V8 powered Lancair fatality

breister said:

<snip>As I was writing it, it occurred to me that we have much better simulators today than existed in my "glory days." Maybe it would be a good idea to have required simulator practice of engine failure on takeoff / landing so that people can practice SAFE "crash landings?" Microsoft Flight Simulator with a Force Feedback joystick should be sufficient, and it simulates most aircraft types. <snip>

Click to expand...

I currently get put in the sim every year for my .mil job... we practice just that though our sims are not visual, they do have motion and full insturmentation.

When i was flying P-3's we'd do exactly what you are saying for ditching (over water forced landing) practice in our visual sims...

Back to the OP for a bit

I knew Doug (the pilot of the Lancair). He was a neighbor and friend.

He had quite a time getting that Chevy engine reliable. I know he went through a number of engines. Some only lasted a few hours (like single digits). He also experienced a number of in flight engine failures/faults. Some of which were the result of massive internal engine damage. I believe the engine prior to this one had the piston ring end gap set too small, resulting in seizure. The one prior to that had (what I believe to be) detonation issues resulting in failed pistons.

Last time we spoke, he had nearly 100 hours on this particular engine. Prior to that, I did my best to persuade him to install a certified engine.

I have no idea what actually happened. I strongly suspect it was another engine failure. He obviously did not make it very far from the airport. I don't have any input on whether it was mis-fueled or not.

GMC George>>

WHO IN THE HECK SAID DEATH TRAP? I NEVER SAID THAT! However they (all composite) planes just are not as "friendly" in a crash, period, especially ones with higher stall speeds.

Click to expand...

I was quoting and responding to Joel in post # 47 not you. He clearly thinks (based on anecdotal evidence) that composites are a death trap.

As a mechanical engineer and scientist I pay attention to theory but as noted from my post about the accident I clearly survived a crash in a composite where the gear, engine, and cowl ABSORBED the impact. The structure of the aircraft did not shatter. The fact I lived to talk about it and the photos in the aforementioned post are not theory they are proof. My radial has similiar performance, wing area, and stal speeds to the Lancair. IN my opinion it was far frendlier in the crash than my F1 would have been.

After 4 years and 500 hrs in my metal F1 I am certain that hitting the same way I did in my composite there would not have been enough ABSORPTION to prevent my early demise.

In any event my response re: death trap was not to you so if you have a need to get your panties in a wad please do so directing your bombast at the proper person.

All the best

N395V said:

GMC George>>


I was quoting and responding to Joel in post # 47 not you. He clearly thinks (based on anecdotal evidence) that composites are a death trap.

As a mechanical engineer and scientist I pay attention to theory but as noted from my post about the accident I clearly survived a crash in a composite where the gear, engine, and cowl ABSORBED the impact. The structure of the aircraft did not shatter. The fact I lived to talk about it and the photos in the aforementioned post are not theory they are proof. My radial has similiar performance, wing area, and stal speeds to the Lancair. IN my opinion it was far frendlier in the crash than my F1 would have been.

After 4 years and 500 hrs in my metal F1 I am certain that hitting the same way I did in my composite there would not have been enough ABSORPTION to prevent my early demise.

In any event my response re: death trap was not to you so if you have a need to get your panties in a wad please do so directing your bombast at the proper person.

Click to expand...

So you are saying RV's and F1 Rockets are death traps? Milt I am sorry you are offended and have resorted to name calling. I am just defending my point of view with facts. If you disagree fine, but if you actually read what I wrote, I agreed with you. All the best. Glad you are OK. George

DEATH TRAPS ??

"I was quoting and responding to Joel in post # 47 not you. He clearly thinks (based on anecdotal evidence) that composites are a death trap."

Milt, do you have any factual evidence that sustains your assertion that I clearly think composites are death traps? I don't remember anything in my post that could be reasonably construed to infer such a thing. For the record, I don't think that, nor intended to infer that.

What I see here are a few people flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, and asserting thoughts or motives unsupported by factual evidence, to others . Personally, I don't think such behavior adds anything to the discussion, and would better be avoided. Your mileage may vary.

Now as for your accident, I am glad that you and your wife were so fortunate. Furthermore, may you be so fortunate if such ever happens again, which I, and I'm sure you, hope never does.

May we all live and fly in peace always.

Joe

Engine Mods

cujet said:

I knew Doug (the pilot of the Lancair). He was a neighbor and friend.

He had quite a time getting that Chevy engine reliable. I know he went through a number of engines. Some only lasted a few hours (like single digits). He also experienced a number of in flight engine failures/faults. Some of which were the result of massive internal engine damage. I believe the engine prior to this one had the piston ring end gap set too small, resulting in seizure. The one prior to that had (what I believe to be) detonation issues resulting in failed pistons.

Last time we spoke, he had nearly 100 hours on this particular engine. Prior to that, I did my best to persuade him to install a certified engine.

I have no idea what actually happened. I strongly suspect it was another engine failure. He obviously did not make it very far from the airport. I don't have any input on whether it was mis-fueled or not.

Click to expand...

Thanks for some insights here which actually have something to do with alternative engines.

I'll post a few thoughts about specific mods done to auto engines for racing and aviation use:

Pistons: Cast pistons don't belong in turbocharged engines generally speaking. In most designs, these will not last even 100 hours before failure. Forged pistons are far superior in these applications. Ring and skirt clearances must be opened up a bit over the minimum factory specs. Cast pistons might last ok in some atmo (naturally aspirated) designs but don't bet on it. The OEMs often program their ECUs to go sick rich (10-10.5 AFR) after 30-60 seconds of WOT/ high rpm to keep the cast pistons alive.

Bearings: Most bearings are fine but again, don't run minimum specs here for clearances. Increased clearances will result in higher oil flow over the shells and reduce temperatures.

Valves: Turbos usually increase EGTs. Use the best exhaust valves available and increase seat width to transfer heat off the valve faster.

Cams: More alternative engines have failed from ill-advised camshaft changes than from any other internal mod. Most people have no idea about consequent changes in valvetrain geometry, loading, clearances and especially valve spring harmonics and fatigue life. This has bit many and killed a few more. The OEMs do a ton of engineering and testing on the valvetrain. Unless you have the same capabilities- DON'T.

Crank Balancers/ Absorbers: Don't remove the factory engineered piece and install a lightweight solid part. You are asking for an eventual crankshaft failure.

Turbochargers: Don't throw any old unit on there without consulting someone knowledgeable in aviation matching. Chances are the automotive racing expert is not the guy to do this. I've seen some completely stupid and dangerous turbos installed on aircraft and most have failed quickly. There is plenty of science available here. Use it. Yes, you need a wastegate and an intercooler for any serious performance and longevity. The exhaust system needs to be built right too out of heavy wall 321 on Inconel. Your life depends on it.

EFI: System programming needs to be done by knowledgeable people and you need to flog it a lot on the ground before taking off.

RPM limits: If you want reliability, piston speed should ideally be kept under 2500 ft/min.

Historically, turbocharged and supercharged V8s have not had long lives in aircraft unless the engines were properly modified. Taking a crate engine and adding forced induction will almost certainly lead to tears.

My advice is not to play with this stuff unless you are VERY savvy in this field. Don't be under any illusions about your firewall forward creation- this is the real experimental part and it is completely unproven and will remain so for at least a couple of hundred hours. You need to check everything often and never go flying unless everything is 100%. Think about every mod you do and every part you build.

SUKHOI AND STEEL TUBE STRUCTURES

I agree with the statement on the strength of the steel tube structure in the Sukhoi. In two cases that I know of Sukhoi pilots have walked away from very nasty crashes. To correct some misconceptions, the SU29 wing spar was tested to 23 G's. The limit load factor is 50 % of this or 11.5 G's. In the SU29 the limit load factor is further reduced according to gross weight. With two pilots, chutes and fuselage fuel only, the limit is in the 8-9 G range.
The only carbon fiber in the Sukhoi is in the spars. The removeable fuselage panels are a kevlar type honeycomb sandwich. The welded tube truss on the Sukhoi is stainless tubing, TIG welded.
Two other features that MAY make a Sukhoi crash more surviveable are the reclined seats and the well aft seating position. (rear seat only in the 2 place)
Regarding the Super Cub, I have never considered these very crashworthy for two reasons. First is the forward seat with ones feet near the firewall. Second is that most, if not all, used mostly mild steel tubing.

cujet said:

I knew Doug (the pilot of the Lancair). He was a neighbor and friend.

He had quite a time getting that Chevy engine reliable. I know he went through a number of engines. Some only lasted a few hours (like single digits). He also experienced a number of in flight engine failures/faults. Some of which were the result of massive internal engine damage. I believe the engine prior to this one had the piston ring end gap set too small, resulting in seizure. The one prior to that had (what I believe to be) detonation issues resulting in failed pistons.

Last time we spoke, he had nearly 100 hours on this particular engine. Prior to that, I did my best to persuade him to install a certified engine.

I have no idea what actually happened. I strongly suspect it was another engine failure. He obviously did not make it very far from the airport. I don't have any input on whether it was mis-fueled or not.

Click to expand...

Did anybody see this post????????? It's the only real on-topic info in this thread, and nobody even comments. What up???

Yukon said:

Did anybody see this post????????? It's the only real on-topic info in this thread, and nobody even comments. What up???

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read Ross's post!

I will comment also. Getting the EFI system, turbo or supercharger and the PSRU to work reliably is a very difficult thing to do. I have a crate engine with no internal modifications . The EFI system was designed and built by Tracy Crooks. Tracy has many years of EFI control experience. The supercharger and PSRU have been built by Jason Day(Vesta). I am still trying to get the engine fine tuned. Could it fly today? Yes. Would I fly it today? No. The modified PSRU has been working well and has shown no problems in four hours of running. Not a very significant time. I have never tried the supercharger. I will not try it for at least another 30 hours of engine running. If you can't get the firing/fueling sequence working you will not have a chance of keeping the engine in one piece. I have not had any problems in about 6-8 hours of engine running. I keep the oil temps and RPM's low(nowhere near red line). The engine is running great though. An auto engine is very very experimental! You don't have to know much about engines unless you don't have many smart friends. But I have found many people know a lot about car engines but once you put in an airplane and add a computer controlled device to it they become disoriented. I have had to ask for their advice and then convert it to what I the ability to control on the engine. You will learn a lot or you will have many engine failures. I have been lucky so far. But I ask everybody I run into about their knowledge of engines and have had the luck of doing the final assembly in a warehouse full of engine knowledge. Our first "flight" tests will only climb a few hundred feet and then back down on the runway. Baby steps all the way! I plan on it being a controlled experiment and not a suicide leap.

Did anybody see this post????????? It's the only real on-topic info in this thread, and nobody even comments. What up??

Click to expand...

You bet I read it!! Some of the best insight on the topic of alt engines right here...

thanks Ross for your comments above. You're a real asset to all of us!

Top_prop said:

I currently get put in the sim every year for my .mil job... we practice just that though our sims are not visual, they do have motion and full insturmentation.

When i was flying P-3's we'd do exactly what you are saying for ditching (over water forced landing) practice in our visual sims...

Click to expand...

Awesome - you'll be a survivor if it ever happens!

You should get the rest of the squdron to pitch in and get a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and pay a little to get some geek to hook it up to your no-visual simulator. Crike, even the Phantom sim had 3 screen visuals!

BTW, thanks for your continuing service.

Test Cell

So glad you are watching this discussion Todd. I know you've got to be loosing sleep with your plane getting so close. No, I didn't catch that Ross's excellent post was in response to his, I guess because I was distracted by all the sniping.

Please consider the following, and I welcome Ross's input on it's validity. If you have checked for oil and coolant leaks, much additional ground running is not going to materially contribute to your flight test program. If you have doubts or concerns about your power package's integrity, please consider a test cell for high power proving runs. Extended or frequent ground runs in the airplane do little towards verifying the integrity of the system for flight.
Aside from bolstering your confidence, only hours spent at takeoff and METO
power will confirm the suitability of your engine/gearbox/prop combination.

Please be safe.

I did

Yukon said:

Did anybody see this post????????? It's the only real on-topic info in this thread, and nobody even comments. What up???

Click to expand...

Hi John,

I saw it but hesitated to comment. Over the past 5 or 6 years I've been involved in this great RV society, the one consistency is the loyalty of the alternate engine crowd to their decisions. Despite overwhelming evidence of the lack of success of ALL alternative engine choices, those that have made this decision stand by it. Because of this loyalty, when problems do occur the facts are often filtered or hidden.

The alternative engine deal is an "Abelien Paradox." This is simply a condition where everybody knows there is a problem but is afraid to admit it. For whatever reason, loyalties, pride etc....

I have several friends/acquaintances that are/were committed to the Subaru engine. (no brand mentioned). Of those, 2 pretty much gave up on their projects because of the frustration of the installation. Another finally got his but will not use it and switched to an ECI. Another crashed just over his 40th hour, flipped and barely escaped death. Two are getting no where near the promised performance and have significant difficulties climbing in warm weather, let alone hot weather. One of the more prominent alternative engine guys has had 3 emergencies and one off field that quietly got kept from general knowledge. Two others have flipped over and another had a successful airport landing after a failure. Everyone I know that has went this route has had a problem.

I'm not making this stuff up. Everyone I know that has had an alternative engine has had an issue. I'm not anti alternative engine, I was there and was going to put one on my plane. After 3 years of ****, I finally got it and was able to sell it. Then I asked myself, "what am I doing?" My point there is, there is only a handful of people capable of working through the myriad of potential issues with alternative engines. They are not for the everyday flier.

Most of us are thinking, "it isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when." Last year at Oshkosh I was looking at the 10 with a Subaru engine. I overheard a couple of guys talking about the plane. One was saying that it only first flew a couple of weeks ago and they have had nothing but problems with it. My first thought was, "how'd they get the 40 flown off?" That is hard to do when everything is working right. I commented to a friend that this would likely be the first 10 to go down. Sadly, this came true.

I always ask potential alternative engine owners the question, "are you comfortable flying a member of your family behind this engine knowing what you know about the history and performance of these engines?"

Finally, "if is predictable, it is preventable." Please, if you are considering an alternative engine, do some soul searching, remove the emotional attachment and make an informed decision based on real information and numbers and do the right thing. I'm really tired of reading of these events.

The alternate engine church will quickly reply with, "but, but, there have been lots of failures of Lyco and clones." Fact of the matter the percentage of failures are far higher with the alternative engines, per capita than traditional engines.

There, I feel better now. Lets all be safe out there.

Decisions, Risks

Darwin, we are familiar with your experiences with an unscrupulous vendor and that is a sad tale repeated by many unfortunately. You made a really good decision to stop where you did. I'm helping two other fellows using packages from the same vendor and they have had the same problems: EFI systems would not run the engine, wiring issues, totally mismatched turbocharger, cooling systems which did not work and a failed PSRU after only a few dozen hours, plus no vendor assistance. We are getting these issues solved and the engine is performing really well now, just awaiting a Marcotte PSRU to be fitted now. They are both out a lot of money.

I agree, lots of vendors and owners want to suppress problems and bad experiences, being unwilling to admit mistakes or shortcomings. This is counterproductive IMO. There is plenty of snake oil still being sold by some unfortunately but less than say 5 years ago. Buyers are getting a little smarter but please don't buy any sales pitches without checking things out yourself. There is plenty of poor engineering still out there on the market. I'll size up someone who asks about alternative engines and usually suggest they go with a Lycoming in an RV.

ALL alternative engines have not had problems. I'd be the first to agree that alternative engines are not for everyone but there are lots of success stories out there too. You tend to hear more bad stuff than good in this field. Jess Meyers has flown a lot of hours with GM engines, Charlie Walker has around 1000 hours on his 2.5 EGG doing volunteer cancer patient flights over water (hundreds of them). Don Parnham has thousands and thousands of hours on Subarus and belt PSRUs doing gyro flight training. 3000 hour TBOs are not uncommon in his experience. I could relate many, many more.

Cooling is/was a vexing problem for many but there is enough good information available now to make this work well. Continued flying with a cooling problem is asking for it. I see plenty of poor decision making when things don't work right. On the other side of the coin, we see lay people making stupid changes to good vendor designs (many electrical). This has caused two of the crashes you mention above. You can't blame that on the engine or the vendor but both have fingers pointed at them when something happens.

These are electrically dependent engines and most power loss incidents are electrically related- bad wiring practices, stupid or complicated backup systems. The choices are often confusing to the builder. the KISS principle applies well here. Same goes for fuel systems- a fairly high percentage of power loss incidents are related to system design. Both of these are totally preventable with good layout and practices.

I will touch on the Lancair accidents mostly with certified type engines and MANY turbine engines (Walter and Garrett). I sifted through 5 years of them last night and there are a staggering number of power loss incidents, most it would seem from fuel system problems. These are not issues with the engines themselves for the most part but system design issues often using non-standardized layouts. This is an important issue- use flight proven layouts. This is why the Lycoming/RV setups have a good record- same fuel pumps in similar locations with a backup boost pump= few problems. My point here is that a bad support system design will shut down a cert engine just as surely as a Subaru or Chevy.

You bring up the "family member" thing in these threads often. Do you fly IFR or night VFR? Do you fly over heavily wooded or mountainous terrain single engine? If you answer yes, you are putting yourself and family members in more jeopardy than I do not doing this. Another RV pilot killed recently in the mountains with no options for a safe landing, irregardless of the cause. Anyone who continues with thinking that because they have a Lycoming, a power loss incident will never happen to them is deluding themselves as the stats show. Almost every one of these has led to fatalities over the rocks. One real power loss incident away from an airport WILL change your safety outlook.

Is it wise to be taking any passengers up in an experimental aircraft with an experimental engine in the first 50 hours? Well, it is always a calculated risk. Anything mechanical can fail and that could bring you down on that flight. If it happens at the wrong time, you may well be killed. Most of us take that risk rather than sitting in our living rooms but should we subject passengers to these potential risks without letting them have more information? Do you tell passengers what will happen if the engine stops over the rocks or at night or IFR or over woods or water. Do you let them make their own decision then whether to go? I doubt if many do. We complacently drone along and enjoy the flight experience in most cases. 99.9% of the time, nothing happens.

The one poster on this thread had second thoughts about a ride in a new Lancair- good idea. Wait until the pilot has a couple hundred hours on it, has the bugs out and some experience on type. You can wait.

So we build and fly because we love it. Some of us fly behind different engines for the same reasons. I take a statistically higher risk flying behind an alternative engine and many here do the same thing flying IFR or night VFR or over poor terrain or maybe doing aerobatics or buzz jobs with a Lycoming. I simply say know what you are getting into and let your passengers know the same before you take them up. Many non-pilots have no idea what the risks are and I could relate a very sad incident where a forced landing caused a fire and the wife was badly burned and unable to save her pilot husband who burned to death. This stuff does happen.

I'd add a final thought on flight testing. Wear Nomex, a helmet, use a checklist and do it out of a long runway without a lot of obstacles. This will give you a few more outs if something happens.

John's suggestion to ground run the engine at high power on a test stand or the aircraft is a good one. If it does not last there, it isn't going to do any better in the air.

Be careful and make safe decisions.

Nuff said

breister said:

What you said - And, like I said that is silly. Lots of people have "lost the fan" in Lancairs and have been fine.

Click to expand...

Most people agree with me and can put 1 + 1 together, understanding LOWER STALL = A BETTER CHANCE. Clean stall speeds of Lancairs like the IV are very high, much higher than an RV. If the the square of speed equals energy does not make sense to you, than so be it.

As far as sink rate, again Cafe numbers are based on partial power and gear up. Those Lancairs with 3 and 4 blade props and gear down will fall out of the sky at eye watering rates, just a fact. It's a matter of wing loading, drag and aspect ratio, no magic, just basic aerodynamics. Even MT has offered feathering props retrofits to current 3 and 4-blade users on single engine kit planes. Why? because of the scary characteristic of massive flat disk drag in engine out conditions. People have noticed. Apples and apples and read the cafe reports first. Understand what you are quoting.

CAFE SINK NUMBERS only say the Lancair has less drag with gear up (no kidding) and the same or better lift at a higher airspeed, aka L/D is proportional to glide ratio. YOU ARE DISCOUNTING THE FWD SPEED which is much higher. You have to DEAL WITH THAT SPEED when you hit the fence, ditch, street sign or tree. Speed kills. Now if you have the skill to transition to full flaps and hit your aim point of intended landing, dead stick just above stall, YEA! LAST BUT NOT LEAST - the Lancair has flaps BECAUSE IT NEEDS THEM. The clean stall speed is VERY much HIGHER than dirty. An RV does not care, flaps up or down, it's only 3 to 5 mph difference in stall speed.

You say OK feather prop, keep the gear-up and get the flaps down? Well fine, that would be great, if it's not right after take-off. NOW THE PILOT HAS A SECOND OR TWO TO EVAL, DECIDE AND ACT BY bringing up the GEAR, FEATHERING PROP AND GETTING THE FLAPS OUT (under stress). A subtle point I made before, a Lancair puts WAY more onto the pilots skill, training, currency and decision making than an RV. i.e. , Its easier to lose control of a Lancair, thus making the RV safer in this human factors aspect as well. (why do they make trainers simple?)

Also with the gear down on most retract glass airplanes (and I have helped build some), they just break off in and accident (some times opening up the wing tank), so they don't absorb much energy. On the other hand solid mount metal spring gear's absorb more energy, bend, yield and don't depart the airframe, at least for survivable landing accidents. That is all. Ductility.....gee how can I say it so you understand, with out you calling my comments silly?

The Air Trans ref was to make a point, pro Lancair BTW, even a JET can be safely dead stick ed to a safe landing.

I can't teach fracture mechanics or crash worthiness desgin principles to you in a short post. However I stand by my silly opinion the lower stall speed, fixed gear, metal airframe RV is safer in a CONTROLLED crash than a Lancair IV. We agree to disagree obviously.

ALSO Obviously all bets are off in ANY AIRPLANE, if you lose control. So losing control is moot, irrelevant, silly and off the table. Lose control and die. Your chance of survival if you stall and spin goes to Nil. As I said before the body can tolerate tremendous g's in the fwd direction, but server injury occurs with a faction of the g's in the vertical direction. Stall spin accidents produce tremendious vertical loads.

Focus, on what I'm saying please! This has to do with the materials ability to absorb energy......metal is better. It has nothing to do with design or whose plane is better, bigger, faster, cost more or whatever.

Obviously in Milts case his composite plane was very strong and well designed. He feels it saved his life. I believe him, but in general composites are not great in a crash, because they fracture and do not yield. This characteristic can be a good thing or bad, depending on the material and how the designers use the material. Milts plane was apparently very strong and resisted breaking up, excellent, a good thing. It well may be as Milt said, the same accident in a metal airplane (F1) would have caused injury, I guess due to excess deformation and cockpit being compromised, in his opinion. I say MAY HAVE since Milt is making conjecture; unless we crash a F1 in the same manner; we don't know for sure. Forces during a crash are VERY complex. Sorry I have a degree in engineering. I deal with facts, but appreciate peoples opinions. Milt made a good point. I agree, composite rigidity and ability to NOT deflect can be goodness, but it can be a negative.

Even when I agree with composite plane enthusiast, it's ignored and all that's seen is RED, from the slightest criticism. Out of college I was a structural engineer for Boeing, including metal and composite structures. I don't know everything, but I do know about aerospace structures and engineering materials in failure modes. Feel free to disagree, but please be polite and debate facts not personal issues.

gmcjetpilot said:

The Air Trans ref was to make a point, pro Lancair BTW, even a JET can be safely dead stick ed to a safe landing...

Click to expand...

Yep, shouldn't be a problem if you can make it to a runway of some sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

gmcjetpilot said:

I can't teach fracture mechanics or crash worthiness desgin principles to you in a short post. However I stand by my silly opinion the lower stall speed, fixed gear, metal airframe RV is safer in a CONTROLLED crash than a Lancair IV. We agree to disagree obviously.

ALSO Obviously all bets are off in ANY AIRPLANE, if you lose control. So losing control is moot, irrelevant, silly and off the table. Lose control and die. Your chance of survival if you stall and spin goes to Nil. As I said before the body can tolerate tremendous g's in the fwd direction, but server injury occurs with a faction of the g's in the vertical direction. Stall spin accidents produce tremendious vertical loads.

Focus, on what I'm saying please! This has to do with the materials ability to absorb energy......metal is better. It has nothing to do with design or whose plane is better, bigger, faster, cost more or whatever.

Click to expand...

George, I have been nothing but respectful. I have agreed with you on both of your engineering points: a) in accidents involving a controlled off-field landing the aircraft with higher velocity is more likely to be fatal; b) fiberglass does not absorb impact energy as well as aluminum. I will add that Lancair's DEMAND greater skill on the part of pilots - I have personally dissuaded over a dozen people from pursuing a Lancair as their aircraft.

Since I have said that in virtually every post, it is evident which one of us is not reading the others' posts.

What I called "silly" on your part was use of a gross generalization. You stated that "if a Lancair loses the fan they haven't got a chance." Having been nice about pointing this out to you so far, I'll be a bit more blunt: Saying what you said on a public forum is truly ignorant and hurts the aviation community. First, it lumps ALL Lancairs together. The incident I posted earlier occurred in a Lancair 235, which has a lower gross weight than many RVs and a stall speed within a few knots. Next, the implication of your statement is that all Lancairs are a "death trap" (YES, I know you did not use those words - but that IS your implication) if you lose power. Again, this is a gross generalization and attributes far too much of the blame on the airframe and not where it belongs, on poor pilot training and self-assessment.

A Unicycle is dangerous to most people who have never ridden one; some can master it and it is perfectly safe, while others will never master it no matter how much time they spend trying. Blaming the resulting damage caused when one of the latter fails to acknowledge their limitations is NOT the fault of the Unicycle for lack of a "roll cage."

My point is, while everything you have said is TRUE, it is also misleading as you have presented it. Many people lose an engine in a Lancair and are flying again in that airplane the next day or at least walk away from the accident. By painting with broad strokes and generalizations, you are creating a false image that the aircraft is not and cannot be safe to operate. If you are going to talk about aircraft fatalities, you should bring all the facts to the table and talk about numbers, not just make inflammatory claims of a whole line of aircraft. Those kinds of statements only invite the Press into our midst to conduct yet another witch hunt.

Peace,

Bill

Speaking of jets dead-stick landing - many of you may not know that the F-4 Phantom was dead-sticked EXACTLY ONCE. I think it was by Burt Rutan in his test pilot days, but I may have misremembered this part. I do know he participated in the stall / spin recovery procedures.

The approach speed was 250 knots, because below that speed the angle of incidence to the intakes did not provide enough airflow to spin the turbines fast enough to create the necessary hydraulic pressure to control the aircraft (flight controls were hydraulic only, and the pumps were geared to the turbine). They landed it at Edwards on the really long runway, and the pilot reported that as he began to raise the nose he could feel the hydraulic pressure becoming insufficient to control the aircraft - so he only landed on his wheels by luck and inertia.

They never tried it again...

Don't you mean Dick Rutan?

gmcjetpilot said:

... Speed kills...

Click to expand...

George,

I respectfully disagree with you here.

Speed does not kill; however, rapid deceleration does.

This leads right to your point and one of the reasons I did not build a LancAir 360 many years ago. Although I still think they are beautiful airplanes, the thought of 90 to 100 MPH on final seems a bit ludicrous. My thinking was that if I had an engine out, they would find me and my plane spread over three counties.

If I had a choice between dead sticking an RV or a Lancair at 13,000 feet along the east coast I would probably choose the Lancair because of its higher glide ratio. I would more than likely to be able to glide to an airport. Each plane has its better points when it comes to dead sticking. Hopefully, we are in the better plane for the situation we are in when/if the big fan stops. I fly like the fan is always going to stop.

This argument again?

I have only recently joined up on here, and I try to keep my mouth shut unless I really think I have a handle on the topic at hand. I haven't yet spoken up on this topic because I don't feel I have the flying or building experience to weigh in with much authority. But I have noticed that every time a Lancair (or Glasair, or any other comp aircraft) suffers damage during a forced landing, the same old torches come out to light the fires once again.

I am building an RV because I like this design best FOR ME. I do like the idea of a slower stall speed for safety, but I certainly didn't make my decision based on that. I chose the -9 because I feel it is the best decision FOR ME. I chose the nosewheel because I feel it is the best decision FOR ME.

I would argue that in daily life, we must constantly choose a comfortable compromise between safety and function. Not everyone's choice will fall in the same place on that curve. The vast majority of the population would likely not be comfortable building and flying an airplane. Their safety/function decision is different than ours. We on the other hand feel that the functional (and fun) benefits gained by having an airplane we built with our own two hands outweigh the safety compromises inherent in our undertakings. Why can't we as RV'rs allow that same difference in choice to our fellow builders without continually second-guessing their judgment?

When "the media" reports on an RV accident, several of us are quick to jump on here and chastise their misinformation and their "attacks" on the viability of our passtime. But if a glass plane has a forced landing and sustains any major damage, this forum is quickly filled with VERY SIMILAR attacks and tirades about "how dangerous those glass planes are". Substitute "small" or "experimental" for the word "glass" in that last sentence, and we are in an uproar over that kind of generalization.

Whew, I'm glad I got that out. I'm gonna go work on my -9A and not worry about those who are going to work on their Legacy. They made the choice that works best for them.

Roger

Bubblehead said:

Don't you mean Dick Rutan?

Click to expand...

No, to the best of my knowledge Dick Rutan was not a USAF Test Pilot as was Burt. I met Burt in 1984 when I was in F-4 training; although he was not really famous yet, we all knew that he had developed the stall/spin recovery procedures. As far as I have ever been able to tell, Dick's claims to fame are limited to
a) Burt let him be the pilot in the airplane Burt designed to fly around the world;
b) he is obnoxious.

Good post Roger. I'm attaching my composite doors to my composite cabin top right now. Better get back to work on that...

breister said:

No, to the best of my knowledge Dick Rutan was not a USAF Test Pilot as was Burt...... Dick's claims to fame are limited to
a) Burt let him be the pilot in the airplane Burt designed to fly around the world;
b) he is obnoxious.

Click to expand...

Burt's AF involvement: Rutan worked for the United States Air Force as a civilian flight test project engineer at Edwards Air Force Base from 1965 through 1972. While working at Edwards Air Force Base, Rutan was credited with solving a problem involving the vaunted F-4 fighter jet. The multi-million-dollar aircraft was known to go into flat spins and crash. The basic problem was ensuring the jet aircraft's in-flight stability. Rutan developed a spin-recovery system that fixed the problem, preventing the grounding of a fleet of F-4 jets.


Dick's AF involvement: As a Tactical Air Command fighter pilot during most of his two decades in the Air Force, Rutan few 325 combat missions in Vietnam, 105 of them as a member of a high-risk classified operation commonly known as the MISTY's." While on his last strike reconnaissance mission over North Vietnam in September of 1968, he was hit by enemy ground fire, and forced to eject from his burning F-100. Dick evaded enemy capture and was later rescued by the Air Force's "Jolly Green Giant" helicopter team. Before retiring from the Air Force in 1978, Lt. Col. Rutan had been awarded the Silver Star, five Distinguished Flying Crosses, 16 Air Medals and the Purple Heart.

Its also money

RV7Guy said:

Hi John,
..............
The alternative engine deal is an "Abelien Paradox." This is simply a condition where everybody knows there is a problem but is afraid to admit it. For whatever reason, loyalties, pride etc....
..................

Click to expand...

Like buying a loosing stock, most have a very hard time cutting their losses and moving on. Often it may be real financial limitations once the money is sunk into an alternative engine.

I've had my RV for about a year and during that time I've been searching for an alternative engine for when mine is due, or when I buy a new plane, or when I just get tired of my engine. Its all dead ends.

It seems like the conversions don't even cost less. Lower performance, less reliability, and more weight, all for the same or more money.

I don't mind if others use them, I don't think they should be outlawed, etc, etc, but I'm just not seeing that value.

To me, rather than spend years or decades trying to make an auto engine into an aero engine, the resources would be better spend adapting auto engine technology to aircraft engine in an affordable way.

That seems to have traction with ignition systems, but I haven't seen it done with fuel injection. Maybe I missed it????

On the subject of this thread, my perception is that a disproportionately large share of these tragedies are with non-aero engines, regardless of the airframe.

I think if your motor quits suddenly you have a chance of dying. Getting to the core of the problem, reducing the chance of engine stoppage reduces your chance of dying from it. To me, thats the first line of defense.

breister said:

a) Burt let him be the pilot in the airplane Burt designed to fly around the world;
b) he is obnoxious.

Click to expand...

You have the facts a bit wrong.

Yes, Burt did the design work on Voyager, but it was Dicks (and Jennas) program.

Burt did not "let" Dick fly it--------Dick flew it because it was his plane.

As far as being obnoxious, I have met Dick a dozen times or more, publicly, and privately, and he has always been pleasant and gentlemanly towards me.

Steve Brown said:

To me, rather than spend years or decades trying to make an auto engine into an aero engine, the resources would be better spend adapting auto engine technology to aircraft engine in an affordable way.

That seems to have traction with ignition systems, but I haven't seen it done with fuel injection. Maybe I missed it????

Click to expand...

We've been doing fully user programmable EFI (Fuel injection and integrated ignition) systems for auto and aviation applications for the past 12 years and supplying electronic fuel injection for aviation since 1994. We have several hundred systems flying and an estimated 40,000+ flight hours to date.

Mike S said:

You have the facts a bit wrong.

Yes, Burt did the design work on Voyager, but it was Dicks (and Jennas) program.

Burt did not "let" Dick fly it--------Dick flew it because it was his plane.

As far as being obnoxious, I have met Dick a dozen times or more, publicly, and privately, and he has always been pleasant and gentlemanly towards me.

Click to expand...

We can only offer opinions on people based on personal experience. I personally witnessed while I was visiting Burt Rutan's facilities at Mojave Airport in 1984 Dick being rude to 3 separate people in a row, followed by a rather rude remark to myself (I had said nothing, nor did I answer) simply for having been in the lobby when he was trying to bulldoze through it. I have heard anecdotal evidence from no less than 4 other people plus a magazine article referring to his attitude.

While I may have been misinformed about his military career and even about whose project the Voyager was (with good reason - all of the publicity around the event-to-be that I read at the time discussed Burt, not Dick, as the motivating force for the Voyager design and construction), I think I have sufficient cause to believe that he is not pleasant to a large number of people.

Then again, lots of people think that Chuck Yeager is a true hero, while others think he is a heel. Mileage may vary.

Gentle Warning....

Guys, this thread has covered a lot of ground, and now it is treading upon the territory of derogatory statements about people who are not even here to defend themselves. I could go back and start deleting posts, but I'll leave that to a moderator with more time.

Post on topic, start your own thread on another topic, or leave it alone!

Paul

Ironflight said:

--- and now it is treading upon the territory of derogatory statements about people who are not even here to defend themselves. I could go back and start deleting posts, ----Paul

Click to expand...

Paul, I agree, almost did that myself, then thought it would be better to post a contrasting experience, in defense of, as you say "people who are not even here to defend themselves.", rather than just dumping "breister"s post.

And I agree, it is now time to get back on track.

breister said:

We can only offer opinions on people based on personal experience. I personally witnessed while I was visiting Burt Rutan's facilities at Mojave Airport in 1984 Dick being rude to 3 separate people in a row, followed by a rather rude remark to myself (I had said nothing, nor did I answer) simply for having been in the lobby when he was trying to bulldoze through it. I have heard anecdotal evidence from no less than 4 other people plus a magazine article referring to his attitude.

While I may have been misinformed about his military career and even about whose project the Voyager was (with good reason - all of the publicity around the event-to-be that I read at the time discussed Burt, not Dick, as the motivating force for the Voyager design and construction), I think I have sufficient cause to believe that he is not pleasant to a large number of people.

Then again, lots of people think that Chuck Yeager is a true hero, while others think he is a heel. Mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

Bill, I'm with Mike on this one. Back in the early 1990's I spent quite a bit of time observing the trials and frustrations incurred during the efforts to get the Pond Racer flying and through flight testing. Never during any of this, or during my many other contacts with Dick did I observe any behavior from him that appeared obnoxious to me. In all my contact with Dick, I found him to be pleasant to be around.

Now, I too, have heard from time to time the allegation that he is obnoxious. From my experiences I feel that that statement is painted with too broad a brush, and does not accurately nor fairly depict Dick's personality, Can he be, occasionally? Probably. But isn't that the description of "every man"?

I'm not trying to beat you up, Bill. Your experiences are yours. Mike and I have had different experiences. I'm just trying add clarity to what I perceive to be an incompletely accurate statement.

Cheers, Joe

Ask Jeana

Ask Jeana Yeager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeana_Yeager

Joel said:

Bill, I'm with Mike on this one. Back in the early 1990's I spent quite a bit of time observing the trials and frustrations incurred during the efforts to get the Pond Racer flying and through flight testing. Never during any of this, or during my many other contacts with Dick did I observe any behavior from him that appeared obnoxious to me. In all my contact with Dick, I found him to be pleasant to be around.

Now, I too, have heard from time to time the allegation that he is obnoxious. From my experiences I feel that that statement is painted with too broad a brush, and does not accurately nor fairly depict Dick's personality, Can he be, occasionally? Probably. But isn't that the description of "every man"?

I'm not trying to beat you up, Bill. Your experiences are yours. Mike and I have had different experiences. I'm just trying add clarity to what I perceive to be an incompletely accurate statement.

Cheers, Joe

Click to expand...

Hey, I didn't mean to start a firestorm here - lot's of folks (including me) have been referred to as obnoxious. Many very great people have been known for fiery tempers, too. It is hardly a full-on character assault!

The whole point was really just a side comment based on a single personal encounter and hearsay and news gossip (we ALL know how truthful the Press is...) over the years. All I can say for certain is that on that day and that time he was obnoxious to a number of people (around a half dozen), but it may well have been that he was just having a bad day. First impressions, etc.

If the Voyager project was truly a Dick Rutan thing, I am deeply surprised - not that it could be true, only because I never heard anything of the sort. I remember following it closely while overseas because I was a HUGE fan of the Rutan designs. All of the articles I read talked about Burt and his design, and simply mentioned that Dick & Jeanna would be flying it. And I read a LOT of articles. In fact, I don't even remember any of the articles saying what qualifications Dick & Jeanna had to fly the thing past basic pilots' licenses. I would think I would have remembered any discussion of Dick's military career if ONLY because I had a negative impression of him and might have reconsidered. I recall none of the articles giving him more than lip-service.

Well, maybe it's like Walt and Roy Disney. Walt got all the press.

Whatever, let's move on...

OK thats enough.
Start a new thread for further debating on RV related items please.
Best