A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 17th 03, 03:29 AM
Ron Webb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Interesting

I have been looking for such figures for quite a while. Thanks Ron.

14 year period -
Accidents Fatals
All Homebuilts 11.1% 3.2%
Fly Baby 5.7% 1.9%
BD-5 27.2% 11.1%
RV-3 8.2% 2.9%

or roughly 0.25% chance per year (one in 400).

So, let's put this in perspective - there were a little more than 58,000
deaths in Vietnam in seven years. There were a total of about 2.8 million
troops sent, mostly for 1 year tours, so an individual's odds were about
58,000/2,800,000=.02, or about 2%.that you'd be one of the lucky ones.

So, we are subjecting ourselves to an activity that is around one eighth as
dangerous as being a soldier in Vietnam. But WE don't get to rotate home- so
if we continue this for 8 years, our chances of death are the same as if we
had spent a year in 'Nam.

Hmmm...


  #12  
Old November 17th 03, 04:28 AM
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:29:40 -0900, "Ron Webb"
wrote:


So, let's put this in perspective - there were a little more than 58,000
deaths in Vietnam in seven years. There were a total of about 2.8 million
troops sent, mostly for 1 year tours, so an individual's odds were about
58,000/2,800,000=.02, or about 2%.that you'd be one of the lucky ones.

So, we are subjecting ourselves to an activity that is around one eighth as
dangerous as being a soldier in Vietnam. But WE don't get to rotate home- so
if we continue this for 8 years, our chances of death are the same as if we
had spent a year in 'Nam.


True...but there are some mitigating factors, here.

The 2% chance of being a casualty was an overall rate. But your odds of
survival in Vietnam depended on whether you were a boonie rat or a
straphanger. Yes, there was a risk being a clerk in Saigon, but you
probably never came near that 2%.

The similar odds are there in flying, as well. If you don't make a habit
of pressing your fuel or scud-running, you're going to beat those overall
odds.

As I've mentioned, I'm doing a more in-depth study on homebuilt accidents
for a KITPLANES article. I don't want to "ruin my thunder" before the
article comes out. But: If you *don't* buzz or do low-level acrobatics,
your chance of being killed in a homebuilt just dropped by about 20%.

Ron Wanttaja
  #13  
Old November 17th 03, 05:59 AM
- Barnyard BOb -
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The similar odds are there in flying, as well. If you don't make a habit
of pressing your fuel or scud-running, you're going to beat those overall
odds.


Ron Wanttaja

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How about pressing your luck with ALTENATIVE engine combos?
Got any meaningful data/stats other than BD-5?


Lucky Barnyard BOb -- on fire with full tanks in IMC
  #14  
Old November 17th 03, 06:11 AM
- Barnyard BOb -
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 03:28:07 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

The similar odds are there in flying, as well. If you don't make a habit
of pressing your fuel or scud-running, you're going to beat those overall
odds.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oops.

How about pressing your luck with ALTERNATIVE engine combos?
Got any meaningful data/stats other than BD-5?


Lucky Barnyard BOb -- on fire with full tanks in IMC

  #15  
Old November 17th 03, 09:07 AM
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:11:09 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - wrote:

How about pressing your luck with ALTERNATIVE engine combos?
Got any meaningful data/stats other than BD-5?


In my 2000 database, about 2300 homebuilts are listed as having "AMA/EXPR"
engines. In that year, I show 8 auto-engine powered homebuilts had
accidents. That would be a rate of 0.3%, about a third of the overall
homebuilt rate.

But...we don't know what those "AMA/EXPR" engines actually were. Most were
probably regular 'ol Lycosaurs.

In addition, about 1700 homebuilts were registered with Ford, Chevrolet,
Volkswagen, Mazda, or Subaru engines. If *none* of those "AMA/EXPR"
engines were converted auto engines (which seems unlikely) the auto-engine
accident rate would have been 0.47%, still less than half the homebuilt
rate.

But how accurate is that 8 number for auto-engine-powered accidents in
2000? The NTSB doesn't always say what the engine type is. With a
baseline of only eight accidents one or two additional makes a tremendous
difference.

Looking at the 1990-2003 period, we find 22 accidents where "Subaru" is
mentioned (we'll assume they all refer to an engine installed in the
aircraft, and not the type of car they hit on a forced landing). We'll use
the number of Subaru-powered airplanes in 2003 (429) to compare the results
to the overall homebuilt fleet, the Fly Babies, the BD-5s, and the RV-3s.
Again, this table divides the number of aircraft of accident aircraft
during the 1990-2003 period and divides it by the number of aircraft of
that type registered in January 2003. It's useful for relative
comparisons, but, of course, isn't accurate in an absolute sense.

Accident Rate (total over 14 years)
All Homebuilts 11.1%
Fly Baby 5.7%
BD-5 27.2%
RV-3 8.2%
Subaru-powered 5.1%

By these results, Subaru-powered aircraft had an accident rate less than
half that of the total fleet. But this doesn't include those accidents
where the NTSB online report does not mention the use of a Subaru engine.

Ron Wanttaja
  #16  
Old November 17th 03, 01:41 PM
- Barnyard BOb -
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Looking at the 1990-2003 period, we find 22 accidents where "Subaru" is
mentioned (we'll assume they all refer to an engine installed in the
aircraft, and not the type of car they hit on a forced landing). We'll use
the number of Subaru-powered airplanes in 2003 (429) to compare the results
to the overall homebuilt fleet, the Fly Babies, the BD-5s, and the RV-3s.
Again, this table divides the number of aircraft of accident aircraft
during the 1990-2003 period and divides it by the number of aircraft of
that type registered in January 2003. It's useful for relative
comparisons, but, of course, isn't accurate in an absolute sense.

Accident Rate (total over 14 years)
All Homebuilts 11.1%
Fly Baby 5.7%
BD-5 27.2%
RV-3 8.2%
Subaru-powered 5.1%

By these results, Subaru-powered aircraft had an accident rate less than
half that of the total fleet. But this doesn't include those accidents
where the NTSB online report does not mention the use of a Subaru engine.

Ron Wanttaja

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For me...
Without knowing the number of flight hours involved,
accurate safety details and analysis are destined
to remain shrouded in much fog, mystery and hype.

However, I can see those with an agenda abusing
the incomplete data to bolster a particular point of view.

Including me.

Fer instance -
I picture an average RV3 flying mega-more hours a year than
any BD-5 whizzing around in little circles because of reliability
issues and no x-country capability. Ditto for my trusty Fly Baby.

My open cockpit Fly Baby flew very little compared to my RV3.
Conditions too damn harsh much of the New England year.
Which makes me believe that damn few Fly Babies or BD-5s
have much potential to crash due to adverse weather or even
less likely....doing sport aerobatics. g

I've flown in light snow with my RV-3 wearing nothing more than
a hawaiian short sleeved shirt and a smile. The speed, comfort
and economy makes it a helluva practical x-country machine...
and exposed greatly to the hazards of flying missions that the
BD-5 and Fly Baby are unlikely to be subjected to very often,
if at all.

YMMV.


Barnyard BOb -- garbage in = garbage out

  #17  
Old November 17th 03, 02:48 PM
George Eberhardt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"- Barnyard BOb -" wrote in message
...

I've flown in light snow with my RV-3 wearing nothing more than
a hawaiian short sleeved shirt and a smile.


Now thats an ugly picture g!!!


  #18  
Old November 17th 03, 04:41 PM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Eberhardt" wrote:

"- Barnyard BOb -" wrote in message
.. .

I've flown in light snow with my RV-3 wearing nothing more than
a hawaiian short sleeved shirt and a smile.


Now thats an ugly picture g!!!


There should be a law against things like that... (at least if he's
flying under a clear canopy).

Mark "careful when practicing loops like that..." Hickey
  #19  
Old November 17th 03, 04:44 PM
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 06:41:58 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - wrote:

Without knowing the number of flight hours involved,
accurate safety details and analysis are destined
to remain shrouded in much fog, mystery and hype.


Certainly. But of course, we'll probably never have that sort of data,
unless the EAA does a membership survey. We can't fully rely on the online
NTSB accident reports, either, because they only mention the engine type
when engine-related problems were a factor in the accident. Unless we pay
for and analyze the hard-copy reports, we don't know how many of the other
2200+ homebuilt accidents since 1990 involved auto-engine homebuilts.

However, I can see those with an agenda abusing
the incomplete data to bolster a particular point of view.


Yep...that's why I couched the information in cautious terms, in some
cases...there just isn't enough depth to the statistics.

For instance, during the 1990-2003 time period, three Fly Babies and three
RV-3s suffered in-flight wing failures. One out of every five Fly Baby or
RV-3 crash. What's important is the root causes; in the Fly Baby case, two
out of the three crashes were errors in maintenance, and the other involved
the builder deviating from the plans. But the raw data certainly looks
bad.

The RV-3 problems are similarly well known... NTSB accident report
FTW98FA145 offers great insight. But those who want to slam either
aircraft have plenty of ammunition.

I picture an average RV3 flying mega-more hours a year than
any BD-5 whizzing around in little circles because of reliability
issues and no x-country capability. Ditto for my trusty Fly Baby.


The question is, what is the average annual flight time for the entire
homebuilt fleet? Again, we'll never know unless EAA mounts some sort of
effort. I put about 40 hours a year on my Fly Baby, but I live in
mild-weather country. Then again, I had a buddy with an IFR ticket and a
Bonanza, and he only flew 60 hours a year.

It's a matter of averages, not the few stand-outs (or, in the case of Fly
Babies, stand-unders :-).

It's great you're able to fly your RV-3 so much, Bob, but what about the
previous owner? When did he make the first flight, how many years did he
own it, and how many hours did he put on the plane until he sold it do you?
What's the average annual flight time on the airplane since it made its
first flight?

In my case, the plane first flew in 1982 and the plane has ~350 hours.
That's only about 17 hours/year average.

Ron Wanttaja
  #20  
Old November 17th 03, 06:00 PM
- Barnyard BOb -
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


It's great you're able to fly your RV-3 so much, Bob, but what about the
previous owner? When did he make the first flight, how many years did he
own it, and how many hours did he put on the plane until he sold it do you?
What's the average annual flight time on the airplane since it made its
first flight?


In my case, the plane first flew in 1982 and the plane has ~350 hours.
That's only about 17 hours/year average.

Ron Wanttaja

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I won't bull**** you....
since you probably know the builder personally.
He lived only a stone's throw from you in WA. g

My RV-3 was built in 1986 and flew a TT of 180 hours
through 1985 or so. It sat for about 5 years after that.
I dunno why fer sure, but I suspect age was creeping up
on the builder and he may have frightened himself severely
at some point. In conversing, there were things said that
told me I would never the get the unvarnished whole truth.

Average annual flight time since first flight = 42.94 hours


Barnyard BOb -- RVator

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 PM
Pitts Seat Mod Martin Morgan Aerobatics 0 November 21st 03 04:56 AM
Seat cushion Ernest Christley Home Built 14 August 5th 03 07:16 PM
Seat cushions Big John Home Built 3 July 31st 03 10:59 PM
DK-1 All Metal single seat biplane Michael Home Built 0 July 28th 03 05:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.