Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

eedetail

Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 20
Location: Idaho

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

************************************************** ******************************

** Report created 11/5/2007 Record 1 **

************************************************** ******************************



IDENTIFICATION

Regis#: 27S Make/Model: EXP Description: 601HDS

Date: 11/04/2007 Time: 1011



Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N

Damage: Destroyed



LOCATION

City: FARMINGTON State: DE Country: US



DESCRIPTION

AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES 2 MILES WEST OF FARMINGTON, DE



INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2

# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Pass: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

OTHER DATA

Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: PHILADELPHIA, PA (EA17) Entry date: 11/05/2007

----

************************************************** ******************************

** Report created 11/5/2007 Record 3 **

************************************************** ******************************



IDENTIFICATION

Regis#: 634WB Make/Model: EXP Description: ZODIAK 601 XL

Date: 11/01/2007 Time: 2220



Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N

Damage: Destroyed



LOCATION

City: LA BELLE State: MO Country: US



DESCRIPTION

AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES NEAR LA BELLE, MO.



INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1

# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

OTHER DATA

Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: ST. LOUIS, MO (CE03) Entry date: 11/05/2007

--

************************************************** ******************************

** Report created 11/5/2007 Record 18 **

************************************************** ******************************



IDENTIFICATION

Regis#: 601AG Make/Model: EXP Description: ZENALRE 2001

Date: 11/04/2007 Time: 1330



Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N

Damage: Minor



LOCATION

City: GREENWOOD State: IN Country: US



DESCRIPTION

PILOT REPORTED LOW OIL PRESSURE AND LANDED IN A FIELD, GREENWOOD, IN



INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0

# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:



WEATHER: UNK



OTHER DATA

Activity: Pleasure Phase: Cruise Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: INDIANAPOLIS, IN (GL11) Entry date: 11/05/2007

--

Last report is kinda wrong, the plane is a 601HD. Engine was a subaru.

Also, it's been posted here already. Just thought I'd group all three together. If someone has more info on the top two reports, please let us know.

TimE Comm-Asel

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?



I know, once I'm done building, I'll easily put more hours on this plane in one year than I would have put on a rented 152 in 10 years.

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:54 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

You can check the Nall Report http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf



In 2005 14.1% of all GA accidents were in Exp-HB aircraft and 19.8 of the fatal GA accidents were in Exp-HB.



The proportion of GA accidents that are in Exp-HB has increased over the last several years as the number experimentals that make up the GA fleet has increased. 



What you will find is that, surprise, experimentals are statistically more dangerous than certified. You really should have known that before you started building.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Hi Andy,



I don't have any real statistics, but my sense is that 

experimental-amateur built flight hours are a small drop in the 

bucket compared to certified plane flight.  While there are many home 

builders who fly regularly, it is common for certified planes to be 

rented out nearly all the time for long business related 

flights.  That doesn't even consider the airlines and part 135 

operations where the planes don't seem to spend more than a few hours 

on the ground while flying many hours each day.



On average, I think home built planes are less safe than certified 

planes.  Also, the average skill of the pilots of home built planes 

is significantly lower than the average pilot.  There are many 

excellent pilots flying home built planes, but the requirements to 

own a home built plane are more related to building skills than pilot 

ratings and skills.  I believe it is this reduced level of pilot 

skill that accounts for most of the increase in home built plane 

accidents rather than the actual inherent safety of the 

planes.  Still, there are a number of accidents related to poor 

construction in the E-AB arena that are extremely rare in the 

certified community.



If you believe the NTSB studies, you will believe that nearly all 

airplane accidents are due to pilot error.



This is just my opinion, and may not be related to reality at all.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive

At 06:41 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown 

for homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this 

stuff it makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it 

just that pilots of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?



--------

Andy Shontz

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

 	  Gig Giacona wrote: 	
		  What you will find is that, surprise, experimentals are statistically more dangerous than certified. You really should have known that before you started building. 	




Uh oh, I better stop building. LOL



Doesn't deter me one bit, just curious. Thanks for the info.



And could the increase in experimentals have anything to do with the new sport pilot rating as well as all the new quick-build kits coming out? Kind of reminds me of the increase in boating accidents due to wave-runners. Now all of a sudden this year I had to take a boating safety course to operate my boat I had been using just fine with no problems out in the Delaware Bay for years because yahoos behind Ocean City and on the Delaware River can't seem to keep from hurting themselves and running into other boats at high speeds in crowded areas. Of course that's my fault and I should really be required to take a safety course to use my boat I've had no problems with for years in uncrowded areas or when in crowded areas operating with a decent margin or error.



Not to say I'm immune from an aviation accident by any means, just like I'm not immune to a boating accident, but I do see a correlation.

johnd(at)data-tech.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Andy,



The EAA has some accident rate info here: 

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/operating/safety.html, its in 

the members area so you'll need to have a login to see it. It does 

compare the accident rates per 100,000 hours of certificated and 

homebuilt a/c and of course homebuilt have a higher rate. Looks like 

about a factor of 2x for both accident rate and fatal accident rates in 

2004 (the latest year they show). The rates have been trending downward 

though.



Seems like a large portion of homebuilt accidents are caused by engine 

issues and looking at the ntsb database for 601 accidents would seem to 

bear that out.



KitPlanes also has an article from Sept 2006 on homebuilt safely at 

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/23_9/exploring/7656-1.phtml.



Looking at the stats it still seems the most dangerous part of flying is 

the pilot...



John

Burnsville, NC

Zodiac 601XL



ashontz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?



 --------

 Andy Shontz

 CH601XL - Corvair

 www.mykitlog.com/ashontz





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137

dkbrooks(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

This may be totally incorrect, but I wonder if builder/pilots of experimental aircraft don't engage in a different kind of flying than most of the rest of the GA world.  I was a very active member of a good sized flying club for a number of years in California and I can't remember one single person talking about landing on a grass strip, flying low-and-slow for fun on a regular basis or putting down in small remote airstrips (we had one very small paved strip near our FBO that was used for training but that was it).  Most of the flights done by members of that club would fire (1) up the engine, (2) climb to cruise (5000 to 7500 was normal) and (3) shoot for some 11000ft paved runway somewhere two or three hours away.  Sure there was a good bit of sightseeing going on, but seems like it had a different feel to it than what I read here (and on the Rans board).   



I am just tossing this out there with absolutely no claim of authority on the matter.  I just get a different feel for the pilots on these boards than the traditional rent-and-go guys at the FBO.  There is a much more adventurous feel around here and it doesn't seem unlikely that this doesn't come with some additional risk.   



Please don't misunderstand me - I am not claiming that pilot/builders of experimentals are careless risk takers - I would suggest that just the opposite is true.  The people that regularly contribute to this list and the Rans list seem like some of the most cautious and knowledgeable folks I have ever come across.  (Good God the knowledge - I am blown away daily by what I see go by on this list.)  I just get the sense that the kind of flying done by home builders - in general - has a higher fun factor and consequently a higher risk factor than the rest of the GA world. 



As for the relative safety of an homebuilt experimental vs. a club rental I only have this to say: in my five years of flying with that club (and this was a highly regarded club with well maintained planes): we rented to a lot of student pilots and it showed in the planes.  I personally had several avionics and radio failures and one really rough engine experience while in the pattern.  The tires were continuously being replaced because they were constantly flat spotted by somewhat sideways student crosswind landings.  A good friend of mine even had the brake caliper fall off the right main on a Archer while taxiing out to the run-up area.  On more than one occasion I found low engine oil (really low) with the engine still hot from the previous flight.  I think that the planes you guys fly are generally much lower-hour craft than most rentals and far better maintained.   



Happy flying!  And I would climb aboard just about any plane that I have seen in the builders logs from this list just as quickly as any club 152/175/Archer around.  (In fact, anyone want to take me for a ride?  )  



Dave

On 11/6/07, Gig Giacona <wr.giacona(at)suddenlink.net (wr.giacona(at)suddenlink.net)> wrote: [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" < wr.giacona(at)suddenlink.net (wr.giacona(at)suddenlink.net)>



You can check the Nall Report http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf



In 2005 14.1% of all GA accidents were in Exp-HB aircraft and  19.8 of the fatal GA accidents were in Exp-HB.



The proportion of GA accidents that are in Exp-HB has increased over the last several years as the number experimentals that make up the GA fleet has increased.



 What you will find is that, surprise, experimentals are statistically more dangerous than certified. You really should have known that before you started building.



--------

W.R. &quot;Gig&quot; Giacona

 601XL Under Construction

See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR





Read this topic online here:



  [quote][b]

steveadams

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 191

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.



 	  Quote: 	
		  DELAWARE: Plane crash kills 2 near Farmington

The News Journal 

FARMINGTON, Del. -- Two people died Sunday morning when an experimental plane crashed near Farmington.



The victims, identified as the pilot and a passenger, are believed to have been the only people on board. Delaware State Police would not release their names Sunday because their relatives had not yet been notified.



Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Arlene Salac said the National Transportation Safety Board would oversee an investigation into the cause of the crash. The fixed-wing plane, built and owned by a Dover man, had a Chevrolet Corvair engine, according to FAA records and local authorities.



Sunday's crash occurred at 10:11 a.m. near the 3200 block of Andrewville Road, said Delaware State Police spokesman Cpl. John Barnett. The plane had taken off from Chormans Airport, on Nine Foot Road, at 10 a.m.



William Standing, an inspector with the FAA's Philadelphia office, said witnesses reported the plane seemed to have good power when it took off, but it started developing trouble and tried to make it back to the field.



"It over-banked and went into the trees," he said. "Unfortunately, these trees are tall and it went over and crashed."



When the plane hit, it burst into flames. Roger Butler was in his nearby house at the time.



"I didn't even hear the crash," he said. "My wife heard something and saw the smoke and came in and told me there was smoke out in the woods. But we didn't know what had happened until later on. ... But I didn't go back and look. When I was young, I saw a plane crash ... and kill a couple of people. That was enough for me."



Crews spent much of the day examining the crash site, and by late afternoon they started hand-carrying wreckage out of the woods. By dusk, a front-end loader was summoned to pull the heaviest part of the wreckage -- the plane's Corvair engine -- out of the woods.

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never burned out a transmission, warped a head, or broke a rod or timing chain or belt from gunning an engine and driving like a maniac, but I know a bunch of people who routinely have these problems (of course that means the car is a lemon  ), and their driving habits are to blame. If an auto engine conversion is not pushed anymore than it would see at 55mph on the highway then it should be a pretty good match. That's one reason I'm not big on these smaller engines turning 4500 - 5000rpm with a PSRU. The engine wasn't meant to run that hard. Sure, a NASCAR engine will run 8000rpm for a couple hours, then it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.



 	  steveadams wrote: 	
		  Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Andy,

The accident rate for Experimentals would probably be only minutely 

greater than general aviation if flying skill and structural failure 

were the main issue.  The larger rate of experimental accidents likely 

relates to a lack of focus on fuel systems, connections, poor wiring, 

one-of-a-kind ignition systems as well as more than a few control 

linkage defects introduced by the builder.  Each of us needs to review 

our plan, get the assistance of a technical counselor, read and revisit 

the Matronics archives which are filled with detailed errors, foibles 

and mistakes unearthed by questions asked and many consequences of 

questions not asked. 

After 2 years flying, and 108 hours, I feel like I'm just emerging from 

"test mode".



Larry McFarland  601HDS at www.macsmachine.com



ashontz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?



 --------

 Andy Shontz

 CH601XL - Corvair

 www.mykitlog.com/ashontz





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137

eedetail

Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 20
Location: Idaho

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Folks,

A big problem with comparing experimental vs certified is that there is not an accurate record of hours flown of either category of aircraft, which would be the best Gage of the safety of either. The statistics are all based upon an estimate, which could be very wrong. 

I posted the initial accident reports, It is a curiosity that there were three in a four day period, but by the same token there were seven gear up or gear collapse in certified planes, two that hit deer, and numerous other accidents and incidents. 

TimE

n85ae

Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 403

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

I'd suggest that a large part of it, is the fix fly it yourself thing that comes

with homebuilding.



People might not want to admit it, but the average rental Cessna, gets

better QA than a lot of experimental's. How can this be, I hear them

saying? It is simply because you have multiple sets of eyes looking at 

the plane, and maintaining it. You don't have an engine that somebody

convinced themself was better than the other.  There's no ego's putting

planes in the air. 



I think pride and ego have brought down quite a few experimentals to

be perfectly honest.



Jeff

zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Actually, I was just about to write a letter about this. 

You have all read the posts on the last 3 accidents, nothing pleasant to

think about. Andy asked about statistics. I looked up in the NTSB in the

last month I saw 77 accidents and 48 fatalities. This is a disturbing

number and didn't include the 601's the accidents were mostly certified

aircraft.



Now about these 3 planes, 



One had a Subaru with an engine out and landed nose over after digging

in. If we look carefully, you can see damage on the Rudder. Questions

come up on Roll over protection, though it seems like little is

installed in the 601 series in fact it has not one system for rollover

but several smaller ones adding to a whole in a survivable condition. I

would not, and have not beefed up my structure in my 601 and I have seen

a couple of planes that have rolled over. One suggestion I do have

though. We have a great view in the 601 with the bubble top. 

However, it has an inherent danger as all canopies do and that is simply

operating while inverted on the ground. This is a very rare instance,

but with installing my 601 on floats I have made it mandatory to carry a

bubble smasher. IT can be small and simple and makes far more sense then

making a roll cage. 

But other then the nose over in a soft landing, I commend the pilot for

a dead stick with a heavy FWF, It looks like he held the front wheel off

as long as possible and for so little damage it was going very slow when

the nose wheel dug in.



The other accident, has reports of an engine out in a Corvair

installation, I have nothing more to add to this, it is a tragedy and I

will await the final report to see if I need to do anything to my

Corvair.



Now we come to the third, this is information shared by the owners of

the plane. 



This plane had shared ownership, the one who was flying it was 71 years

old. The plane took off and seemed to be flying well for a few miles.

The accident site shown the plane to be intact and whole, though the

plane is a complete write of. It appears that the plane was flown to the

ground and not spiraled or entered any unusual attitudes. Investigations

by NTSB so far found no mechanical issues that they can discern all

flight controls and structures are intact. 

At present FAA is investigating medical tests and will not have results

for about a month. I will relay the results as soon as possible. I can

relay this information before NTSB release because it has been shared by

one of the planes owners.

This accident looks to have been a stroke or heart attack. My prayers

and condolences do go out to the family.



Let close this letter by answering a few of Andy's questions. The worst

time for any homebuilt is in the first 20 hrs, most problems missed or

neglected during construction can result in an accident. Even an

inspection can still miss issues. Remember to mark every bolt in your

plane, After construction take a day to run through each page of your

plane and check off every bolt and mark them. Check your cables and the

routing of such, Even Chris Heintz had a plane one day with the rudder

cables reversed. 



Once you have done this then have your buddy do it over again with the

plans in his hand. I have seen AME's who have built a plane leave the

flapperon attachment bolt out. Practice engine outs, over long runways

actually kill the motor. Know what your plane will do. We have read that

the engine out on the Subaru landed fine, only to catch a nose wheel at

final seconds. Engine out in the Corvair ended in Fatality, why? Was

this maneuver practiced? Or did something major happen to the Corvair,

like a broken crank and bad vibration causing other damage? We just

don't know yet.



Engines, and fuel, the two leading causes for accidents, aside from

pilots, though an auto conversion for the most part is cheaper and has

redeeming features, it has the drawbacks of the unknown and the

mechanic. Who assembled the engine? Who does maintenance on said engine?

Though I feel qualified to work on my own engine how do you feel if a

first year car mechanic worked on it? Not to insult any one by any means

but to make each of you to realize that not everyone has the same

experience and background.

I like auto conversions and have spent many a time behind one, I also

know that as a rule they tend to require more care and tinkering. Also

it tends to be the builders of auto conversions that tinker with the

motor just to tinker.



I like many of you enjoy the ability of choosing the proper motors and

upholstery and panel for my personal plane. That has always been a

redeeming feature of going with a Designer like Chris Heintz, he allows

you to make your own decisions based on your experience and research.

Chris does not dictate that you must install a 0-235 with steam gauges

and small foam cushions like in his own plane. His designs have approved

and supported FWF's but they also allow you to install whatever you like

, Even a 2 cyl Harley motor or a 7 cyl radial, I have even seen a

turboprop setup for a 701. These are extremes but you get the message.

The down side is that some of these result in higher statistics.



These are the mechanical issues of owning a homebuilt of any make, the

pilot issues add up to a larger ball of wax. We as a rule, build a

homebuilt to get a brand new plane we have always desired, which is

affordable, not to own a 30 yr old Cessna. However, keep in mind that

there are a few different people out there with different reasons. 



I have seen one fellow build a 601 because NO-ONE would rent him a plane

anymore, he was young and foolish and with a warped wing he knew about

but would not fix, he would still do near stall takeoffs to get the

thrill and show off. As a joke in poor taste some of the guys at the

hangers had a death pool on him. He is now a statistic and the pool was

never mentioned again.



There is another fellow who is feeble minded and can hardly put

sentences together to form a cognitive thought, no-one would ever sit

beside him in a cockpit but he has been happily flying his 701 for the

last few years. Another is getting to a stage in life that the only way

he can now fly is if there is another plane 200 ft in front of him.

Moreover, he needs this other plane to land due to eyesight, he can no

longer see runways at 500ft.



Look around, you will also see those situations, and yes these are the

people we eventually see on reports no matter how much we try to curb

behavior.



As for the reports of recent, unfortunate but reality states two auto

conversions both with reported engine issues. 3rd is possibly pilot

medical issue we'll wait on that one. 

We do not need to beef up our planes, we do need to be more careful in

our decisions and in our workmanship. 



I am Canadian and as such we do not have the LSA market yet, however at

all the air shows I have time and time again seen older people going LSA

because of medical issues. This will only increase in my thoughts, and

we will likely see more instances across the board and some people push

the envelope of retaining the desire to fly. It's great that some can,

but some shouldn't, it is the ones that shouldn't that we will hear

about.



Mark Townsend

Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.

president(at)can-zacaviation.com

www.can-zacaviation.com 



--

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Andy,

In the case of the Subaru, your statement couldn't be more wrong. It was 

originally designed as an aircraft engine in the 70s and when the 

aircraft market softened, it became a car engine.  The EA81 can be run 

250K miles and you'll still find the cylinders in good shape.  There are 

more than several gyros flying the EA81 with 1400 to 2200 hours

on them and still going strong.  These engines are raced to over 10K rpm 

because they're built for it and being opposed cylinders balanced and 

supported by large crank and bearings, the Subaru is a great 

conversion.  The problem with conversion is conversion which requires 

each builder to learn more about carburetors, ignition, fuel feed 

systems, oil pressure connections, cylinder head sensors and more.  I've 

made mistakes and fortunately survived them, but the extra items found 

on all conversions and standard firewall forward aircraft engines is 

what gets us all in the most trouble. It's been a long time since I've 

heard about a belt re-drive failure and the last one was probably the 

fault of it's owner.

cool and respectfully,

Larry McFarland  601HDS at www.macsmachine.com

ashontz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never burned out a transmission, warped a head, or broke a rod or timing chain or belt from gunning an engine and driving like a maniac, but I know a bunch of people who routinely have these problems (of course that means the car is a lemon  ), and their driving habits are to blame. If an auto engine conversion is not pushed anymore than it would see at 55mph on the highway then it should be a pretty good match. That's one reason I'm not big on these smaller engines turning 4500 - 5000rpm with a PSRU. The engine wasn't meant to run that hard. Sure, a NASCAR engine will run 8000rpm for a couple hours, then it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

 steveadams wrote:

> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.

>     

 --------

 Andy Shontz

 CH601XL - Corvair

 www.mykitlog.com/ashontz

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144155#144155

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

I agree.



 	  larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote: 	
		  Andy,

The accident rate for Experimentals would probably be only minutely 

greater than general aviation if flying skill and structural failure 

were the main issue.  The larger rate of experimental accidents likely 

relates to a lack of focus on fuel systems, connections, poor wiring, 

one-of-a-kind ignition systems as well as more than a few control 

linkage defects introduced by the builder.  Each of us needs to review 

our plan, get the assistance of a technical counselor, read and revisit 

the Matronics archives which are filled with detailed errors, foibles 

and mistakes unearthed by questions asked and many consequences of 

questions not asked. 

After 2 years flying, and 108 hours, I feel like I'm just emerging from 

"test mode".



Larry McFarland  601HDS at www.macsmachine.com



ashontz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?



 --------

 Andy Shontz

 CH601XL - Corvair

 www.mykitlog.com/ashontz





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137

MaxNr(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Excellent points by Mark. IMHO there will always be a thousand way to crash. Old salts are as likely as newbies. In each of the mishaps that come up on the list from time to time, the first comments are usually "What caused it?" The theories fly.

 I approach it a little differently. When I was a military pilot, I was trained in Crash Survival Investigation. Find out what caused the injuries. Fix that with new procedures or new design. A crash is considered "survivable" if three conditions exist:

 1.G forces are within human tolerances.

 2. The survivable space is maintained.

 3. There is no post crash fire.

 Number one is easy. All Zenairs land into the wind at less than 40KTS. A good restraint system will protect you. Certified planes are designed with 26 G seats. Even if you cart wheel, each piece that rips off or collapses absorbs energy. Watch a NASCAR race.

 Number two means that the 200 lbs of iron up front will protect the occupants as you tear through the side of a building or clump of trees. I know that pusher/canards are cool, but... Do what you can within reason to ensure that a stump or fence post does not intrude into your space. We all have something that we think is MOST important. 

 Number three means to use good practices in installation or design. Tanks in the wings are good. Tanks in the nose (like a Cub), aft of the cockpit (Luscombe), or in the roof (Aeronca Defender) are bad. A good practice would be to put a small loop in the fuel line where it enters the fuselage. This permits flexing without breaking if the wing takes a hit. Military aircraft use breakaway fuel fittings. These are also used by the auto racing guys. The fitting separates under stress and shuts off like a compressed air fitting. Since I began flying in 1956, I've had some bad moments, but I have still enjoyed a safe record in personal, military and commercial aviation. When I walk up to an aircraft today, I think that this is the day that my streak will break. I can tolerate death, but not embarrassment. What the heck, flying is fun. Go anyway.

 

 RTD  XL/Lyc

 Do not archive

 

 

**************************************

 See what's new [quote][b]

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Larry, I dont want to put you on the spot BUT, what would you say are the 5 

most important mistakes made on engines or aircraft,not flying mistakes. 

Thank's Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM

---

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



:

-steveadams wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.


	


Flying a plane has some risk to it. Flying an experimental adds more risk. An auto engine powered experimental plane is even more riskier. Let's do some math here. Last year I believe 436 people were killed in all types of planes. Somewhere around 70 were in an experimental. Last year more then 124,000 people were killed in hospitals by doctors and nurses not washing good enough and spreading staph infections and by being given wrong or inncorrect amounts of drugs. The way I see it if one wants to to a ripe old age stay away from doctors, nurses and hospitals. Just my opinion of course... 

do not archive

--------

Andy Shontz

CH601XL - Corvair

www.mykitlog.com/ashontz





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144155#144155



========================                        ================================================================================================bsp;       - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -   [quote][b]

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Joe,



Overcoming the first mistake would be a big help. To learn before the 

fact what the engine needs to run correctly, from idle, to warm up, to 

taxi, to takeoff.



Most of us learn by luck and discovery that the valves are not set 

right, timing is off or the carbs are not jetted a correct mixture, oil 

pressure is not or the cowl or the radiator is not cooling. By the time 

we discover these an engine’s reliability may be damaged.



A good EIS system is fast and puts your attention on a problem before it 

gets serious. With steam gages, one has to know what he’s looking for, 

when to look for it and in what order and I certainly wouldn’t have 

fared well here. With EIS, you program the limits, so you already know 

mostly what your engine needs before the fact and it points to those 

problems that arise immediately.



A conversion engine comes with an oil pressure sensor that’s an on off 

switch for an idiot light and most are replaced with a sensor that reads 

oil pressure. Often we buy a nipple that places the sensor away from the 

engine and tighten it in place. Regular aircraft generally place an oil 

sensor on the firewall and connect the oil pressure sensor with a 

flex-hose. My hardware store brass nipple cracked at the threads because 

it vibrated and wall thickness at the threads was half the thickness of 

an automotive nipple. I lost a quart in a 1-hour flight but it could 

have been much worse.



Aircraft flare fittings are 37-degree flanged and previously as a 

technical counselor, I’ve seen regular automotive flares used and mixed 

on fuel systems, rubber fuel hoses run through wings that would be 

permanently buttoned up, fuel lines tank to engine without filters. I 

managed to clog the finger strainers by not thinking to clean swarf out 

the fuel tank after construction. They’d been flushed, float checked and 

leak checked right? Not good enough.



Cooling is the most misunderstood and problematic thing for Subaru 

water-cooled engines and even the most popular “air cooled engines”. Air 

cannot be shoved down a hole thru a radiator or cowl to cool an engine. 

It’s surprising that so many people don’t know this applies equally to 

air-cooling or air-exchange. The effective draw must be behind the 

radiator or on exiting the cowl. The water-cooled engine should have an 

advantage here but it’s too often not well enough understood by the 

builder to use it and the Subaru gets a bad rap for the builders ignorance.



There are too many detailed problems to describe, but the essence is 

that I have made as many mistakes as anyone and it’s obviously clear 

that these could be avoided by focused forethought and a second set of 

eyes. The accident statistics would reward us well if we did.



I didn't mean to rant, but these things do repeat too often without 

comment.

Thanks Joe,



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com

Southern Reflections wrote:

[quote] 

 <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net>



 Larry, I dont want to put you on the spot BUT, what would you say are 

 the 5 most important mistakes made on engines or aircraft,not flying 

 mistakes. Thank's Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM

 ---

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.

Thank's Larry, I always value your input. I'am down to doing Punch-lists 

80%done,80% to go..I saw some silicone 90's on the web last night and going 

to change the two at the rad.  to silicone , I just feel better with that 

rather than rubber. louver's and scoop are workimg perfect. Changed the oil 

pres. gage to direct feed/with copper line,feel better about that too. 

Engine is running super smooth,but  idleing (at) 1200 that's as slow as it will 

run before getting rough,the people a t REV-Master say i've got to much fuel 

pressureand its flooding the engine, 1/12 lb. may have to re jet or make a 

by pass back to the tank..Oh well all in a day's play  . Have you seen those 

VG's from down under? very intresting numbers.    See ya      Joe 

N101HD601XL/RAM

---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum