Canard of death?

zaitcev said:
They have strength in numbers. 1 rider == 1 vote. 1 pilot == 1 vote, so 10,000,000 riders == 10,000,000 votes. And numbers of pilots are small and shrinking rapidly. No wonder Feds gangbang on us.
Click to expand...

I suspect it has far more to do with familiarity. That, and motorcycles haven't the potential to rain flaming debris on children.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
In an off-airport landing, a slower aircraft will almost always be safer because of the roll-out distance and kinetic energy involved. Canards sacrifice in that area, but avoid the stall or stall/spin potential of most conventional aircraft.

I know I'd rather make an off-airport landing in a Cub than a Lancair, and would appreciate the "low speed" handling of a canard over a Lancair too. The one advantage the Lancair would have over a canard is having an engine out front to (hopefully) provide a battering ram/crush zone if you hit something of substance.
Click to expand...
If that's your biggest concern, I assume you limit yourself to powered parachutes.
 
steingar said:
It should be noted that although the accident rate for GA and EX/Ab is high, it is on a par with that of motorcycles, which receive no federal scrutiny at all.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that the E-AB rate is high because of the lack of dynamic inspections before airworthiness sign off. I am speaking of only one side of the accident graph and not about maneuvering accidents. There is a need for more in depth operational inspections before the aircraft flies. Complex fuel systems, complex glass cockpit, complex flight control/autopilot systems. All built at times by a novice that has no background in testing these systems. I personally witnessed the complex fuel system malfunction on a experimental at my airport. He made an off airport landing and was not hurt. It happened in the first 5 hours. More should be done before they fly. And there should be a difference in the preflight requirements between a complex E-AB and a non complex E-AB. I am a member of EAA and I am building a RV-8A.
 
flyingriki said:
:nono: :no: :nonod:

Since this guy is on my ignore (for good reason) list I missed this mistaken comment. Obviously has no experience in canards but won't let that stop the wild remarks.

When I pull the stick completely back on my Long EZ:
With power - just bobs a little with a climb rate of about 500 fpm.
Without power - just bobs a little with descent rate of about 600 fpm.
Yes I believe.

I sure wish people would get their facts straight before posting these outrageous and inaccurate remarks but then I know I'm just dreaming.....:dunno:

Oh well....
Click to expand...

Your EZ isn't the only canard out there.. Read the development story of a Velocity.
 
Gosh, why do some people have to be jerks?

Every of us knows something. Like me in fine woodworking or residential construction, don't argue with what I know. Now I admit I don't have a clue about every area's building codes but I do know how a home is built. Likewise, when one has expertise in aircraft restoration or Part 121 piloting or whatever, why argue? We all learn but best when we have open minds conditional to what we already know.

I happen to have immense respect for certain people in this thread. I have already seen reasons why I would like to better know other people in this thread. Why the ****ing match? It just makes me less inclined towards certain persons.

EDIT: I can totally say "ass" but not slang for urinating???
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
when a single loses its engine, its coming down. Most likely off airport. g.
Click to expand...

What data supports that assertion?

Small sample: in 30 years of flying, I've lost my engine three times. Every landing was on an airport. I should be buying lottery tickets you're saying?

Paul
 
PaulMillner said:
What data supports that assertion?

Small sample: in 30 years of flying, I've lost my engine three times. Every landing was on an airport. I should be buying lottery tickets you're saying?

Paul
Click to expand...


Heck yeah... I would be buying 100 lottery tickets if I were you.:yesnod::yesnod:;)
 
Chip_pilot said:
It is my opinion that the E-AB rate is high because of the lack of dynamic inspections before airworthiness sign off.
Click to expand...

I disagree, since most Ex/Ab accidents are caused by the same thing that causes accidents in Certificated aircraft, pilot error. I've always thought that a lot of experimentals are hotter and more demanding than the average spam can, that's why pilots like them. But it's easier to frak up in a more demanding airplane. The fact that fast glass aircraft represent a hot spot in the accident statistics supports my idea.
 
steingar said:
I disagree, since most Ex/Ab accidents are caused by the same thing that causes accidents in Certificated aircraft, pilot error. I've always thought that a lot of experimentals are hotter and more demanding than the average spam can, that's why pilots like them. But it's easier to frak up in a more demanding airplane. The fact that fast glass aircraft represent a hot spot in the accident statistics supports my idea.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to be able to sort accident data by the aircraft's stall speed, cruise speed or some other "hot/slick" criteria.
 
Morne said:
It would be interesting to be able to sort accident data by the aircraft's stall speed, cruise speed or some other "hot/slick" criteria.
Click to expand...

Ron Wattanja has performed extensive analysis on the GA accident record. However, the hot spot for Lanceairs and Glassair "fast glass" aircraft was reported to me (and a roomful of other people) by the President of the EAA, so I suspect its correct. Whether a linear arrangement exists between stall speed and accident rate is an open question.
 
steingar said:
I disagree, since most Ex/Ab accidents are caused by the same thing that causes accidents in Certificated aircraft, pilot error. I've always thought that a lot of experimentals are hotter and more demanding than the average spam can, that's why pilots like them. But it's easier to frak up in a more demanding airplane. The fact that fast glass aircraft represent a hot spot in the accident statistics supports my idea.
Click to expand...

Most are caused by pilot error, however a significantly higher percentage of ex/ab crashes are caused by mechanical failure vs certificated aircraft.

Differs from year to year but below is a snippet from the 2008 nall report. The certificated rate due to mechanical failure was around 15%

On the other hand, the
shares attributed to mechanical failures (22%)
and unexplained losses of engine power (12%)
were noticeably higher. Together they accounted
for more than one-third (34%) of all accidents in
amateur-built airplane
 
And I heard on the news this morning that the Cozy crash may have been caused by fuel exhaustion or mechanical failure. The passenger (pilot did not survive) said that the pilot had wanted to exhaust the fuel from the main tank before switching to the aux tank. Either the switch did not work due to a clogged line or what not, or the aux tank was empty.
 
Fellow pilots have questioned my sanity in flying a 70 year old antique.

Of course I've spent time and money fixing this, that, and the other thing (all passed as "airworthy" over sucessive annuals, but not up to my standard).

Yet I feel confident that -- should the occasion arise -- I will be able to land and stop my 880 lb, 36 MPH stall-speed airplane in a K-Mart parking lot with little or no ill effects (hard braking and an intentional ground loop can dissipate a lot of energy).

Check the NTSB reports: most fatalities in these lightweight Champs, Chiefs, and Cubs are the result of impromptu aerobatics or other stupidity. Simple off airport landings are rarely fatal.

Can't be so confident about a 210, Bonanza, or other heavier single.
 
dmccormack said:
Fellow pilots have questioned my sanity in flying a 70 year old antique.
Click to expand...

But we have a name for pilots like that. They'll called idiots.

Actually, I don't think they were questioning your sanity for flying in a 70-year old antique. I think they were questioning your sanity for flying in your 70-year old antique.
 
dmccormack said:
The gracious human in person is not the same person who strikes the keys using your name. I suggest you negotiate a compromise between those two personalities.
Click to expand...

It was a joke, Dan.

sarcasm_is_just_one_more_free_service_we_offer.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dan,

I'd fly in your 70 y.o. plane anytime. Anyway, what's the dif between that and my 33 y.o. airplane? :confused:
 
dmccormack said:
Yet I feel confident that -- should the occasion arise -- I will be able to land and stop my 880 lb, 36 MPH stall-speed airplane in a K-Mart parking lot with little or no ill effects (hard braking and an intentional ground loop can dissipate a lot of energy).
Click to expand...
That will only save you in case of the powerplant failure. What are you going to do in case of a sudden structural failure?

Flying a 70-year old airplane is like shooting a Mauser C-96. It may have passed 2 world wars, but sooner or latter you are getting that bolt in the eye.

The right answer is in the balance of the risk against the reward. The "fellow pilots" who "question your sanity" commit the basic fallacy of assigning zero value to the reward, and talk about the risk alone.
 
zaitcev said:
That will only save you in case of the powerplant failure. What are you going to do in case of a sudden structural failure?

Flying a 70-year old airplane is like shooting a Mauser C-96. It may have passed 2 world wars, but sooner or latter you are getting that bolt in the eye.

The right answer is in the balance of the risk against the reward. The "fellow pilots" who "question your sanity" commit the basic fallacy of assigning zero value to the reward, and talk about the risk alone.
Click to expand...


Well, I own and shoot a Mauser C-96 "Broomhandle". Trust me, the bolt will not end up in my face. New springs, and a check every now and then is all it takes, and that gun will keep running. Dan's plane is also maintained, inspected, and probably upgraded over the years.
 
Anthony said:
Well, I own and shoot a Mauser C-96 "Broomhandle". Trust me, the bolt will not end up in my face. New springs, and a check every now and then is all it takes, and that gun will keep running. Dan's plane is also maintained, inspected, and probably upgraded over the years.
Click to expand...

Exactly -- complete rebuild in 1980, and regular maintenance since then.

Last year we focused on the airframe, this year the engine. We replaced all gaskets, tubing, hose, etc.

It's a simple airplane, and has been thoroughly inspected and checked by a competent A&P with many years experience with fabric aircraft.

The Serial Number is 70 years old, but probably not much except the gauges, some tubes, the engine block, and a few other parts are actually original.
 
pericynthion said:
I looked into this before buying my VariEze earlier this year. It's not too big a deal. Get an aircraft that's been hangared for most of its life, or at least not kept outside in a corrosion-prone climate. Make sure the wing attach fittings have been inspected according to Rutan's directive. Don't seal them at the bottom, to prevent accumulation of water. Don't fly high-g aerobatics.

The corrosion problem is certainly not endemic to the fleet - I think it has been found to occur in two aircraft. They were designed to a high loading, 6+g, so there is plenty of margin if you are going to keep it below 2.5g in use.
Click to expand...

I read the directive you linked.....Wow, placarding the airplane to a lower G than designed, essentially to "fix" the equation for the G-loading (stress magnitude) where the fatigue cycle would be an infinite value of N (cycles) so that the propagation rate is zero... (ah my aero engineering graduate school days are coming back to me), is essentially conceding the corrosion problem. The problem with that approach is that corrosion is time sensitive, so at a certain point even 2.5g will not yield N=infinity. It appears that at that point the solution offered is "ground the airplane, you lost your investment", since the metal structure is embedded in the composite construction from inception (part of the problem apparently, trapping aluminum that doesn't behave well when it can't breathe) and so it would require destructive modification in order to fix... yiiiiiikes.

I guess I've read all I needed to read about the vari-eze to make my mind up and I do recognize the reason for the attractive pricing. It's a shame too, they are very efficient designs. Oh well, back to the search. Thanks for the link by the way!
 
steingar said:
Ron Wattanja has performed extensive analysis on the GA accident record. However, the hot spot for Lanceairs and Glassair "fast glass" aircraft was reported to me (and a roomful of other people) by the President of the EAA, so I suspect its correct. Whether a linear arrangement exists between stall speed and accident rate is an open question.
Click to expand...
I haven't done anything in-depth as far as overall GA aircraft, having concentrated mostly on homebuilts. The only by-type comparison I've done is for fatality rate, which is another issue that the FAA has expressed concerns over.

I've attached two pages from one of my presentations. The first shows the average annual Fleet Accident Rate for a number of homebuilt types. The Fleet Accident Rate is what percentage of a given type has an accident in a given year. The overall GA rate is about 0.6%. Note that the results for older types can be skewed, as a greater percentage of these probably are not operational.

The second page compares the fatality rate (percentage of accidents which result in at least fatality) vs. cruise speed for a number of homebuilt and GA types. Red figures are production aircraft, and the symbol represents the wing location (high, mid, low) of the design.

Ron Wanttaja
 

Attachments

  • sample.pdf
    90.3 KB · Views: 16
hindsight2020 said:
I read the directive you linked.....Wow, placarding the airplane to a lower G than designed, essentially to "fix" the equation for the G-loading (stress magnitude) where the fatigue cycle would be an infinite value of N (cycles) so that the propagation rate is zero... (ah my aero engineering graduate school days are coming back to me), is essentially conceding the corrosion problem. The problem with that approach is that corrosion is time sensitive, so at a certain point even 2.5g will not yield N=infinity. It appears that at that point the solution offered is "ground the airplane, you lost your investment", since the metal structure is embedded in the composite construction from inception (part of the problem apparently, trapping aluminum that doesn't behave well when it can't breathe) and so it would require destructive modification in order to fix... yiiiiiikes.

I guess I've read all I needed to read about the vari-eze to make my mind up and I do recognize the reason for the attractive pricing. It's a shame too, they are very efficient designs. Oh well, back to the search. Thanks for the link by the way!
Click to expand...

This is completely incorrect as it applies to the Varieze and corrosion problem. No, not all your 'remembered' physics but the whole placarding thing as if that's the proper way to address the attachment issue. The comment you quote is made by a new buyer on how he thinks about the issue. What he didn't say is that the plane will shortly be inspected by an excellent A&P & canard builder who will assess the wing connections and the result will be to correct them if a problem. Long EZ wing attachment is very different.
There have been a very few that had to be rebuilt but that is not the end of the world for them - but is expensive. There are many flying and the connections can be easily inspected. However, since you have so little interest in doing the sort of research you used to do in school, and is SO much easier now days, and base your final decision on one post in a forum - I'd suggest you move on to other aircraft anyway.
 
Last edited:
flyingriki said:
This is completely incorrect as it applies to the Varieze and corrosion problem. No, not all your 'remembered' physics but the whole placarding thing as if that's the proper way to address the attachment issue. The comment you quote is made by a new buyer on how he thinks about the issue. What he didn't say is that the plane will shortly be inspected by an excellent A&P & canard builder who will assess the wing connections and the result will be to correct them if a problem. Long EZ wing attachment is very different.
Their have been a few that had to be rebuilt but that is not the end of the world for them - but is expensive. There are many flying and the connections can be easily inspected. However, since you have so little interest in doing the sort of research you used to do in school, and is SO much easier now days, and base your final decision on one post in a forum - I'd suggest you move on to other aircraft anyway.
Click to expand...

I was with ya 100% right up to there, we don't need that kinda **** here, When you have a point to make, make it, use what documentation you can to prove your point and leave it at that. That statement is BS that effects your credibility.

OBTW I do like the EZ line from the Rutan aircraft factory. I do believe they are a great aircraft when built correctly and operated within their designed envelope. But when you get crazy with one, they will kill ya as quick as any aircraft.
 
wanttaja said:
I haven't done anything in-depth as far as overall GA aircraft, having concentrated mostly on homebuilts. The only by-type comparison I've done is for fatality rate, which is another issue that the FAA has expressed concerns over.

I've attached two pages from one of my presentations. The first shows the average annual Fleet Accident Rate for a number of homebuilt types. The Fleet Accident Rate is what percentage of a given type has an accident in a given year. The overall GA rate is about 0.6%. Note that the results for older types can be skewed, as a greater percentage of these probably are not operational.

The second page compares the fatality rate (percentage of accidents which result in at least fatality) vs. cruise speed for a number of homebuilt and GA types. Red figures are production aircraft, and the symbol represents the wing location (high, mid, low) of the design.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Ron,

Thanks!!!

Interesting couple of graphs, there. My cousin who wants to build an RV will be thrilled with their relative placement.

As to the cruise speed vs. fatality graph - what's the high wing production bird with the 220-ish mph cruise and 20% fatality rate?
 
They said the same thing about Ercoupes in the 40's and 50's.

kyleb said:
In an off-airport landing, a slower aircraft will almost always be safer because of the roll-out distance and kinetic energy involved. Canards sacrifice in that area, but avoid the stall or stall/spin potential of most conventional aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
wanttaja said:
I've attached two pages from one of my presentations. The first shows the average annual Fleet Accident Rate for a number of homebuilt types. The Fleet Accident Rate is what percentage of a given type has an accident in a given year. The overall GA rate is about 0.6%. Note that the results for older types can be skewed, as a greater percentage of these probably are not operational.
Click to expand...

The percent of the fleet involved in an accident isn't exactly the accident rate, but the data just isn't available.

The accidents/cruise speed chart is interesting but one should consider that a faster aircraft is going to fly more miles.
 
Last edited:
Nobody ever goes anywhere in the kites, so risks are diffficult to compare. My 1943 T-Craft L2 has seldom been flown far enough to lose sight of the home airport.

dmccormack said:
Fellow pilots have questioned my sanity in flying a 70 year old antique.

Of course I've spent time and money fixing this, that, and the other thing (all passed as "airworthy" over sucessive annuals, but not up to my standard).

Yet I feel confident that -- should the occasion arise -- I will be able to land and stop my 880 lb, 36 MPH stall-speed airplane in a K-Mart parking lot with little or no ill effects (hard braking and an intentional ground loop can dissipate a lot of energy).

Check the NTSB reports: most fatalities in these lightweight Champs, Chiefs, and Cubs are the result of impromptu aerobatics or other stupidity. Simple off airport landings are rarely fatal.

Can't be so confident about a 210, Bonanza, or other heavier single.
Click to expand...
 
Do you have stats for unprovoked structural failures?

zaitcev said:
That will only save you in case of the powerplant failure. What are you going to do in case of a sudden structural failure?

Flying a 70-year old airplane is like shooting a Mauser C-96. It may have passed 2 world wars, but sooner or latter you are getting that bolt in the eye.

The right answer is in the balance of the risk against the reward. The "fellow pilots" who "question your sanity" commit the basic fallacy of assigning zero value to the reward, and talk about the risk alone.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Nobody ever goes anywhere in the kites, so risks are diffficult to compare. My 1943 T-Craft L2 has seldom been flown far enough to lose sight of the home airport.
Click to expand...


Some do. John Rodkey (NAA Grand poobah) flies his Aeronca to OH from CA for the Middletown Fly-In. A few others do similar trips.

The past two years I flew mine within a 120 mile radius of the home drome exploring the river valleys, ridges, and whatever looked interesting down there.

Longer XC were 2 hours of less. Much longer and you have weather and time issues.
 
Ron, in your first graph what are the lowest and highest diamonds?
Thanks.
 
flyingriki said:
Ron, in your first graph what are the lowest and highest diamonds?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
The lowest is an example of the problems of this type of analysis; I compute the fleet size based on the number of FAA-registered examples, and the older a homebuilt design is, the more un-airworthy examples clutter the registration. Plus, a number of these older registrations never DID fly. This distorts the results unfairly in their direction.

Besides, it's the Fly Baby. Even *I* don't believe the Fly Baby is that safe.

Ditto, I think, in the case of the Long-EZ and Varieze, and, to some extent, the RV-4 and RV-3. When I give the presentation, I talk about how the registration inaccuracies are probably skewing the lower-end results (which is the reason for the statement at the bottom of the chart).

The one at the upper end is a modern kit aircraft, fairly common (iirc, about 400 examples), introduced relatively recently (~15 years ago). I think the result for it is accurate. However, the aircraft in question is a light flying-boat amphibian, and I felt it was an unfair comparison between it and land-only aircraft. Same reason this is fixed-wing only....

Ron Wanttaja
 
How many of those were due to fuel exhaustion or buzzing?
airguy said:
Man, I know what you mean. Just yesterday in my town alone there were THREE vehicle accidents involving Chevrolet pickups. Those things are dangerous, I'll never drive one!

:yikes:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top