been done. It's surprising to hear of the number of first flights
that occur without extensive ground testing of the engine.

In addition, once the engine is installed in the airplane and all
systems are hooked up as they would be for normal flight, I intend to
further test the engine with the fuselage jacked up in a nose high
attitude to make sure that fuel flow and engine cooling are adaquate
for the climbout.

Further, because I'll be using electronic ignition and I'm trying to
reduce the single point failure mode possiblities, I'm doubling up on
the ignition systems. The distributer has two pickups inside it and
will lead to two completely independent ignition systems. Both will
run simultaneously so that should one fail, the other is already
running. This is what the Nascar racers run in their race cars. Yes
the distributer represents a single point failure in and of itself,
but since the distributer drive is also the oil pump drive, should
that fail the engine is history anyway.

The wiring will conform to aircraft standards. Every external and a
number of internal bolts and nuts have been safety wired, including
the oil pan bolts. The oil filter is safety wired in place. The oil
pump bolts are all safety wired. The intake manifold bolts and the
exhaust manifold bolts are safety wired. Cooling system hose clamps
will be safety wired.

All these things I can control and many are the result of actual
experience. Single electronic ignition systems have failed. Oil
filters have spun off. Carb hold down nuts have backed off. The oil
pickup tube hold down bolts have backed off.

All that has failed in the past has been addressed. That's all I can
do.

The airplane itself is a high wing monoplane with STOL performance. I
decided on that type while flying around the Vermont/New
Hampshire/Maine area. There are precious few flat places to set down
should the engine fail so I decided that I should build an airplane
that can land very slowly, if necessary.

Corky Scott

My POH calls for climb at 90 kts initially, then at 105 kts at 41"/2550 RPM, once you
have cleared any obstacles. the problem is 90 kts will usually put my temps up near the
red so I try to climb out at least at 105, sometimes 110 if its still nearing the red and
then I reduce power to 33"/2400 for cruise climb once I am at about 1000 ft.

being nicer to the engine will help prevent engine outs I feel.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Jeff wrote:



One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle of climb.
Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at which you could
reasonably expect to be able to return to the field. If the rubber band breaks and
you haven't transitioned to best ROC yet, don't even think about turning around; just
try to hit the cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

Newps wrote:



Jeff wrote:
I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
where the engine quits at.

It can be risky, it may not be. Go try it in your airplane. In a
Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree bank,
maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.

While you are doing this, try the same 180 degree turn with much
higher bank angle, lower airspeed, and full opposite rudder - yes, a
side slip. The amount of bank will be determined by the ability to
hold the nose up by rudder. Sounds crazy ?
Although the descent rate is much higher, the turn rate is so high due
to the low airspeed and high bank angle that you are actually better
off. But that is not all, you come out of the manoever at landing
speed, whereas attempts to 'fly' the a/c round a tight enough turn
usually result in high airspeed or spin off the turn.

Go practice it.

Colin.
PS. Please don't start that "you can spin off a properly developed
side slip" rubbish.

Colin wrote:

Newps wrote:



Jeff wrote:

I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
where the engine quits at.

It can be risky, it may not be. Go try it in your airplane. In a
Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree bank,
maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.


While you are doing this, try the same 180 degree turn with much
higher bank angle, lower airspeed, and full opposite rudder - yes, a
side slip. The amount of bank will be determined by the ability to
hold the nose up by rudder. Sounds crazy ?
Although the descent rate is much higher, the turn rate is so high due
to the low airspeed and high bank angle that you are actually better
off. But that is not all, you come out of the manoever at landing
speed, whereas attempts to 'fly' the a/c round a tight enough turn
usually result in high airspeed or spin off the turn.

Well the ideal bank angle is 60 degrees but 45 is a good compromise. In
my 182 I only need 350 feet to turn around and land on the same runway.
Anything less than that and I ain't gonna be slippin' just to get
around. In that case I'll land straight ahead, more or less. I'll be
OK, I got big tires.

I'll be
OK, I got big tires.



Man...

it never fails....you always got some guy bragging about the size of his
tires....havent you heard....its not the size of the tires....its how ya use em


take care

Blll