1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

Montblack wrote:
("Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote)

And answer the question as they ask it. If they ask if you have a
watch the answer is yes or no. You don't look at your watch and tell
them what time it is.



I've been accused of telling people how to BUILD a watch, when all they
really wanted was the time. g


Montblack

Tell a man the time and you help him once, tell him to buy a watch
and he bothers you no more.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Good point, I hadn't thought about that aspect.

Steve

Richard Lamb wrote:
Jerry Springer wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

Jerry Springer wrote:


A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.

Jerry





Only if they don't fly, Jerry...

And there are a lot of homebuilts that hardly ever leave the ground.

Richard



Not sure what you mean they are safe only if they do not fly? Are you
speaking of all aircraft in general or are you speaking only of
experimental aircraft? If you read the "2004 Nall" report you will
find that homebuilt aircraft have about the same rate of accidents as
factory built aircraft do. Ron W posted some statistic that relate to
first flight accidents, most of which are caused by fuel problems. This
risk can be eliminated by proper fuel flow testing before the first
flight IMO.

To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft
were safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as
any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that
that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not
be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very
particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and
friends that will be flying in these creations.

Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer


Easy Jerry, Didn't mean to offend (or frighten) anyone.

Yes, among the RV gang, most of them DO fly - some a lot.
But there are others who simply don't.
And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.

Now, according to Ron's statistics...
Factory test flights don't seem to have the same kind of numbers.

But, of course, YMMV...

Richard

Richard, I did not take offense nor was I frightened. :-) Having
attended FIRC every two years for 30 years I see the numbers and they
are not much different than those of factory built aircraft. I was
trying to figure out if you thought homebuilts were more dangerous than
any other type of aircraft? I got the impression that the original
poster was glad that he had not bought a kitbuilt airplane because they
were more dangerous. Anyone that is interested in some interesting
statistics can dnload the Nall report from the AOPA web site:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/

All of us that fly I believe understand that there is a certain amount
of risk involved.

Jerry

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled
the
power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.

Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
Try it and see how your results change.

To split hairs, idle power on a recip is really much less applied drag.

However your point is well taken. And the difference would be radically
more pronounced with a constant speed prop--as on a Turbo 210!

It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
failures. As it is, "if you want to make omelet, you have to break eggs"
and I suspect that we are "breaking fewer eggs" with the current small
number of poorly handled engine failures than would be the case if we
attempted to train more intensively. The acrobatic/airshow guys do an
amazing job, but also encounter the problem more often.

Joe Schneider

It makes me feel bad that I can't recall his name. I tried a Google
search of the newsgroup archives and didn't find it.

Google "N2992".

Dave S. wrote:

The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine ......
Nothing definitive was determined from a cause standpoint, but one
of the fuel injectors (which was used, not new) was found to be
faulty from a flow standpoint.

That is slightly misleading. If you're talking about what caused the
engine to stop producing power, there were a few likely possibilities.
If you're talking about why the aircraft crashed the way it did, the
answer was pretty clear.

For those interested, see:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Ac...val/index.html

for an alternative (and IMNSHO, a far more accurate) evaluation.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.

That "almost" is a real concern. I presume that pilot proficiency is as
important as the aircraft.

I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on
the
second flight. ;-)
--
Sorry to be a copy-cat. But, so will I! ;-)

Peter

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...

"John Ammeter" wrote in message
...
My "first flight" WAS my second flight...

I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred
yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA
obviously I had not flown.... right??

John

that makes me wonder, how does one report such a flight? technically you
broke the rules, and if no one saw you do it, it must not have happened.

but I like being an honest guy and would report myself anyway. what's the
penalty?


I've been guilty of that "being an honest guy thing" and will again. It's
some sort of curse, and I need an exorcist ...

OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that a long bounce in ground effect is
flying. As an example with plenty of witnesses, Lindberg was said to hve
bounced twice and then flown on his departure to Paris...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on
the
second flight. ;-)
--
Sorry to be a copy-cat. But, so will I! ;-)

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers would
tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Jerry Springer wrote:

Richard, I did not take offense nor was I frightened. :-) Having
attended FIRC every two years for 30 years I see the numbers and they
are not much different than those of factory built aircraft. I was
trying to figure out if you thought homebuilts were more dangerous than
any other type of aircraft? I got the impression that the original
poster was glad that he had not bought a kitbuilt airplane because they
were more dangerous. Anyone that is interested in some interesting
statistics can dnload the Nall report from the AOPA web site:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/

All of us that fly I believe understand that there is a certain amount
of risk involved.

Jerry

That's good news, Jerry.
Limited to text alone it is real easy to give the wrong impression or get
the wrong impression.

I've built several airplanes, depending on how you count them.
Four of my own parasols, a dozen or so with Beeson, and fairly deeply involved
in maybe a dozen others in one way or another.

I had about half finished my Tailwind when my medical was denied.
That was several years ago, but I'm still hoping to get it back some day.

I vowed, the day my Tailwind left home, that WHEN (gotta think positively!) it
is restored, I'd order materials for a new Tailwind that very day.

Richard


http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/

I put some new pics up this evening.
2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty Boop".
tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...