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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"RU ok" wrote in message
... Barnyard BOb --- a really 'regular' guy You "Otto" be regular! Rich S. :^O |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue deeper. I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures. The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes." Does this take into account things like modified Lycomings? We have an O-360 with an Ellison TBI. It isn't a certified engine, but it's not an auto conversion or rotax or something either. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Morgans" wrote in
: "Ron Wanttaja" wrote Evahbuddy's a critic. :-) To make it clear, there were three engines that fit that particular category: Jabiru Rotorway Rotax/Bombardier 9XX series Ron Wanttaja WWeeeeeelllllll, actually, the Rotax 912 has been certified, also, right? Otherwise, good work. g Uhuh; but you can still get the uncertified version also. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote in
news A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue deeper. I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures. The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes." Instead, we can take another tack: We can catalog the number of each type of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a loss of engine power was a factor in the accident. The figures don't include cases where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the pilot running out of fuel. Presentation of data: The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one of four types: "Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins, Pratt and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter. "Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis, Fords, Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI. "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway. "Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth, 2SI, and Cuyuna. The next column is "ACC". This is the number of accidents in the 1998-2000 timeframe that involved each category of engine "PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of engine was installed. "LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was involved. "LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of power. --------------------------------------------------------- The Results: ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% ------ --- --- --- ---- Certified 332 51% 57 17% Auto 95 15% 27 28% Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19% Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34% Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes, vs. 28% for auto-engine conversions. Two-strokes were even higher; almost a third of their accidents involved a power failure. It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing practically as well as the certified engines. The Rotax 912/914 series alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%. An interesting side note: Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by nearly four to one.... Ron Wanttaja I wonder what these figures really tell us.... I believe type of accidents as a percent of total accidents really can't tell us anything. What if accidents of other types (the rest of the %) where actually lower in homebuilts with auto engines? What if things like icing, or VFR into IMC was more prevalent in certified aircraft, skewing the engine related numbers into a lower percent... It would also be my guess (and only a guess it is) that a greater percentage of homebuilts with non-certified engines are fair-weather daytime fliers, and therefore more likely to not be as subject to night perception problems, flying into mountains.. etc., therefore reducing the total number of "other" type accidents and making the engine-out % higher. I also wonder if homebuilts on average experience less other mechanical type failures such as control linkage, etc., since the builder is intimately familiar with the workings of the aircraft. IMHO the ONLY valid percentages would be total registered auto engine powered aircraft vs engine-out accidents compared to the same in certified... now I do realize that those figures would be near impossible to compile short of contacting every single person with a registered aircraft that the engine type is not listed in the FAA database... and even more accurate would involve total hours… ok, that's highly improbable….. Please note the above is based on no research whatsoever...I am likely completely off base since I'm new to aviation in general.. ;-) ET Future student pilot and future Sonex builder. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:39:57 GMT, ET wrote:
I wonder what these figures really tell us.... I believe type of accidents as a percent of total accidents really can't tell us anything. What if accidents of other types (the rest of the %) where actually lower in homebuilts with auto engines? That was basically the start of this exercise, several months ago. The FAA registration database lists the type of engine, but for about 3,600 homebuilts, it is either blank or merely lists "AMA/EXPR" for an engine. That's about 13% of all homebuilts. Many of these are undoubtedly auto conversions, but most are probably stock Lycomings or Continentals. My January 6 2004 database shows 113 homebuilts with Ford engines. But how many of those 3,600 "AMA/EXPR" engines are Fords? If even a twentieth of them are Ford conversions, that would double the "known" quantity. In the almost 700 homebuilt accidents in the 1998-2000 time period, the NTSB records show only one "AMA/EXPR" engine installed on an accident aircraft. Either those 3,600-odd airplanes aren't flying at all, or the NTSB investigators are looking at what was *actually* installed under the cowling. What if things like icing, or VFR into IMC was more prevalent in certified aircraft, skewing the engine related numbers into a lower percent... It would also be my guess (and only a guess it is) that a greater percentage of homebuilts with non-certified engines are fair-weather daytime fliers, and therefore more likely to not be as subject to night perception problems, flying into mountains.. etc., therefore reducing the total number of "other" type accidents and making the engine-out % higher. Heh, heh...you don't think I downloaded 21 megs of accident reports (at 56 kbaud!), read a thousand or so individual reports, and generated about a gigabyte of databases and Excel spreadsheets for just a RAH posting on auto engine conversions, do you? I've just completed an in-depth analysis of homebuilt accident statistics. In it, I not only determine the causes of homebuilt accidents during the 1998-2000 time period (35 basic accident categories, plus some sub-categories), but I compare the accident rates for homebuilts to a representative sample of certified light aircraft (Cessna 172s and 210s, leaving out accidents occurring during primary training). And determine the accident rates for first flights and in the test period, as well. I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run sometime in the summer. Since I don't address the engine issues in the series (I figured three articles was enough) I could post them here without "stealing my own thunder." I also wonder if homebuilts on average experience less other mechanical type failures such as control linkage, etc., since the builder is intimately familiar with the workings of the aircraft. Sadly, no. Ron Wanttaja |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run sometime in the summer. In which publication? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:28:02 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote: On 13 Jan 2004 14:35:24 -0800, (Corrie) wrote: Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . .. I completed the three-part article just this week. Hopefully, it'll run sometime in the summer. In which publication? Whichever one accepts it. :-) I'm a freelancer, so I never can count on an article getting printed. I submitted the accident series to KITPLANES, but haven't heard whether they're going to take it, yet. Ron Wanttaja I curious, Ron. How long after submission do you wait for acceptance/rejection before submitting to another publication? Is there an industry standard? Thanks |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:05:24 GMT, andy asberry
wrote: I'm a freelancer, so I never can count on an article getting printed. I submitted the accident series to KITPLANES, but haven't heard whether they're going to take it, yet. I curious, Ron. How long after submission do you wait for acceptance/rejection before submitting to another publication? Is there an industry standard? In the pre-email age, it used to take three months to find out whether an editor was going to take an article or not. Actually, it generally took three months or more to find that the editor was NOT going to take it...they'd usually get hold of you fairly fast if they decided to go for it. For individual authors, it's considered bad form to send a piece to more than one publication at a time. For some weird reason, it's perfectly OK for an author's *agent* to do that. So I'd never send an article to a second magazine until I got a definite "no" from the first one. In the past, I've waited three months before politely "pinging" the editor. It's best to be sure before sending the article on to another editor...if the editor of the first magazine thought he'd told you and put the article in the production cycle, the SECOND editor will be very miffed if he or she sees the article they bought appear somewhere else, first. Now that email is so prevalent, notification comes a lot quicker. The accident series is the first non-solicited article I've sent the new editor at KITPLANES. While I've done several articles for him on assignment, one doesn't really need confirmation of acceptance on those, since one already knew the editor wanted an article on a particular subject. But in this case, it came "out of the blue" for him...and since the editorial office just moved to the opposite coast, things are still shaking down. If he decides it isn't right for him, there are other outlets (Like CBS or ABC's "20-20" :-). If all else fails, I just post it. The wait for notification could be worse. My wife (a romance novelist) has had editors take ten months or more to get back to her about novels she's submitted. Ron "It's fun helping with research" Wanttaja |
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 |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |