What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Frequent Engine Loss?

M

msaltzman14

Active Member
Hi VANs folks!

I am considering getting an RV-9 and would like some feedback on the safety front. I've been reading accident report and the frequency of engine loss in the RV-9 (not sure about others) is somewhat staggering. Of 36 accidents on the Aviation-Safety Network, something like 10 are from engine loss. Does anyone have any information on this? Is it a known issue with RVs?

Looking for any knowledge on how to make RV's as safe as they can be.
Thanks all!
 
engine

I park next to ERAU flight line. When the 172 Cessna aircraft taxi by, they have the same engine I do. Only difference is experimental and certified airframes. My engine in fact came off a 172. The other difference of course is, when I take off in my 9A, I pass by all the Cessna aircraft. and I usually wave.
 
There are a lot of RV's flying - you have to look at the total RATE of problems in relation to the number of aircraft flying.
 
There's a lot of unknowns in those figures, and a very small sample size, considering the number of RV's in the air. To get a better idea, you really need to consider ALL RV's, because with the exception of the -10 (IO-540) and -12 (Rotax), they all generally run 4 cylinder Lycoming engines, installed pretty much the same way. Then you need to remove accidents related to alternate power plants that some of the more experimental types like to run. I think you will end up with a similar percentage that the rest of the GA single engine piston fleet sees when it comes to engine failures. I would bet the number is slightly higher for experimentals due to the inexperience of some builders when it comes to powerplants, as well as some of the 'experimenting' some people do with their engines, but that issue can be mostly avoided with a thorough pre-buy by an experienced A&P, assuming you are planning on building, not buying.

Like the above post stated, most RV's have the same engines you see on every other spam can out there, they just happen to pull us along a lot faster. And usually, ours are better maintained, flown more often, and quite often much newer. My engine is out of a Piper - it's much happier in it's new life in my RV :)

Chris
 
msaltzman14 said:
Hi VANs folks!

I am considering getting an RV-9 and would like some feedback on the safety front. I've been reading accident report and the frequency of engine loss in the RV-9 (not sure about others) is somewhat staggering. Of 36 accidents on the Aviation-Safety Network, something like 10 are from engine loss. Does anyone have any information on this? Is it a known issue with RVs?

Looking for any knowledge on how to make RV's as safe as they can be.
Thanks all!
Click to expand...

I am not going to try and explain the data, but, if you are looking at a 9 with a lycoming or clone engine, get a good pre buy inspection by someone who does these. VAF is a good place to locate such a person. If it is built to Vans plans (key), and you are knowledgable of how it functions, then you should have a good experience.

Regarding the data, you might break down the events by hours of flight time, and the basic reason for the engine stoppage. Typical published experimental accident data (needs verification relative to your dataset) indicates it is more probable for engine stoppage to be due to a fuel system issue, and occur relatively close to first flight. 0 to 100 hrs. After that, reliability is stable, and that is what you might want to use as a comparison.

Welcome to the world of RV's.
 
No intention of causing a thread drift but, if you look at each individual case involving the -9, you'll likely find some of those were with a different drive train other than the typical Lycoming or continental. There are so many other parables as well. Fuel, maintanence, and the all too familiar pilot error.
 
Spam Can

Sorry.....but your question troubles me. I think certified spam cans are the choice for you. Well, at least until you spend a lot more time here learning a lot more about RV's and what you would be buying.
 
When you think about it, the primary reason for any airplane to come to earth in an unplanned situation is because the fan quits turning. Its usually not airframe failure, but usually engine failure.
 
Fuel system?

One would have to dig deeper than just "engine failure". If I'm not mistaken, a high percentage of engine failures are caused by fuel starvation. On experimental aircraft, the engines might be the same as on a Cessna or Piper, but the fuel systems are totally unique.
 
msaltzman14 said:
Hi VANs folks!

I am considering getting an RV-9 and would like some feedback on the safety front. I've been reading accident report and the frequency of engine loss in the RV-9 (not sure about others) is somewhat staggering. Of 36 accidents on the Aviation-Safety Network, something like 10 are from engine loss. Does anyone have any information on this? Is it a known issue with RVs?

Looking for any knowledge on how to make RV's as safe as they can be.
Thanks all!
Click to expand...

Mark,

Flying experimental aircraft is not for everyone. I advise you to really dig in and do some real research collecting data that will enable you to make an informed decision.

Fortunately the administrator of this great site has painstakingly provided a comprehensive "RV Accident Probable Cause Listings". Here's the link: http://www.vansairforce.net/AccidentsAndSynopsis.htm

If you take the time to read each of the relevant NTSB accident reports you will be more informed and can make a decision more suitable to our individual risk tolerance.

I looked at one published NTSB accident report pertaining to an RV-9.

Phase of flight, take-off.
Probable cause of accident, vapor lock.
Possible contributing factors, use of auto fuel with an OAT of 80* F.

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
CEN14LA526. PC issued: 06/01/2015. Hobart, OK. RV-9A Non-Fatal

Here is an example of an RV-9 Non-Fatal accident report from our site host, DR.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=129755

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
•"A loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion, which resulted from the pilot's erroneous preflight fuel calculations and inadequate in-flight fuel management."
 
Last edited:
Without seeing your list (feel free to email it to me at bill (at) Repucci (dot) com), it is difficult to guess as to why the -9 would have more engine stoppages than an RV-7 or even a 172.

You have to discard anything with a auto engine conversion. Their track record is just not that good.

Next you have to find out if the builder did something unusual with the fuel system. For example, installed a Left-Right-Both fuel valve. Low wing aircraft should never have a "Both" position.

Installation issues can be all over the place. A year or two back I started a thread asking people to identify the problems with an engine on the front of a -7. The symptoms were that every time the pilot would turn off the electric boost pump in flight, the engine would stop. The new owner didn't think this was "right" and contacted me for help. There were so many things wrong with the installation, the new owner hired someone to fix it. It took close to 80 hours of labor to get it "right". The good news was, it was fixable.

The other thing is that a lot of these planes are built or bought by low time pilots, many of them have never flown planes where you have to manage the fuel tanks. Some of the accidents may be caused by that.

Just like when buying a store bought plane, have a complete pre-buy inspection performed by someone who knows RV's. They can save you a LOT of trouble and money!

Other than that, the RV-9, if built according to the plans, is a great flying and reliable plane.
 
In Short Terms........

Two critical things to check when looking at these failures is 1) Non-standard engine installations and 2) Modified fuel systems.

Remove these 2 factors and your fail rate will be drastically reduced.
 
Mike,
Welcome to VAF!!!! Somehow you found us and we are happy to have you! Your first post reads a little like a new pilot, but your profile indicates differently. Just a little more research and you'll be fully up to speed in that the fundamental design of any RV is clearly superior to a comparable "spam can" (there is no comparison).

I have recent proof that an RV9 doesn't just fall out of the sky (a tiny bit of research here). Come join us at Oshkosh and I will present you one Danny King with a shoe in his mouth :).

I know Danny is IN. Are you?
 
number 1 cause of engine failure is fuel starvation. number 2 is carb ice. Then there are installation issues with the fuel system i.e. tank venting, problems, fuel selector problems, not doing a fuel flow test to check things etc etc. The first 2 have nothing to do with homebuilt/certified. The other 2 do. There is a lot you can do to reduce your risk - don't change the fuel system design from VANS recommendation unless you are qualified to do so, do good work on your tubing flares, keep things clean, do a fuel flow test.

You will only go when your card comes to the top of the deck. But you can do a @#$% of a lot of shuffling to get it there :D

And if your engine quits, fly the plane. If you do there is a better chance of a good outcome. In the 1930s, an engine failure was a monthly occurrence and no big deal. Now people are terrified of it. Of course in the 30s most of North America was open land...

And finally, did you know there are lots of certified airplanes flying without fire sleeve on fuel lines? Or shoulder harnesses? And I bet there are still some with glass gascolators. So certified doesn't mean better.
 
sblack said:
There is a lot you can do to reduce your risk - don't change the fuel system design from VANS recommendation unless you are qualified to do so, do good work on your tubing flares, keep things clean, do a fuel flow test.
Click to expand...

To the OP - this is one of the better points you will need to pay attention to. Unless you absolutely know what you're doing, and are willing to take the risk upon yourself if you are wrong, DO NOT change the fuel system from VANS recommended configuration. I would also say to not ever consider buying an aircraft with a non-standard fuel system unless those same two points are covered.

My airplane has a non-standard fuel system that makes perfectly good sense to me and works great, and makes other people cringe in fear. What's good for one is not necessarily good for others. Define your personal comfort level, and stick to it.
 
Last edited:
Great feedback all-

To those noticing my lack of experience with non-certified airplanes- that's certainly right. The issues with the data are just like you all have mentioned- people deviating from standard powerplants, deviating from standard operation/maintenance, pilot error/fuel starvation etc. I was trying to triangulate what was striking from a data perspective with some anecdotal experience from real pilots.

Certainly agree that a lycoming in a piper or a lycoming in an RV, assuming the same maintenance, pilot experience and 'by-the-book' installation should yield the same reliability.

Thank you for all who supplied their perspectives-
 
For all those curious, I just did some light analysis on all RV-9 variant incidents reported on the NTSB site.

Of 32 reported incidents (5 of which were fatal), engine loss was a contributor in 13.

Of those 13, you guys pretty much nailed it with the attribution:
5 Fuel Starvation
6 Nonstandard Installations/ Outright maintenance neglect
2 Carb ice


As many of you said, if you remove the nonstandard installations (which certificated airplanes wouldn't have), you get numbers that are pretty close to the standard for GA, perhaps a bit higher but not much. With this sample size, the difference is not significant.
 
RV-9 Loss of Power

msaltzman14 said:
Hi VANs folks!

I am considering getting an RV-9 and would like some feedback on the safety front. I've been reading accident report and the frequency of engine loss in the RV-9 (not sure about others) is somewhat staggering. Of 36 accidents on the Aviation-Safety Network, something like 10 are from engine loss. Does anyone have any information on this? Is it a known issue with RVs?

Looking for any knowledge on how to make RV's as safe as they can be.
Thanks all!
Click to expand...

One reason I initially went with the 9A was it's fabulous C-150ish low end airspeed capability. Since I'm installing a Mazda 13B (RX-7) engine, going slow if there was a power loss (for any reason) would greatly increase the chance of survival...as long as one continues to fly the A/C down to the flare!

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B/FWF
 
dlomheim said:
One reason I initially went with the 9A was it's fabulous C-150ish low end airspeed capability. Since I'm installing a Mazda 13B (RX-7) engine, going slow if there was a power loss (for any reason) would greatly increase the chance of survival...as long as one continues to fly the A/C down to the flare!

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B/FWF
Click to expand...

Me too. Lower kinetic energy in an off-airport landing is a very good thing!!
 
Ok so I'm pretty new to experimentals and correct me if I'm wrong but can't an experimental be built with red tag engine parts? Mine is all yellow tags but I feel like I remember that you could use red tag parts too?

Could that red tag part inclusion be a reason for difference?
 
Turbo69bird said:
Ok so I'm pretty new to experimentals and correct me if I'm wrong but can't an experimental be built with red tag engine parts? Mine is all yellow tags but I feel like I remember that you could use red tag parts too?

Could that red tag part inclusion be a reason for difference?
Click to expand...

True, but not many people do that. After all, they are going to ride behind that engine.

I would guess that most experimentals built in the last 10 to 15 years are flying behind new engines or engines overhauled by a reputable shop.
 
I'm finding that the quality of experimental builds generally exceeds by a large margin the maintenance levels of most the aging general aviation fleet. The thoughtfulness and care in building and maintaining, even for new builders, is just amazing to me.

$500K for a new Piper or Cessna.
$100-175K for a comparable new experimental RV10/9/14.

The new Mooney, which is beautiful, is $750K. While I'm impressed by the airplane I don't see $750K in there anywhere.

So the certificated manufacturers have priced themselves out of the new market for the vast majority of us.

What I think we're seeing is a trend towards experimental becoming the new GA fleet.
 
Last edited:
bkervaski said:
I'm finding that the quality of experimental builds generally exceeds by a large margin the maintenance levels of most the aging general aviation fleet. The thoughtfulness and care in building and maintaining, even for new builders, is just amazing to me.

$500K for a new Piper or Cessna.
$100-175K for a comparable new experimental RV10/9/14.

The new Mooney, which is beautiful, is $750K. While I'm impressed by the airplane I don't see $750K in there anywhere.

So the certificated manufacturers have priced themselves out of the new market for the vast majority of us.

What I think we're seeing is a trend towards experimental becoming the new GA fleet.
Click to expand...

Can't agree more. New certified are out of 99.99% of population's reach, so option is to buy older or experimental or don't fly. We are seeing all the above being done.

I would be curious to know the cost breakdown of say a new plane.

25% manufacturing cost????
20% material????
55% Liability????
 
ty1295 said:
I would be curious to know the cost breakdown of say a new plane.

25% manufacturing cost????
20% material????
55% Liability????
Click to expand...

A little bit of "back of a napkin" math can give us some insight into the cost drivers behind certificated aircraft.

Let's consider a build time of 2,000 to 2,500 person hours. This is not unrealistic; others posting here have posted significantly higher and significantly lower numbers. Multiply the person hours by the hourly loaded rate of a Cessna factory worker. Let's assume a VERY conservative estimate of $100/hour. It doesn't take long before we chew through a quarter of a million bucks in raw labor cost. Add in some of the other "invisible" costs like the cost of product warranty and we can easily see $300K of cost to build a typical riveted aluminum airplane. That's before paying for a single purchased part like nuts, bolts and engines, let alone buying liability insurance.

In the homebuilt world, labor is a zero cost item - that eliminates the elephant in the room when it comes to the cost of building an airplane.

Notwithstanding the cost differences, I'm building an airplane because there isn't a certificated aircraft that offers the same performance and functionality.
 
Canadian_JOY has a good point .. I think I'll go apply for a job at Mooney, those guys are making like $300/hour.
 
bkervaski said:
Canadian_JOY has a good point .. I think I'll go apply for a job at Mooney, those guys are making like $300/hour.
Click to expand...

:D:eek::D Yeah, my earlier comment might have sounded like airplane factory workers make a small fortune in wages. The reality is that they make a working wage, but when we roll up the cost of their wages, benefits, vacation and sick days, pension plan costs etc, the resulting "loaded" rate is often greater than their hourly wage by a factor of as much as 3X to 6X.

As a working stiff I really wish I could be paid my "billable rate". I wouldn't be working 60 hour weeks any longer! :rolleyes:
 
Canadian_JOY said:
.....

Let's consider a build time of 2,000 to 2,500 person hours. This is not unrealistic; others posting here have posted significantly higher and significantly lower numbers.

.....
Click to expand...

Not so sure about those numbers.

Just consider how much your building time per plane would be reduced if you built 10 RV's at once. :)

Even the guys here on VAF who have built a second RV say how much quicker it goes for the same quality output.
 
There are a couple of problems with manufacturing airplanes today.

First, Lycoming only builds something like 3,000 to 3,500 engines a year. This means they are each "custom" builds. "Custom" building anything is VERY expensive and is one reason the engines and plans cost so much.

Second, if someone were to mass produce an RV, say the RV-9A or RV-10*, there would be significant production efficiencies involved. In a manufacturing environment, you could probably get the production time down to 1,000 hours, or less for each model. (Think standard wiring harness, interior, panel & instruments, paint schemes, etc.)

Add in profit for the "Share Holders", fixed costs (Building rent, tooling, taxes, etc), overhead (accountants, purchasing, sales, HR, etc.), liability insurance, set asides for R&D, etc.

The elephant in the room, or on the runway, is the cost of certification. Say, it takes $25,000,000 to certify an airplane to Part 23 standards (the closest number I could find) and you plan on building 100 planes a year for five years, that adds $50,000 to the cost of each plane.

Say you could produce each aircraft for $100 to $120K, double that for the overhead, add in $50K certification costs, another $50K liability (SWAG), and you have a real guess of $300,000 to $340,000 for the cost of a factory built RV-9A.

* I picked the -9A and -10 because in my mind, they are the most likely of the family to go into production as a Part 23 aircraft.
 
Last edited:
IO-320 in an RV9(Vans never built this config so no specific documentation), lots of builder improvisation required with the fuel routing, this impacts safety. I have never seen two planes the same. The IO320 vans sells and the FWF kit are just not a good match. The throttle body mixture control needs to be rotated to make the installation easier along with a different mixture mixture bracket, you could then avoid the whole FAB and cowl mods, I was so disappointed to get to this point and then seeing how many hours more it was going to take. Still working on the best possible spot for the Red Cube and fuel line routing, endless hours reading here, I thank everyone who posts. Simple mistakes and oversights here could be catastrophic. How often does someone post an images here of their FWF and people respond to them of how wrong it is, to often.

RVs could be much faster to build, but they cost maybe 5K more for the kit such as: Vans really does not do any machining so you have to fab all those little brackets yourself from raw stock, I would be happy to pay more for this. The results would also be better than me with handtools and drill press. It not hard to read the forums here and see where huge time saving in the build could come from, tip up canopy anyone, just huge time sinks. In terms of safety the subject of this thread I think you would end up with a safer airplane.

I took the quick build class from Synergy, Wally was really focused on how to save time on a build. They had the labor to build a RV12 down to 250 hours. He also said one of the big problems Vans is they assume your time is free. For some people it is, however for a lot of people 2000 hours just shuts them out from ever building a plane.

What the industry needs is a 250-500 hour kit, I think you could build an RV9 quick build in less than 500 hours if you made it more manufacturable. This would also cut down on build errors. It would be interesting to know how many hour people are taking to complete a first time build on a 14. As an engineer a huge amount of my time goes not so much to dreaming up to ideas but insuring that people can actually build those ideas for lowest cost/time.
 
ssturges said:
IO-320 in an RV9(Vans never built this config so no specific documentation), lots of builder improvisation required with the fuel routing, this impacts safety. I have never seen two planes the same. The IO320 vans sells and the FWF kit are just not a good match. The throttle body mixture control needs to be rotated to make the installation easier along with a different mixture mixture bracket, you could then avoid the whole FAB and cowl mods, I was so disappointed to get to this point and then seeing how many hours more it was going to take. Still working on the best possible spot for the Red Cube and fuel line routing, endless hours reading here, I thank everyone who posts. Simple mistakes and oversights here could be catastrophic. How often does someone post an images here of their FWF and people respond to them of how wrong it is, to often.

RVs could be much faster to build, but they cost maybe 5K more for the kit such as: Vans really does not do any machining so you have to fab all those little brackets yourself from raw stock, I would be happy to pay more for this. The results would also be better than me with handtools and drill press. It not hard to read the forums here and see where huge time saving in the build could come from, tip up canopy anyone, just huge time sinks. In terms of safety the subject of this thread I think you would end up with a safer airplane.

I took the quick build class from Synergy, Wally was really focused on how to save time on a build. They had the labor to build a RV12 down to 250 hours. He also said one of the big problems Vans is they assume your time is free. For some people it is, however for a lot of people 2000 hours just shuts them out from ever building a plane.

What the industry needs is a 250-500 hour kit, I think you could build an RV9 quick build in less than 500 hours if you made it more manufacturable. This would also cut down on build errors. It would be interesting to know how many hour people are taking to complete a first time build on a 14. As an engineer a huge amount of my time goes not so much to dreaming up to ideas but insuring that people can actually build those ideas for lowest cost/time.
Click to expand...

Then there is that pesky 51% rule........
 
ssturges said:
IO-320 in an RV9(Vans never built this config so no specific documentation), lots of builder improvisation required with the fuel routing, this impacts safety. I have never seen two planes the same. The IO320 vans sells and the FWF kit are just not a good match. The throttle body mixture control needs to be rotated to make the installation easier along with a different mixture mixture bracket, you could then avoid the whole FAB and cowl mods, I was so disappointed to get to this point and then seeing how many hours more it was going to take. Still working on the best possible spot for the Red Cube and fuel line routing, endless hours reading here, I thank everyone who posts. Simple mistakes and oversights here could be catastrophic. How often does someone post an images here of their FWF and people respond to them of how wrong it is, to often.

RVs could be much faster to build, but they cost maybe 5K more for the kit such as: Vans really does not do any machining so you have to fab all those little brackets yourself from raw stock, I would be happy to pay more for this. The results would also be better than me with handtools and drill press. It not hard to read the forums here and see where huge time saving in the build could come from, tip up canopy anyone, just huge time sinks. In terms of safety the subject of this thread I think you would end up with a safer airplane.
Click to expand...

I think you are referring to the RV-14 ;) Pretty much all of that fabrication work is done for you, the canopy fits right out of the box, avionics are plug and play, and the supported engine bolts right up and plugs in. So the option exists, you just have to pay for it. Of course this doesn't help if you started your build before the 14 came out - but the point is people like you spoke, and Van's listened.

As you stated yourself, you used a non-standard engine installation, so it is not surprising you had to do some fabrication and tweaking. My O-320 went in exactly per plans with their FWF kit.

Depending on your time, budget, skills, and inclination to build, there are options out there for just about everybody, from a scratch built to an essentially-factory-built Lancair Evo. For a lot of us though, the RV's hit the sweet spot.

Hang in there, it's worth it...

Chris
 
Take pity on us early Lancair builders. We had zero instructions from the factory on the firewall forward and were totally on our own to figure it all out. Each LNC2 fuel system is totally unique, which may have contributed to the high accident rate early on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top