Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

Accidents in RVs

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Simon Bromily just posted an excellent clip today on the RVs in Aus site from over on Yahoo.  This is an excerpt from the Latest RV Builder’s Hotline (October 21st) that I encourage all of you to read, study and begin meaningful discussion.  That is the value of Matt’s site isn’t it.  

  

As a Designated Pilot Examiner for 23 years and an Accident Safety Specialist for 16 of those, this issue is real and is well reported.  A theory that Average Rich Guy can buy a Hot Rod kitbuilt or recent TC certified aircraft then rapidly skew the statistical pool. The resultant statistical skew lends merit on the need for intensive and repetitive, tailored instruction from “Make and Model” qualified Instructors.  To ignore such a pursuit, can tilt insurance costs the direction of wiping out a large percentage of the kit building community – before they are finished.  

The leading article is “A look at RV accident information” by Bob Collins.  

Thanks Simon, in my haste I figured it was stuff I could just gloss over.  

John Cox #40600    [quote][b]

wv4i(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Was reading my AOPA email and wound up on link to NTSB summary of 

accidents in Cirrus SR20/22. For comparison, I did a search of all RV 

accidents in same time period. List was about the same length, and equal 

distribution of injuries, i.e. none/minor/serious/fatal. Saw NO RV-10's, 

yet. Only did cursory look at data, but food for thought. I hear that 

Cirrus is now requiring time in type to turn the new owner loose? Or 

would that be the insurance cos? RV-10 insurers?



I don't think RV's will get you in trouble as fast as a 

Glasair/Lancair/other composite with higher wing loading, but they are 

definitely not Cessnas/Pipers either, and demand respect. Need to really 

become a student of aerodynamics, wing loading, wt & bal, etc., and be 

receptive to learning, IMHO.



Link McGarity

#40622

coop85(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Link,

   I agree 100% regarding RV-s getting you into trouble less than the glass

ships.  I had an RV-6 that had an engine come apart.  Due to the surrounding

terrain, I would have had a really bad day in a glass ship not only with a

high wing loading, but also a laminar flow wing that likes a love of speed

to keep the air attached.  It still was not pretty, but I was very thankful

to be in an RV-6 that day.  My RV-10 stalls at least 15 knots faster than

the -6, but it's still respectable although, as you mentioned, it's trickier

than a C-172 and you really don't want to get too slow.  



I did a lot of research and soul-searching before committing on the -10.  I

really like the Express and the Lancair ES from a performance and sex appeal

standpoint, but from a "keep my family safe" standpoint it was easy for me

to give up the high end cruise for low speed capability.



Off the soapbox, guess this one struck a nerve for me.



Marcus

66hrs and counting



Do not archive

--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:14 am Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Builders should get psychologically ready for the prospects of the

requirement.  It was the only way Lancair builders could even get

insurance if they did not abandon their builds. With glass EFIS, speeds

above 150 knots, four soles aboard and frequent landings to exotic

non-local airports the insurance actuaries might place the requirement

for make and model proficiency on a regular basis.



Just imagine Alex and Mike trying to keep up to speed with the next six

hundred pilots just trying to get their 25 fly-off qualifications out of

the way.



Plan accordingly.  High Performance is here to stay.



John Cox

#40600

Do not Archive



--

dav1111(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Dear Link & Marcus:



Sorry but I just couldn't fail to respond to your comments:



I haven't experienced the same stall speed in my RV-10 that you must be 

having, or our 6's were way different.



My RV-10 stalls clean at 53-54 knots indicated and with full flaps at 48-49 

knots indicated.  I would have loved it if my RV-6A had stalled 15 knots 

slower than that.



I just spent some time last week with another RV-10 builder letting him get 

some stick time in my RV-10 (about 5 hours) and Bob currently flies a C-172 

in a flying club.  Hopefully Bob Kaufman, will speak to whether or not he 

thinks my RV-10 is trickery than a C-172 and whether or not you "don't want 

to get too slow.



Russ Daves

N710RV - First Flight 7/28/06



---

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:32 am Post subject: Accidents in RVs

The other year, Aviation Consumer wrote an article on the accidents rates  of experimental vs. certified aircraft indicating that experimental's were more  dangerous than certified aircraft.  

  

 So being involved in our EAA chapter, I decided to do a quick review of the  two most popular products in each area...the RV and the Cirrus.  At the  time the Cirrus had more than 40 fatalities in accidents and more than 30  accidents.  More than 40% of their accidents resulted in death in spite of  the parachute.  Several of the accidents involved a student and a CFI, or  CFIT--controlled flight into terrain.  At the time Cirrus had not yet  begun a FITS program.  Both products--Van's and Cirrus had about the  same amount of planes flying, actually the Van's had more planes on the  register.  It's sometimes hard to ferret out the total number of Van's  completed as they are often listed in the register with the builders name  followed by Vans...such as Smith Van 6 etc.  So the search is a bit more  difficult than requesting Cirrus 20 or 22.

  

 I'm shooting from memory but if I remember correctly there were only 2  fatal Van's incidents...both resulting from fuel exhaustion and into  terrain...one was in CA and the other I believe was Texas.  Now if you  begin to compare and make assumptions, such as most Cirrus pilots fly IFR/VFR  and many but not all of the Van's are generally VFR condition products or are  only lightly IFR until the later models have come on stream.  Then the  Cirrus aircraft often are flying at a time with more potential deadly situations  compared to many of the Van's flights.  And often the Cirrus accidents were  when in IFR conditions.

  

 Now the one really oddity is that the first fatal Cirrus accident was not  in a "certified" Cirrus aircraft, no the first fatal accident was in an  experimental Cirrus so the fatality counted in the total experimental  category.

  

 But that withstanding, one can compare the Cirrus accident and death  rates to the other certified aircraft and when you do; it become pretty apparent  that the death rate per accident for the Cirrus is extremely high for units and  hours flown compared to other certified aircraft, and if you over lay this with  the fleet age it down right indecent.  So what can one say about the Cirrus  and these high accident rates, is it the plane or pilots?  I don't know the  experience of the Cirrus pilots but when you read the accident information one  begins to develop a profile that many are relatively new pilots, with very few  hours either as IFR, Cirrus experience or piloting in general.   Initially the CFI's were not being trained by Cirrus on it's  equipment...something that they have instituted since the initial spate of  accidents.

  

 I'm no accident or aviation expert but I sure believe that the Cirrus's  saw-tooth wing certainly has a much more critical stall speed compared to the  Van's modified "piperish" style wing.  I have several friends that fly the  Cirrus and they say the wing will slow down considerably when it is wet or  in cloudy, wet conditions.  I'm sort of guessing that the wing is pretty  critical and the laminar boundary's flow is being reduced considerable when  moisture covers the flow characteristics as explained in Richard von Mises book,  Theory of Flight.  If one want to delve into laminar flow von  Mise's book Mathematical Theory of Compressible Fluid Flow,  is a must read but it was way above my math background.

  

 The concept of laminar flow deals with the movement of fluids and not it's  application on wing lift..it is generally considered, the flowing of liquid  through a channel of some type.  One can take this application  in liquids and apply it in aviation since the wing is really flowing  through a "liquid" medium...moist air.

  

 I'm not convenced that plastic materials add to the fatal accident rates,  yet.  Most of the current "plastic" aircraft have very unique wing designs  compared to the other spar/rib riveted certified aircraft, including Al  Mooney wing or certified wings.  But only time and experience will  play out.  I don't know if any of you have spent any time with Harry  Ribblet...he's has a lot to say in an interesting way...if I'm not mistaken he  consulted on the "Raven"...the composite Commanche from South Africa.  You  might want to read his book or chat him up one day.

  

 Anyway, as I said I'm no expert, but I sort of think that the Cirrus will  eventually calm down to a good "incident" rate when the fleet has experience and  trained CFI/I in place.  Van's being able to take a good basic  designed aircraft and flush all the rivets add's to it's speed and  handling...thanks to Howard Hughes and his team for being one of the first to  consider flush rivets to hold on our skins and decrease resistance.

  

 Always a learning curve when one changes technology a bit, the learning  curve is pretty steep and can be dangerous at times.  Please take all this  as just my opinion and not facts, your research and information may lead to a  different conclusion.

  

 I wrote a reply to AC about my research and got a waffle reply from the  publisher who agreed with me but did not want to publish my reply to their  article.

  

 Are experimentals more accident prone than certified aircraft...depends how  you split the data and how you use the data. It could go like  this...powered lawn chairs vs Cessna...Cessna wins...Van's vs. Cirrus...Van's  wins...that's my opinion, tho.

  

 Patrick  

 do not archive

  [quote][b]

coop85(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Russ,

   Actually, I have the same stall numbers you do and my RV-6 stalled in the

high 30s with full flaps.  Having said that, my comment about being more

tricky was probably too strong.  My experience is simply that the -10 seems

to bleed off energy faster than I remember in a light Cessna on final and

while the -10 is a dream to fly and very simple, if you let it get slower

than desired it might catch someone that's not expecting it.



My real point in the original message is that the Van's airplanes are far

safer than the glass ships from the standpoint that if you find yourself

engine out, you have more options thanks to the slower approach speed.  It's

just that the -10 isn't as slow as the 2 seaters, but still a whole lot

better than the other options.  Obviously this is only my opinion.



Marcus

Do not archive

--

bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Russ et al



I would have to say that the RV-10 is  an easy aircraft to fly.  It is more

responsive than most, has more than enough power to get you out of

embarrassment and the ratio from stall speed to top speed is very good.  We

never got Russ's 10 in a complete stall because my wife was in the back seat

and I am trying to make flying as easy on her as I can and stalls are not

what she is ready for.  We did do slow flight in the very low 60's with no

sink rate, not a lot of power, and was very comfortable, no burble, and very

controllable.  If my wife would not have been along we would have been a

little more radical but .......  



I own a portion of a 172, and I can get it down to mid 40s but it is way

behind the power curve and impossible to do any maneuvering at the speed.

It is kind of fun to fly that slow, reminds me of my old hang gliding days,

think I should open the window and hang my head out for the total sensation.



This airplane, the 10, is not hard to fly.  The speeds are not that much

different than the 172 in the pattern and I think that anyone with some time

is a 172 or 182 should be able to handle the plane quite well.



For what its worth, a friend of mine just bought a new 182 for $355,000 so

keep pounding those rivets if you want to go faster and farther than his 355

is taking him.  Do not archive.



Bob K

Fiberglass and catchup.  90/90

--

ivowel(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: Accidents in RVs

I don't think stall speed per se has that much to do with benign

handling and accident characteristics, although it does correlate with

what seems to matter.  what seems important to me is the effort that it

takes for the pilot to get an airplane stall, how much warning the plane

gives, and how it behaves in a stall.  for the really adventurous,

getting an airplane into a spin and spin recovery can be added to this.



like the RV-9, the RV-10 is very, very benign.  it takes a long time to

slow the plane down into a power-off stall, it is absolutely impossible

to overlook getting close to stall, the plane can dawdle along at stall

speed just fine, and stall recovery seems like less than 50' vertical

loss.  accelerated stalls are not that different in behavior.  I don't

have the chuzbe to try to spin the plane.  (Chicken!).



I learned to fly in a cherokee 160.  I think the RV-9 and RV-10 are, if

anything, more benign---and this is definitely an amazing feat.  the

reason is that in the cherokee, the panel is so high, it is not that

obvious that your nose is pointing to the sky.  with the better

visibility in the RV, it becomes all the more obvious that your nose is

pointing straight up now which is required to stall the plane.  actual

behavior of the airplane while approaching a stall and during a stall

feels similar.



Other things are of course easier in a cherokee.  the cherokee is a

flying truck.  it will keep and hit its low airspeed and altitude

better, but only because it is less "air-slippery."  that is, in an RV-9

or RV-10, a thermal can make you gain 100' in altitude in no time.  its

almost sail-plane like.  (this applied more to the RV-9 than the RV-10,

but even the RV-10 is still more aerodynamic than the piper.)  slowing

down to the target speed is not as instant, either.  this is not a

safety issue, but if you want to fly by the numbers for IFR purposes, it

requires more concentration and patience.  and then there is the ground

handling, which is not as easy for beginners---something RVs share with

Cirrus and a lot of other airplanes (especially in cross-wind landings,

where the castoring front wheel wants to not point straight).  the

piper's bigger wheels, shock absorbers, greater distance between wheels,

and nose-wheel steering would be nice to have.  I have never had a

problem with it, but I am always a little unhappy with my cross-wind

landings.  It can't do it with the same smoothness I could do it with in

the piper.



personally, I think a well-built Vans RV-9 or RV-10 is the safest

single-prop aircraft in the sky today.



regards,



/ivo



http://welch.econ.brown.edu/n325hp/

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: Accidents in RVs

This is really an interesting thread. I had hoped to follow-up the article with one on transition training; not just a "gee you need it" but a look at what habits or characteristics the non-transitioned pilot have. I then hoped to compare those with the Cirrus program to further define the differences between the transitioning RV pilot and the transitioning -- or learning -- Cirrus pilot.



Don't get me wrong. I'm not into the "Cirrus is better" or "RV is better" debate that sometimes pops up. I'm just into analyzing RVs in the context of other airplanes, and RV pilots in relation to other pilots in an informative way.



Alas, I've been unable to connect the two leading providers of transition training  on Planet RV for various reasons. If you know of anyone else who provides transition training, could you please forward this to them and ask them to contact me.



The article was meant to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end of one.



And thanks!!



Bob Collins

bcollinsrv7a (at) comcast.net

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: Accidents in RVs

Having participated in Tim's entire transition training (in the

backseat) and regularly attending the annual High Performance

Proficiency Training at the Lancair factory, they are tailored for two

entirely different objectives.



Don't get me wrong, Mike is fabulous for Transition Training.

Proficiency Training, Two day of intensive classroom ground school,

specific Make and Model accident case study review, Unusual Flight

Attitudes, Onboard Emergencies (multiple) and!High Alpha Approaches are

not in that transition syllabus.  It is a new cat.



They are both Highly valued.  Apples and Oranges.  I think you can see

the Insurance boys are about to require both.  Flight Safety has made an

industry of the later.



However the readers should not conclude anything from RV-9 or RV-10

statistics so soon after introduction.  They should be able to conclude

that VAN has enhanced the safety margins by the longer wing design.

Thanks for your great article.



John Cox

Do not Archive



--

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: Accidents in RVs

 	  AV8ORJWC wrote: 	
		  However the readers should not conclude anything from RV-9 or RV-10 statistics so soon after introduction. 	




Maybe, maybe not.  As the article notes, Richard L. Collins has done a lot of comparison of models in the number before first fatality.  He says it's not unusual to have a high number of accidente early in a model life.



If that's true -- and I assume it is -- could we not conclude that it might be unusual to have the RV-9 record so far?  (knock on wood)

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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