homebuilt safety

Vaughn wrote:

"Kevin Horton" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:41:04 -0500, frank wrote:
I wonder if the air bag would push forward on the yoke if it fired in
flight? If this happened at low altitude, or a high enough airspeed,
could it cause an accident? If so, could installing one of these
air bags actually reduce the level of safety? Of is the perception of
safety more important than actual safety?

There are many "safety" devices, including airbags, safety belts, helmets
etc. that can occasionally backfire in a way to cause a death that might
otherwise not happen. The important thing is that after all is said and done,
the pile of people killed by the device must be much smaller than the pile of
people that would otherwise be dead without the device.

Vaughn

Perhaps less obvious, but just as important is how HARD
that airbag hits you when it goes off.

The TV always shows it in slow motion - so you can see it happening.
In reality, that sucker is gonna slap you silly, if not completely out.

Richard

Stealth Pilot wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:42:03 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:14:41 +0000, Pete Schaefer wrote:

Landing speeds are a big driver for the amount of injury. I think that the
FAA has a lot of data on this. Can't think of a reference off-hand, but you


I like the look of the IBIS (http://www.junqua-aircraft.com/) and I'd
prefer to build in wood. But the more I read, the less good an idea the
Ibis seems (fast landing speeds - only a few complete, so perhaps more
prone to 'bugs' than established designs such as the LongEZ and friends).

china plate (mate) if you want a very good economical wood design then
the Corby Starlet has a lot to offer. it is aerobatic to 4g. has
something like 33 years of safe proven use. its a design that has
never had an AD issued for it. the owners I know just love them.
very few have ever been pranged.

recommended engine is a jabiru 2200cc. delivers about 11litres per
hour fuel burn and can see the starlet to Vne in level flight.

btw it is a real aeronautical engineer designed aeroplane.
plans are about $aus200. 'bout $US150.

do a web search for "Corby Starlet"

Stealth Pilot

Hey, Stealth, I own N45BM, the first Corby Starlet to fly in the US.
Bernardo

"Byron J. Covey" wrote in message . com...
The Grumman Ag Cat, among others, was designed with a stronger than required
(for mission or for certification) cockpit section/seat/roll-over
protection/restraint system. There are numerous examples of crashes that
pilots walked away from.

Ron Machado, in a safety seminar I went to years ago, explained how a
certificated light aircraft is designed so that if you can stop it in
as much as a tennis court, (18g decel) the cockpit will not collapse
and you can unstrap and walk away. Bruised from the belts, perhaps,
but otherwise unscathed.

On 21 May 2004 22:24:27 -0700, (Bernardo Melendez.
Jr.) wrote:


I like the look of the IBIS (http://www.junqua-aircraft.com/) and I'd
prefer to build in wood. But the more I read, the less good an idea the
Ibis seems (fast landing speeds - only a few complete, so perhaps more
prone to 'bugs' than established designs such as the LongEZ and friends).

china plate (mate) if you want a very good economical wood design then
the Corby Starlet has a lot to offer. it is aerobatic to 4g. has
something like 33 years of safe proven use. its a design that has
never had an AD issued for it. the owners I know just love them.
very few have ever been pranged.

recommended engine is a jabiru 2200cc. delivers about 11litres per
hour fuel burn and can see the starlet to Vne in level flight.

btw it is a real aeronautical engineer designed aeroplane.
plans are about $aus200. 'bout $US150.

do a web search for "Corby Starlet"

Stealth Pilot

Hey, Stealth, I own N45BM, the first Corby Starlet to fly in the US.
Bernardo

I tip my hat to you.
....and I notice that you havent felt the need to move on from it.
what do you think of them?

Stealth Pilot

That's not exactly what it says:

Sec. 23.561

General.

(a) The airplane, although it may be damaged in emergency landing
conditions, must be designed as prescribed in this section to protect each
occupant under those conditions.
(b) The structure must be designed to [give each occupant every reasonable
chance of escaping serious injury when--]
(1) Proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses
provided for in the design;
(2) The occupant experiences the static inertia loads corresponding to the
following ultimate load factors--
(i) Upward, 3.0g for normal, utility, and commuter category airplanes, or
4.5g for acrobatic category airplanes;
(ii) Forward, 9.0g;
(iii) Sideward, 1.5g; and
(iv) Downward, 6.0g when certification to the emergency exit provisions of
Sec. 23.807(d)(4) is requested; and
(3) The items of mass within the cabin, that could injure an occupant,
experience the static inertia loads corresponding to the following ultimate
load factors--
(i) Upward, 3.0g;
(ii) Forward, 18.0g; and
(iii) Sideward, 4.5g.
(c) Each airplane with retractable landing gear must be designed to protect
each occupant in a landing--
(1) With the wheels retracted;
(2) With moderate descent velocity; and
(3) Assuming, in the absence of a more rational analysis--
(i) A downward ultimate inertia force of 3g; and
(ii) A coefficient of friction of 0.5 at the ground.
(d) If it is not established that a turnover is unlikely during an emergency
landing, the structure must be designed to protect the occupants in a
complete turnover as follows:
(1) The likelihood of a turnover may be shown by an analysis assuming the
following conditions--
(i) [The most adverse combination of weight and center of gravity position;
(ii) [Longitudinal load factor of 9.0g;
(iii) [Vertical load factor of 1.0g; and
(iv) [For airplanes with tricycle landing gear, the nose wheel strut failed
with the nose contacting the ground.]
(2) For determining the loads to be applied to the inverted airplane after a
turnover, an upward ultimate inertia load factor of 3.0g and a coefficient
of friction with the ground of 0.5 must be used.
[(e) Except as provided in Sec. 23.787(c), the supporting structure must be
designed to restrain, under loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section, each item of mass that could injure an occupant if it came
loose in a minor crash landing.]


BJC


"Corrie" wrote in message
om...
"Byron J. Covey" wrote in message
. com...
The Grumman Ag Cat, among others, was designed with a stronger than
required
(for mission or for certification) cockpit section/seat/roll-over
protection/restraint system. There are numerous examples of crashes
that
pilots walked away from.

Ron Machado, in a safety seminar I went to years ago, explained how a
certificated light aircraft is designed so that if you can stop it in
as much as a tennis court, (18g decel) the cockpit will not collapse
and you can unstrap and walk away. Bruised from the belts, perhaps,
but otherwise unscathed.

Corrie wrote:
"Byron J. Covey" wrote in message . com...

The Grumman Ag Cat, among others, was designed with a stronger than required
(for mission or for certification) cockpit section/seat/roll-over
protection/restraint system. There are numerous examples of crashes that
pilots walked away from.


Ron Machado, in a safety seminar I went to years ago, explained how a
certificated light aircraft is designed so that if you can stop it in
as much as a tennis court, (18g decel) the cockpit will not collapse
and you can unstrap and walk away. Bruised from the belts, perhaps,
but otherwise unscathed.


Does Rod have a brother named Ron?

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:04:45 +0000, Pete Schaefer wrote:

[snip]

There's probably a ton of data on stuff that people have tried for
driver protection in the automotive world. Unfortunately, air-bags are
out of the question for aviation use (for the pilot at least....probably
for everyone). But there must be a ton of other stuff. I'd bet that
NASA has sponsored a bunch of research under the GA revitalization
thingy that would be applicable. Rather than us spend our time
speculating here, maybe some Google time is warranted.

I agree that sounds sensible. I have a horror of reinventing the wheel -
and with a biomedical background I don't immediately have the ability
either (when it comes to engineering). I've googled a bit, but not found
much. When I'm less busy in a few months, I may give it another go.

I did just found this website website though:

http://home.att.net/~m-sandlin/goat.htm

describing some glider designs by a guy who believes he has built some
useful structural protection into them.

AC

I did just found this website website though:
describing some glider designs by a guy who believes he has built some
useful structural protection into them.

There's a world of difference between a 22 MPH landing in an ultralight
glider and a landing at 3 times that speed in an airplane.

Homebuilding prominently includes accepting additional risks to gain
certain perceived advantages. If risk minimization is your goal,
homebuilding is very much the hard way to achieve it.

Ed Wischmeyer

On Sat, 29 May 2004 04:31:36 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:04:45 +0000, Pete Schaefer wrote:

[snip]

There's probably a ton of data on stuff that people have tried for
driver protection in the automotive world. Unfortunately, air-bags are
out of the question for aviation use (for the pilot at least....probably

There was a program on the discovery channel a while back covering
research on crash survivability being built into modern *plastic*
airplanes.

They covered collapsible seats and also talked about including
airbags. If it's an out and out crash, the pilot needs the protection
as well as any one else. Once the G-limit required to fire the airbags
he's considered through flying and along for the ride at that point.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

for everyone). But there must be a ton of other stuff. I'd bet that
NASA has sponsored a bunch of research under the GA revitalization
thingy that would be applicable. Rather than us spend our time
speculating here, maybe some Google time is warranted.

I agree that sounds sensible. I have a horror of reinventing the wheel -
and with a biomedical background I don't immediately have the ability
either (when it comes to engineering). I've googled a bit, but not found
much. When I'm less busy in a few months, I may give it another go.

I did just found this website website though:

http://home.att.net/~m-sandlin/goat.htm

describing some glider designs by a guy who believes he has built some
useful structural protection into them.

AC

Ok, enough abstract thinking.
Let's see what you guys can dream up for a specific airframe.

This is a proposed single seat all metal low wing sportster.

Power is intended to be 2180 VW or Rotax 912.

Figure 550 empty weight, 900 gross?

I've got 33 pounds budgeted for payload.

How much of that do you guys thing should be spent on
crash protection?


http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/l-one.htm


Richard Lamb