New news Soaring is dangerous ?

Marc Ramsey wrote in message news:zhs6d.21113
There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently flying in the
US, how many gliders are flying here?

Marc

There are 3000 RV's operating in Ohio, I don't know where you got your
info but the number should be around 100,000 acording to RV World the
industry magazine.

And with these numbers gliding doesn't seem so safe (still am not
going to trade my winch launches for a fifth wheel setup)

Bob

Bob wrote:
Marc Ramsey wrote in message news:zhs6d.21113

There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently flying in the
US, how many gliders are flying here?

Marc


There are 3000 RV's operating in Ohio, I don't know where you got your
info but the number should be around 100,000 acording to RV World the
industry magazine.

Bob, take a look at www.vansaircraft.com for a different meaning of the
letters "RV". They produce about 700 kits a year, so it's unlikely there
are 100,000 of them flying!

I'm sure there are a lot more the 100,000 motorhomes and travel
trailers, also. I think there are that many sitting on the lots in our
state, waiting to be sold!


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bob, take a look at www.vansaircraft.com for a different meaning of the
letters "RV". They produce about 700 kits a year, so it's unlikely there
are 100,000 of them flying!

Given that in his last paragraph he mentioned fifth wheels and winching
gliders in the same sentence, it's safe to assume that he was joking.

Tony V.

According to Van's Aircraft,

3,862 RV aircraft have been completed and flown. By far the most
popular model has been the RV-6 model. Here's a table, by model,
showing number ever completed and flown, with accident statistics from
NTSB since 1/1/99 (the search looked for RV in the model designator
and excluded "incidents"):

Fatal accident
Model Flown Accidents Fatal Killed rate per year

RV-6/6A 1,850 68 13 21 0.15%
RV-4 1,127 31 7 11 0.14%
RV-8/8A 441 12 4 5 0.20%
RV-3 217 5 0 0 0
RV-7 114 2 1 1 0.20%
RV-9/9A 112 5 1 2 0.20%
RV-10 2 0 0 0 n/a

The RV-7, 9 and 10 are recent models.

By comparison, about 36,000 Piper Cherokee (PA-28) variants were
built. In the 1-year period up to 9/1/2003 there were 14 fatal
accidents in this fleet with 26 fatalities. This translates to a
fatal accident rate per year of just 0.04%. However, this large fleet
includes many airplanes built decades ago. It seems reasonable to
divide the "ever built" size by 2 to reflect the relatively more
recent vintage of the RVs. This still makes the Cherokee rate about
0.08%, significantly below the RV rate.

Of course, this doesn't provide the required comparison, which is to
sailplanes. Anybody got a reasonable estimate for the number of
sailplanes in existence, say, completed and flown since 1970?

Speaking of RV and Van's,

I'm in contact with them regarding Sport Pilot and LSA.
It seems there is unclear information about this, and
Van's believes one must certify an aircraft as an LSA to
operate it under LSA rules.

This is not the case. An experimental airplane OR glider which
meets the LSA limitations (120 kts Vne/max level flight airspeed,
1320 lbs max gross) can be flown without a medical (in the case
of ASEL LSA, need a state driver's license). In addition, if
one already has a pilot's or CFI license, one can be signed
off by two CFIs and fly a different cat/class (such as gliders),
as of Jan 15, 2005.

Other than the 2-33, the most common (and apparently the best
performing) glider that qualifies as an LSA is the SZD 50-3
Puchacz (roughly pronounced as poo-hotch,
rhymes with watch, the first "c" is silent).

Apparently this glider is also a Utility class standard US
certificated glider, which means it can be rented out for hire,
but still meets the LSA Vne (116 kts) and Gross Max (1257 lbs)
so is legal for sport pilots to fly. This is a great opportunity
since this glider can be used for dual by a Sport CFI (who
perhaps was an ASEL CFI and then easily transitioned to
being a Sport Pilot instructor by just two signoffs, and no
FAA checkride).

How the insurers will view this is another matter, that
hasn't yet been addressed...

Anyway, the RV-11 is likely going to be a motorglider, and
I'd like to encourage RAS readers to write Van's and suggest it
be designed to meet the LSA limitations in its specs, even though
it will actually just be certified "Experimental -
Amateur Built - Glider."

I'd also like Van's to design an LSA tricycle gear version of the
RV-9, for similar reasons, but the self-launch
glider version is of course more interesting to this newsgroup...

So take a look at LSA and Sport Pilot, and then send an e-mail to Vans

asking if the RV-11 will meet LSA Vne and gross weight requirements...

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

At 23:18 01 October 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

Speaking of RV and Van's...

I chat with Dick about the RV-11 every six months or
so. The first I saw of it was during a visit to his
facility in 1997. It'll be interesting to see if it
becomes a commercial product, and how the wings of
that product might be constructed.

Here's what I think an aircraft of the RV-11's parameters
ought to look like:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/glidair/glidair_1.jpg

Not too many rivets there...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

On 1 Oct 2004 15:56:47 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

believes one must certify an aircraft as an LSA to
operate it under LSA rules.

This is not the case.

Leaving personalities out of it completely, it is obvious that is not
the case when EAA has listed certificated planes which will meet the
requirements.

Anyway, the RV-11 is likely going to be a motorglider, and
I'd like to encourage RAS readers to write Van's and suggest it
be designed to meet the LSA limitations in its specs, even though
it will actually just be certified "Experimental -
Amateur Built - Glider."

So take a look at LSA and Sport Pilot, and then send an e-mail to Vans

asking if the RV-11 will meet LSA Vne and gross weight requirements...

As a single-place, and (obviously?) his intent that it meet the JAR22
criteria (kg/m[2]) 3, it is hard to imagine that it won't meet GW,
but with his current Jab 2200 (80+ HP) thoughts, keeping Vh within the
specs will require "creative" specmanship. (I don't think there is a
Vne limit applies to powered planes; see the Sonex site which quotes
"3. Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)
of not more than 120 kts (138 mph) CAS under standard atmospheric
conditions at sea level.")

The Jab literature I've seen wants that engine to spin, although if
the pitch is flat enough to lightly (maybe 50HP?) load the engine at
2500, I'm not sure that a small carb wouldn't do it; Jab would have to
address that one.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:22:04 -0400, GeorgeB wrote:

AND I MESSED UP ...

As a single-place, and (obviously?) his intent that it meet the JAR22
criteria (kg/m[2]) 3, it is hard to imagine that it won't meet GW,

600kg (the 1320 lb we used in the US) would work with wingspan of
14.28 meters ... 15 meters would allow 675 kg (1485 lb) so he does
have to at least consider it.

SORRY for the earlier keyboard diarrhea!

George

For those who haven't been around the sport long enough to know who
Bruno Gantenbrink is, here's a link to his article on safety. A very
worthwhile read from a man with a compelling point of view.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

"tango4" wrote in message ...
Not news! Soaring IS dangerous. The bad news is that it seems to be becoming
more so as time passes. If you believe anything else you need your head
read. I understand that there have been 5 fatalities in the Alps in the past
two months alone.

Ian

(Finbar) wrote in message . com...
According to Van's Aircraft,

3,862 RV aircraft have been completed and flown. By far the most
popular model has been the RV-6 model. Here's a table, by model,
showing number ever completed and flown, with accident statistics from
NTSB since 1/1/99 (the search looked for RV in the model designator
and excluded "incidents"):

Fatal accident
Model Flown Accidents Fatal Killed rate per year

RV-6/6A 1,850 68 13 21 0.15%
RV-4 1,127 31 7 11 0.14%
RV-8/8A 441 12 4 5 0.20%
RV-3 217 5 0 0 0
RV-7 114 2 1 1 0.20%
RV-9/9A 112 5 1 2 0.20%
RV-10 2 0 0 0 n/a

The RV-7, 9 and 10 are recent models.

By comparison, about 36,000 Piper Cherokee (PA-28) variants were
built. In the 1-year period up to 9/1/2003 there were 14 fatal
accidents in this fleet with 26 fatalities. This translates to a
fatal accident rate per year of just 0.04%. However, this large fleet
includes many airplanes built decades ago. It seems reasonable to
divide the "ever built" size by 2 to reflect the relatively more
recent vintage of the RVs. This still makes the Cherokee rate about
0.08%, significantly below the RV rate.

Of course, this doesn't provide the required comparison, which is to
sailplanes. Anybody got a reasonable estimate for the number of
sailplanes in existence, say, completed and flown since 1970?

I have been involved in a reliability analysis at work recently (of
our super computer). There are about 2000 processors in the thing. The
numbers follow classical reliability theory fairly closely: on average
one of the processors is going fail about every 3 days. The mean time
to failure of an individual processor is 172 MONTHS. So, if I am a
processor I might be the one that fails (i.e. dies) within 3 days, or
I could last well past the 172 months. Should I be writing my will or
relaxing with a beer?

The issue becomes more complicated if you consider Bayesian
statistics. This would apply to situations such as: "What is the
probability of dieing if you fly drunk?". For "drunk" you might
substitute:
1. High performance glider
2. Low performance glider
3. Contests
4. First flight of the season
5. Fly less/more than 20 hours/year
6. Have less/more than 100 total flight hours
7. Fly in the mountains/ridges/prairies
8. Fly in wave/thermals/ridge

The moral is that statistics are meaningful for actuaries and
politicians, but aren't very useful for us pilots. OK, flying drunk is
a BAD idea! Don't do it! But what about the rest? While you can't
avoid the first flight of the season, some of the others are in your
control. Do you quit contests because of the higher risks? This must
be a personal decision.

The fatalities seem to be predominated by preventable mistakes, i.e.
stall/spin low to the ground. Don't do this, either!

Tom