So whats the Consensus on CompAir Turbine Planes

MyassisDragon

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
585
Location
Michigan
Display Name

Display name:
Mr Fred
I was just browsing planes for sale last night and came across a few CompAir 7 &8's out there and did some research, but haven't found too much feedback on handling, accident statistics ect.

Anyone here fly or own one?
 
I've wondered about them as well. Seems like an inexpensive way to get into a turbine. Anybody?
 
Unpressurized turbine taildragger. Cool in theory (I like the idea) but I wouldn't want to pay for insurance on one.
 
Seems like a great plane for the $.

Cruise 230 mph, stall 58mph. Nice! :yes:


Experimental means you can work on it yourself.
 
Go to the "factory" where the kits are made. I'm thinking you will not be impressed.

The only airplane I ever turned down a demo ride in.
 
...Seems like an inexpensive way to get into a turbine.
:rofl: :no: :rolleyes2: :mad2: :idea: :loco: :nono: :nonod: :crazy: :rockon:
9 out of 10 smilies think that is the dumbest post anyone has made in quite a while.

Note to peytont: There is NO such thing as an inexpensive way to get into a turbine.
 
Go to the "factory" where the kits are made. I'm thinking you will not be impressed.

The only airplane I ever turned down a demo ride in.

I have only viewed pictures on the internet and wondered about the details of fit, finish, design ect.

From their website it looks like they are biting off way more than they can chew with design/build.

But the youtube video of 3000ft/min climb was kind of cool.
 
Yea, those turbines are soooooo easy to work on. :rolleyes2:

I wouldn't rebuild my own internal combustion engine either. :dunno:

Take it off and send it into a qualified turbine shop, a lot of FBOs do. . ;)

What you don't feel comfortable with you have someone else do, just like any other experimental. ;)
 
I wouldn't rebuild my own internal combustion engine either. :dunno:

Take it off and send it into a qualified turban shop. ;)

What you don't feel comfortable with you have someone else do, just like any other experimental. ;)

When you send your turbine to a "qualified shop" be prepared to bend over and grab your ankles.

I can just imagine some home builder deciding he can do it himself and tear into a turbine to try to save some money......:yikes:
 
When you send your turbine to a "qualified shop" be prepared to bend over and grab your ankles.

I can just imagine some home builder deciding he can do it himself and tear into a turbine to try to save some money......:yikes:

No worries, you imagine all kinds of things that never happen. Lots of experimentals have turbine engines. ;)
 
No worries, you imagine all kinds of things that never happen. Lots of experimentals have turbine engines. ;)

"Yea Billy Bob, ain't no reason to pay $50k for that there hot section, hell boy I got a die grinder setup! I can get 'er done for a hundred bucks no problem!"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
"Yea Billy Bob, ain't no reason to pay $50k for that there hot section, hell boy I got a die grinder setup! I can get 'er done for a hundred bucks no problem!"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


The NTSB report will read "found large holes in burner can and fuel nozzles heavily contaminated".


As poorly maintained as many private airplanes are, a turbine will not be any better.
 
Last edited:
So you guys think a homebuilder is going to build a plane for $200k and not have a plan for scheduled maintenance? :rofl:

Stay on the porch. ;)
 
So you guys think a homebuilder is going to build a plane for $200k and not have a plan for scheduled maintenance? :rofl:

Stay on the porch. ;)

NTSB Identification: ERA12LA417
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, June 27, 2012 in Glenwood, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/06/2013
Aircraft: LUTERS ARNIS V LEGEND, registration: N3YZ
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The amateur-built airplane was in cruise flight at 3,000 feet above ground level when it experienced a total loss of engine power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, and the airplane sustained substantial damage during the landing. Postaccident examination revealed that the fuel control unit (FCU) condition lever was 20 degrees out of its run position. Further examination of the condition lever revealed that the condition lever’s outer cable had been improperly installed, which allowed the uncommanded aft movement of the condition lever, which could result in a loss of engine power. A broken engine mount, which was likely the result of impact-related forces, was also found. This broken engine mount resulted in a slight turbine misalignment. When the turbine was realigned, the FCU condition lever settings were normal. The engine was subsequently started and operated normally with no irregular noises or hesitation. According to the engine manufacturer’s representative, if the condition lever had been installed properly, there should have been no such movement of the condition lever.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of engine power due to the airplane builder’s improper installation of the fuel control unit condition lever cables, which resulted in the airplane’s subsequent forced landing.



NTSB Identification: CEN11LA553
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 06, 2011 in Metone, IN
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/15/2012
Aircraft: HYDE WILLIAM R HELICYCLE, registration: N128BH
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot reported that the helicopter was about 100 yards from the landing zone at 100 feet above ground level at 40 mph airspeed when the engine “flamed out.” He attempted to execute an autorotation, but the helicopter impacted hard. The examination of the helicopter revealed that the electrical wires that provided power to the helicopter’s fuel pump became disconnected, which resulted in an interruption in the fuel flow to the engine.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of an electrical system failure.


NTSB Identification: WPR09LA219
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, April 24, 2009 in Astoria, OR
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/09/2009
Aircraft: ELLUMAX LEASING LLC EPIC LT, registration: N653SB
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.During a climb to en route cruise, the airplane's engine lost almost all power, and the pilot had to ditch in a river because he was unable to glide back to the departure airport. The power loss was due to a minimum fuel flow command from the fuel control unit as a result of the seizure of the fuel control flyweights. The seizure of the flyweights was due to their contamination with residue from a failed fuel control tachometer drive bearing. The bearing failed due to its preload spacer being machined incorrectly, and due to the failure of the assembling technician to detect the anomaly at the time the fuel control was assembled.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The partial loss of engine power during climb to cruise due to the failure of the engine's fuel control unit. Contributing to the accident was the incorrect machining of an internal component of the fuel control unit, and the failure of the assembling technician to correctly inspect the unit's assembly.

NTSB Identification: SEA08LA195
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 02, 2008 in Camarillo, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/05/2009
Aircraft: LANCAIR Propjet, registration: N750PJ
Injuries: 2 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot reported that while transitioning from climb to cruise, the engine lost power with no engine sounds or instrument indications of a pending engine failure. The pilot noted white smoke emanating from the exhaust stacks as he began a 180-degree turn back towards the runway. He stated that overrun barriers were on the runway and that he had to maintain a faster airspeed in order to clear the runway overrun barriers before he could land the airplane. After clearing the overrun barriers, he landed the airplane and applied maximum braking in an attempt to stop the airplane on the remaining runway. During the landing rollout, the airplane exited the runway, struck a pile of dirt and flipped over, causing structural damage to the left wing, rudder, and vertical stabilizer. Examination of the aircraft indicated a significant amount of air bubbles in the fuel system, but no further engine anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The loss of engine power due to air within the fuel system.


NTSB Identification: LAX07LA184.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, June 02, 2007 in Parowan, UT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/31/2008
Aircraft: Brook Lancair IV-P, registration: N401PT
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot was about 1 hour 15 minutes into the flight, and the airplane was cruising at 26,000 feet, when the turbo prop engine lost power with white smoke coming out of the exhaust. About a minute before the pilot had observed what he termed "splats" of moisture on the windscreen. He performed an emergency descent and at 12,500 feet attempted an engine restart. The restart attempt was unsuccessful. He glided to the nearest airport, circled, and performed a power-off landing. The airplane crossed the runway threshold at 120 knots, floated, and touched down at mid field. After touchdown, the airplane continued down the runway, off the end, and into terrain and a fence. The airplane came to rest with the landing gear collapsed. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined the airplane, and could not identify any mechanical abnormality with the engine or fuel system. The Pilot Operating Handbook states that an engine relight was possible below 13,000 feet mean sea level, and below 160 knots of airspeed. The pilot could not recall what his airspeed was when he attempted the engine restart. The airplane was not equipped with any type of engine inlet anti-ice or deicing equipment. The pilot did state that he had been in and out of moisture while at his 26,000 feet cruising altitude, but there had been no ice buildup on his wings or windscreen. A technical representative for Lancair stated that a 3/4 blockage of the engine cowling NACA induction scoop might be enough to starve the engine of air and induce a flameout.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
A loss of engine power due to engine inlet icing. Contributing to the accident was the lack of engine inlet anti-icing capability.

NTSB Identification: DFW07LA103.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Wednesday, May 02, 2007 in McAllen, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/31/2008
Aircraft: LIVPT INC Lancair IV-P, registration: N119TC
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.Prior to departure, the commercial pilot experienced a hot start while attempting to start the 750-horsepower turbo-prop engine. The pilot received assistance from an airframe and powerplant mechanic. The mechanic reviewed the handwritten checklist the pilot used to start the engine and informed him that the procedures were out of sequence, which was most likely the cause of the hot start. The pilot then motored the engine and allowed the starter to cool for approximately two minutes before he attempted to start the engine. The engine started, sounded "normal" and ran "stable" for approximately 30-45 seconds. The pilot then shut down the engine, and no smoke or engine surging was observed. The pilot dismounted the airplane and walked inside the terminal building with the female passenger. The mechanic then informed the pilot that he should let the starter cool down for at least 30 minutes to 1-hour. About an hour later, the pilot started the engine, and departed. About a minute after takeoff, the pilot announced that he had an "engine out" and he attempted to perform a forced landing on a road south of the airport. Witnesses said the airplane was "wobbling in the air from side to side and having trouble flying straight." It then made a sudden "right down wind turn" and descended "suddenly as if it had to land." The airplane landed on the southbound lanes of the road and collided with the pavement, the center concrete guardrail, and a metal guardrail before catching on fire. Examination of the airplane revealed that a major portion of the airplane's structure was consumed by fire and the position of the fuel selector valve could not be determined. Examination of the experimental engine revealed it had sustained extensive thermal damage; however, no mechanical deficiencies were noted with the engine that could have prevented normal flight operations.



NTSB Identification: MIA07LA032.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Thursday, December 21, 2006 in Merritt Island, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2007
Aircraft: Clopton Aero LLC Aerocomp Compair 7SL, registration: N286JL
Injuries: 1 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot stated that he completed about 7 practice crosswind landings during which the airplane performed well with no problems. During his last takeoff at 93 percent power, while at an altitude of about 500 to 700 feet AGL, the turbine started to spool down to about 61 percent (flight idle). He said he initiated emergency procedures to include pushing the left throttle full forward, with no increase in power being realized. He said he then brought the left throttle to flight idle, feathered the propeller, flipped and activated the isolate switch to the on position to bypass the normal fuel delivery system, and then advanced the right throttle full forward. He said the lock clip detent was secure, but this produced no increase in power or thrust, Thrust remained at about 61 percent, with no change being noted in fuel power through either the normal and emergency isolate positions in fuel flow to the turbine. He said he felt he was dropping faster with the propeller feathered, so he attempted to see if he could get some thrust with the propeller control to full forward which seemed to help a little. He said he was able to glide clear of all houses and structures, and was able to ditch the airplane in the water. After recovery from the water, postcrash examinations of the airframe, engine, and accessories were performed by the manufacturer, and the examinations revealed the presence of "slime" in the common airframe fuel filter which received fuel from the normal fuel supply line, as well as the separate emergency fuel supply line that bypassed the fuel control unit, to directly feed the turbine. The engine was also given a separate detailed examination. No other anomalies were noted.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The airplane manufacturer's inadequate maintenance prior to final aircraft delivery, which resulted in fuel filter blockage and engine fuel starvation.


NTSB Identification: SEA06LA167.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Tuesday, August 22, 2006 in Helena, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/26/2007
Aircraft: Kinnson Lancair IV-P Turbine, registration: N514PT
Injuries: 1 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.According to the pilot, after flying the turbine-powered amateur-built experimental airplane in the local area for about 40 minutes, he returned to the airport to practice some takeoffs and landings. After completing the first landing, he departed and was climbing out with the landing gear and flaps retracted when he "noticed flames coming out of the right side exhaust stack." The engine lost power, and the pilot executed a forced landing in a field. During the landing roll, the airplane impacted irrigation ditches and a fence. An FAA inspector examined the airplane and reported that the right wing spar was broken. He further reported observing dents in the exhaust stacks that appeared to be from turbine blade material breaking off the turbine wheels and exiting the engine. The inspector oversaw a read out of engine parameters stored in avionics equipment installed in the airplane. According to the inspector, the data revealed "over temp and over torque of the engine for in excess of 60 seconds." The pilot stated that the accident could have been prevented by having equipment installed in the airplane that would prevent turbine overtemperature by automatically limiting the fuel flow to the turbine.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of engine power as a result of turbine over temperature due to the pilot's failure to follow proper procedures for engine operation. A contributing factor was the lack of suitable terrain for the ensuing forced landing.

NTSB Identification: SEA06LA074.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Friday, April 14, 2006 in Belgrade, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/26/2007
Aircraft: Central Copters Lancair IV-P, registration: N671
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.While on final for a night visual approach, the quill shaft between the reduction gear box and the power section of the engine decoupled. This resulted in a loss of drive input to the propeller, and ultimately to an off-field forced landing on rough/uneven terrain. Although the initial touchdown was successful, during the rollout the aircraft impacted the terrain, and after it came to a stop a small fire developed near the engine exhaust. Although the occupants tried to put out the fire, they were unable to do so, and the aircraft was eventually consumed by the fire.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of drive power to the aircraft's propeller while on a visual final approach, due to the decoupling of the quill shaft between the reduction gearbox and the engine power section. Factors include a dark night, no suitable terrain on which to land, and the rough/uneven nature of the terrain upon which the pilot had to execute his forced landing.


NTSB Identification: LAX06LA041.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, November 19, 2005 in Tucson, AZ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 06/27/2007
Aircraft: Tingle Special, registration: N660T
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The airplane entered a torque roll to the left during the initial climb shortly after takeoff. Numerous pilot witnesses observed the composite airplane on takeoff roll when the airplane began to drift to the left of centerline. Some observed dust below the left wing from the left main landing gear tire rolling in the dirt. The airplane lifted off the ground in a nose high pitch attitude and rolled 90 degrees to the left in a knife-edge turn. The airplane then continued to an inverted position, descended at a 45-degree nose low pitch attitude, and impacted the ground. All of the witnesses indicated that the engine seemed to be at full power during the entire event. Measurements of tire marks on the runway and tire tracks in the dirt to the east of the runway, indicated that the pilot continued with the takeoff roll even though the airplane was well east of the runway centerline and even departed the runway surface to the east. According to the airplane kit manufacturer, takeoffs with more than 70 percent torque were not recommended until the airplane reached 100 knots indicated airspeed. The kit manufacturer added that if one were to takeoff with more than 70-percent torque, below 100 knots, there would not be enough rudder authority to offset the torque/p-factor of the 725-horsepower engine/propeller. There was no record in the FAA database of the airplane receiving an experimental airworthiness certificate nor was there an endorsement in the logbook indicating that the pilot/builder had flown the requisite 40 hours of test flights prior to carrying passengers. The airplane was destroyed by impact and fire damage. The FAA inspector who responded to the accident site reported finding no anomalies with the identifiable components that would have prevented normal flight.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's excessive use of power during takeoff, which resulted in an inadvertent torque roll shortly after lift off. Also causal was the pilot's failure to abort the takeoff when directional control could not be maintained during the takeoff roll.

NTSB Identification: CHI05LA094.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Sunday, April 10, 2005 in Kendallville, IN
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/07/2005
Aircraft: Tschida Glastar, registration: N5DK
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The amateur-built experimental airplane was substantially damaged when it lost engine power after takeoff. The pilot was in the traffic pattern and attempted to execute a forced landing on the departure runway. However, the glide path was not sufficient to reach the runway and the airplane impacted a road and ditch adjacent to the airport. This was the first flight of the airplane. The pilot was the owner and builder of the aircraft. The pilot stated that after takeoff, he experienced a "very quick" 8-knot reduction in airspeed. The loss in airspeed was followed by a reduction in engine exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of about 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The pilot noted that the loss of airspeed felt like "someone momentarily deployed a speed brake but the airspeed remained at the lower speed." He recalled that the fuel pressure indicated 10 pounds per square inch (psi) at that time. The pilot stated that when he reached a point abeam the end of the runway and began a 180-degree turn to final approach for landing, a second airspeed reduction occurred. He reported that while maintaining a 65-knot glide speed, the glide path would not allow a landing on the runway. The pilot reported that the field adjacent to the airport was too small to permit a safe landing. Because there was no traffic on the road adjoining the airport, he elected to dive toward it in an effort to maintain enough airspeed to pull up and land in a grass area off the end of the runway. However, the airplane's nose wheel caught the edge of the roadway and the aircraft slid across the road and into a ditch. A post-accident inspection revealed that a piece of silicone rubber sealant obstructed the inlet of the internal engine fuel filter. The pilot/builder reported that to the best of his knowledge the sealant material was not used in the construction of the airplane and he was unsure of the source. In addition, a Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane. He noted that several bends in the fuel lines were flattened and did not have a uniform cross-section at those locations.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
A loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of the fuel flow restriction at the internal engine fuel filter due the presence of the silicone sealant material. Contributing factors were the unsuitable terrain for a forced landing short of the airport property, as well as the road and ditch.


And it goes on, and on, and on..........
 
Last edited:
:rofl: :no: :rolleyes2: :mad2: :idea: :loco: :nono: :nonod: :crazy: :rockon:
9 out of 10 smilies think that is the dumbest post anyone has made in quite a while.

Note to peytont: There is NO such thing as an inexpensive way to get into a turbine.

Nice. I originally had "cheap" in there and changed it.
 
So you guys think a homebuilder is going to build a plane for $200k and not have a plan for scheduled maintenance? :rofl:


Don't think I would have the "factory" do any "scheduled maintenance" for me on a Comp Air.....:rolleyes2:

NTSB Identification: MIA07LA032.

Accident occurred Thursday, December 21, 2006 in Merritt Island, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2007
Aircraft: Clopton Aero LLC Aerocomp Compair 7SL, registration: N286JL
Injuries: 1 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot stated that he completed about 7 practice crosswind landings during which the airplane performed well with no problems. During his last takeoff at 93 percent power, while at an altitude of about 500 to 700 feet AGL, the turbine started to spool down to about 61 percent (flight idle). He said he initiated emergency procedures to include pushing the left throttle full forward, with no increase in power being realized. He said he then brought the left throttle to flight idle, feathered the propeller, flipped and activated the isolate switch to the on position to bypass the normal fuel delivery system, and then advanced the right throttle full forward. He said the lock clip detent was secure, but this produced no increase in power or thrust, Thrust remained at about 61 percent, with no change being noted in fuel power through either the normal and emergency isolate positions in fuel flow to the turbine. He said he felt he was dropping faster with the propeller feathered, so he attempted to see if he could get some thrust with the propeller control to full forward which seemed to help a little. He said he was able to glide clear of all houses and structures, and was able to ditch the airplane in the water. After recovery from the water, postcrash examinations of the airframe, engine, and accessories were performed by the manufacturer, and the examinations revealed the presence of "slime" in the common airframe fuel filter which received fuel from the normal fuel supply line, as well as the separate emergency fuel supply line that bypassed the fuel control unit, to directly feed the turbine. The engine was also given a separate detailed examination. No other anomalies were noted.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The airplane manufacturer's inadequate maintenance prior to final aircraft delivery, which resulted in fuel filter blockage and engine fuel starvation.
 
I have only viewed pictures on the internet and wondered about the details of fit, finish, design ect.

From their website it looks like they are biting off way more than they can chew with design/build.

But the youtube video of 3000ft/min climb was kind of cool.
They have been building them for a long time. But their facility looks more like a Mississippi bayou boat repair yard...
 
NTSB Identification: ERA12LA417
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, June 27, 2012 in Glenwood, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/06/2013
Aircraft: LUTERS ARNIS V LEGEND, registration: N3YZ
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The amateur-built airplane was in cruise flight at 3,000 feet above ground level when it experienced a total loss of engine power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, and the airplane sustained substantial damage during the landing. Postaccident examination revealed that the fuel control unit (FCU) condition lever was 20 degrees out of its run position. Further examination of the condition lever revealed that the condition lever’s outer cable had been improperly installed, which allowed the uncommanded aft movement of the condition lever, which could result in a loss of engine power. A broken engine mount, which was likely the result of impact-related forces, was also found. This broken engine mount resulted in a slight turbine misalignment. When the turbine was realigned, the FCU condition lever settings were normal. The engine was subsequently started and operated normally with no irregular noises or hesitation. According to the engine manufacturer’s representative, if the condition lever had been installed properly, there should have been no such movement of the condition lever.

I remember that one. There was a ton and then some of luck involved. The plane was at the beginning of a ferry flight to Switzerland (not non-stop, obviously) - only made it like 5 nm away from the departure airport. Ferry tank in the rear cockpit, plane full of jet A a minute after take-off lost power. Ferry pilot wasn't familiar with the area (which is swamps, forest, lakes) and put it on what he thought was a patch of asphalt. In a middle of a forest. Turned out to be a Florida greenhouse, one of those deals made out of black mesh - so he went smack in there. Luckily, he wasn't injured
 
Don't think I would have the "factory" do any "scheduled maintenance" for me on a Comp Air.....:rolleyes2:

NTSB Identification: MIA07LA032.

Accident occurred Thursday, December 21, 2006 in Merritt Island, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2007
Aircraft: Clopton Aero LLC Aerocomp Compair 7SL, registration: N286JL
Injuries: 1 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot stated that he completed about 7 practice crosswind landings during which the airplane performed well with no problems. During his last takeoff at 93 percent power, while at an altitude of about 500 to 700 feet AGL, the turbine started to spool down to about 61 percent (flight idle). He said he initiated emergency procedures to include pushing the left throttle full forward, with no increase in power being realized. He said he then brought the left throttle to flight idle, feathered the propeller, flipped and activated the isolate switch to the on position to bypass the normal fuel delivery system, and then advanced the right throttle full forward. He said the lock clip detent was secure, but this produced no increase in power or thrust, Thrust remained at about 61 percent, with no change being noted in fuel power through either the normal and emergency isolate positions in fuel flow to the turbine. He said he felt he was dropping faster with the propeller feathered, so he attempted to see if he could get some thrust with the propeller control to full forward which seemed to help a little. He said he was able to glide clear of all houses and structures, and was able to ditch the airplane in the water. After recovery from the water, postcrash examinations of the airframe, engine, and accessories were performed by the manufacturer, and the examinations revealed the presence of "slime" in the common airframe fuel filter which received fuel from the normal fuel supply line, as well as the separate emergency fuel supply line that bypassed the fuel control unit, to directly feed the turbine. The engine was also given a separate detailed examination. No other anomalies were noted.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The airplane manufacturer's inadequate maintenance prior to final aircraft delivery, which resulted in fuel filter blockage and engine fuel starvation.

This guy is a friend of mine. This crash messed his hand up and ended his career as a surgeon. Also killed his dog. He had loaned the plane to the factory to show and they were supposed to do some maintenance on it in return. IIRC, this was something they were suppose to fix but did not/forgot. Now has an SR22.
 
Last edited:
This guy is a friend of mine. This crash messed his hand up and ended his career as a surgeon. Also killed his dog. He had loaned the plane to the factory to show and they were supposed to do some maintenance on it in return. IIRC, this was something they were suppose to fix but did not/forgot. Now has an SR22.

You would think the factory would have a "maintenance plan"....I mean after all, this is an over $200k airplane.....:rolleyes:
 
NTSB Identification: ERA12LA417
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, June 27, 2012 in Glenwood, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/06/2013
Aircraft: LUTERS ARNIS V LEGEND, registration: N3YZ
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The amateur-built airplane was in cruise flight at 3,000 feet above ground level when it experienced a total loss of engine power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, and the airplane sustained substantial damage during the landing. Postaccident examination revealed that the fuel control unit (FCU) condition lever was 20 degrees out of its run position. Further examination of the condition lever revealed that the condition lever’s outer cable had been improperly installed, which allowed the uncommanded aft movement of the condition lever, which could result in a loss of engine power. A broken engine mount, which was likely the result of impact-related forces, was also found. This broken engine mount resulted in a slight turbine misalignment. When the turbine was realigned, the FCU condition lever settings were normal. The engine was subsequently started and operated normally with no irregular noises or hesitation. According to the engine manufacturer’s representative, if the condition lever had been installed properly, there should have been no such movement of the condition lever.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of engine power due to the airplane builder’s improper installation of the fuel control unit condition lever cables, which resulted in the airplane’s subsequent forced landing.



NTSB Identification: CEN11LA553
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 06, 2011 in Metone, IN
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/15/2012
Aircraft: HYDE WILLIAM R HELICYCLE, registration: N128BH
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot reported that the helicopter was about 100 yards from the landing zone at 100 feet above ground level at 40 mph airspeed when the engine “flamed out.” He attempted to execute an autorotation, but the helicopter impacted hard. The examination of the helicopter revealed that the electrical wires that provided power to the helicopter’s fuel pump became disconnected, which resulted in an interruption in the fuel flow to the engine.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of an electrical system failure.


NTSB Identification: WPR09LA219
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, April 24, 2009 in Astoria, OR
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/09/2009
Aircraft: ELLUMAX LEASING LLC EPIC LT, registration: N653SB
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.During a climb to en route cruise, the airplane's engine lost almost all power, and the pilot had to ditch in a river because he was unable to glide back to the departure airport. The power loss was due to a minimum fuel flow command from the fuel control unit as a result of the seizure of the fuel control flyweights. The seizure of the flyweights was due to their contamination with residue from a failed fuel control tachometer drive bearing. The bearing failed due to its preload spacer being machined incorrectly, and due to the failure of the assembling technician to detect the anomaly at the time the fuel control was assembled.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The partial loss of engine power during climb to cruise due to the failure of the engine's fuel control unit. Contributing to the accident was the incorrect machining of an internal component of the fuel control unit, and the failure of the assembling technician to correctly inspect the unit's assembly.

NTSB Identification: SEA08LA195
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 02, 2008 in Camarillo, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/05/2009
Aircraft: LANCAIR Propjet, registration: N750PJ
Injuries: 2 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot reported that while transitioning from climb to cruise, the engine lost power with no engine sounds or instrument indications of a pending engine failure. The pilot noted white smoke emanating from the exhaust stacks as he began a 180-degree turn back towards the runway. He stated that overrun barriers were on the runway and that he had to maintain a faster airspeed in order to clear the runway overrun barriers before he could land the airplane. After clearing the overrun barriers, he landed the airplane and applied maximum braking in an attempt to stop the airplane on the remaining runway. During the landing rollout, the airplane exited the runway, struck a pile of dirt and flipped over, causing structural damage to the left wing, rudder, and vertical stabilizer. Examination of the aircraft indicated a significant amount of air bubbles in the fuel system, but no further engine anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The loss of engine power due to air within the fuel system.


NTSB Identification: LAX07LA184.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, June 02, 2007 in Parowan, UT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/31/2008
Aircraft: Brook Lancair IV-P, registration: N401PT
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot was about 1 hour 15 minutes into the flight, and the airplane was cruising at 26,000 feet, when the turbo prop engine lost power with white smoke coming out of the exhaust. About a minute before the pilot had observed what he termed "splats" of moisture on the windscreen. He performed an emergency descent and at 12,500 feet attempted an engine restart. The restart attempt was unsuccessful. He glided to the nearest airport, circled, and performed a power-off landing. The airplane crossed the runway threshold at 120 knots, floated, and touched down at mid field. After touchdown, the airplane continued down the runway, off the end, and into terrain and a fence. The airplane came to rest with the landing gear collapsed. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined the airplane, and could not identify any mechanical abnormality with the engine or fuel system. The Pilot Operating Handbook states that an engine relight was possible below 13,000 feet mean sea level, and below 160 knots of airspeed. The pilot could not recall what his airspeed was when he attempted the engine restart. The airplane was not equipped with any type of engine inlet anti-ice or deicing equipment. The pilot did state that he had been in and out of moisture while at his 26,000 feet cruising altitude, but there had been no ice buildup on his wings or windscreen. A technical representative for Lancair stated that a 3/4 blockage of the engine cowling NACA induction scoop might be enough to starve the engine of air and induce a flameout.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
A loss of engine power due to engine inlet icing. Contributing to the accident was the lack of engine inlet anti-icing capability.

NTSB Identification: DFW07LA103.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Wednesday, May 02, 2007 in McAllen, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/31/2008
Aircraft: LIVPT INC Lancair IV-P, registration: N119TC
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.Prior to departure, the commercial pilot experienced a hot start while attempting to start the 750-horsepower turbo-prop engine. The pilot received assistance from an airframe and powerplant mechanic. The mechanic reviewed the handwritten checklist the pilot used to start the engine and informed him that the procedures were out of sequence, which was most likely the cause of the hot start. The pilot then motored the engine and allowed the starter to cool for approximately two minutes before he attempted to start the engine. The engine started, sounded "normal" and ran "stable" for approximately 30-45 seconds. The pilot then shut down the engine, and no smoke or engine surging was observed. The pilot dismounted the airplane and walked inside the terminal building with the female passenger. The mechanic then informed the pilot that he should let the starter cool down for at least 30 minutes to 1-hour. About an hour later, the pilot started the engine, and departed. About a minute after takeoff, the pilot announced that he had an "engine out" and he attempted to perform a forced landing on a road south of the airport. Witnesses said the airplane was "wobbling in the air from side to side and having trouble flying straight." It then made a sudden "right down wind turn" and descended "suddenly as if it had to land." The airplane landed on the southbound lanes of the road and collided with the pavement, the center concrete guardrail, and a metal guardrail before catching on fire. Examination of the airplane revealed that a major portion of the airplane's structure was consumed by fire and the position of the fuel selector valve could not be determined. Examination of the experimental engine revealed it had sustained extensive thermal damage; however, no mechanical deficiencies were noted with the engine that could have prevented normal flight operations.



NTSB Identification: MIA07LA032.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Thursday, December 21, 2006 in Merritt Island, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2007
Aircraft: Clopton Aero LLC Aerocomp Compair 7SL, registration: N286JL
Injuries: 1 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The pilot stated that he completed about 7 practice crosswind landings during which the airplane performed well with no problems. During his last takeoff at 93 percent power, while at an altitude of about 500 to 700 feet AGL, the turbine started to spool down to about 61 percent (flight idle). He said he initiated emergency procedures to include pushing the left throttle full forward, with no increase in power being realized. He said he then brought the left throttle to flight idle, feathered the propeller, flipped and activated the isolate switch to the on position to bypass the normal fuel delivery system, and then advanced the right throttle full forward. He said the lock clip detent was secure, but this produced no increase in power or thrust, Thrust remained at about 61 percent, with no change being noted in fuel power through either the normal and emergency isolate positions in fuel flow to the turbine. He said he felt he was dropping faster with the propeller feathered, so he attempted to see if he could get some thrust with the propeller control to full forward which seemed to help a little. He said he was able to glide clear of all houses and structures, and was able to ditch the airplane in the water. After recovery from the water, postcrash examinations of the airframe, engine, and accessories were performed by the manufacturer, and the examinations revealed the presence of "slime" in the common airframe fuel filter which received fuel from the normal fuel supply line, as well as the separate emergency fuel supply line that bypassed the fuel control unit, to directly feed the turbine. The engine was also given a separate detailed examination. No other anomalies were noted.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The airplane manufacturer's inadequate maintenance prior to final aircraft delivery, which resulted in fuel filter blockage and engine fuel starvation.


NTSB Identification: SEA06LA167.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Tuesday, August 22, 2006 in Helena, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/26/2007
Aircraft: Kinnson Lancair IV-P Turbine, registration: N514PT
Injuries: 1 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.According to the pilot, after flying the turbine-powered amateur-built experimental airplane in the local area for about 40 minutes, he returned to the airport to practice some takeoffs and landings. After completing the first landing, he departed and was climbing out with the landing gear and flaps retracted when he "noticed flames coming out of the right side exhaust stack." The engine lost power, and the pilot executed a forced landing in a field. During the landing roll, the airplane impacted irrigation ditches and a fence. An FAA inspector examined the airplane and reported that the right wing spar was broken. He further reported observing dents in the exhaust stacks that appeared to be from turbine blade material breaking off the turbine wheels and exiting the engine. The inspector oversaw a read out of engine parameters stored in avionics equipment installed in the airplane. According to the inspector, the data revealed "over temp and over torque of the engine for in excess of 60 seconds." The pilot stated that the accident could have been prevented by having equipment installed in the airplane that would prevent turbine overtemperature by automatically limiting the fuel flow to the turbine.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of engine power as a result of turbine over temperature due to the pilot's failure to follow proper procedures for engine operation. A contributing factor was the lack of suitable terrain for the ensuing forced landing.

NTSB Identification: SEA06LA074.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Friday, April 14, 2006 in Belgrade, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/26/2007
Aircraft: Central Copters Lancair IV-P, registration: N671
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.While on final for a night visual approach, the quill shaft between the reduction gear box and the power section of the engine decoupled. This resulted in a loss of drive input to the propeller, and ultimately to an off-field forced landing on rough/uneven terrain. Although the initial touchdown was successful, during the rollout the aircraft impacted the terrain, and after it came to a stop a small fire developed near the engine exhaust. Although the occupants tried to put out the fire, they were unable to do so, and the aircraft was eventually consumed by the fire.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of drive power to the aircraft's propeller while on a visual final approach, due to the decoupling of the quill shaft between the reduction gearbox and the engine power section. Factors include a dark night, no suitable terrain on which to land, and the rough/uneven nature of the terrain upon which the pilot had to execute his forced landing.


NTSB Identification: LAX06LA041.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, November 19, 2005 in Tucson, AZ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 06/27/2007
Aircraft: Tingle Special, registration: N660T
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The airplane entered a torque roll to the left during the initial climb shortly after takeoff. Numerous pilot witnesses observed the composite airplane on takeoff roll when the airplane began to drift to the left of centerline. Some observed dust below the left wing from the left main landing gear tire rolling in the dirt. The airplane lifted off the ground in a nose high pitch attitude and rolled 90 degrees to the left in a knife-edge turn. The airplane then continued to an inverted position, descended at a 45-degree nose low pitch attitude, and impacted the ground. All of the witnesses indicated that the engine seemed to be at full power during the entire event. Measurements of tire marks on the runway and tire tracks in the dirt to the east of the runway, indicated that the pilot continued with the takeoff roll even though the airplane was well east of the runway centerline and even departed the runway surface to the east. According to the airplane kit manufacturer, takeoffs with more than 70 percent torque were not recommended until the airplane reached 100 knots indicated airspeed. The kit manufacturer added that if one were to takeoff with more than 70-percent torque, below 100 knots, there would not be enough rudder authority to offset the torque/p-factor of the 725-horsepower engine/propeller. There was no record in the FAA database of the airplane receiving an experimental airworthiness certificate nor was there an endorsement in the logbook indicating that the pilot/builder had flown the requisite 40 hours of test flights prior to carrying passengers. The airplane was destroyed by impact and fire damage. The FAA inspector who responded to the accident site reported finding no anomalies with the identifiable components that would have prevented normal flight.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's excessive use of power during takeoff, which resulted in an inadvertent torque roll shortly after lift off. Also causal was the pilot's failure to abort the takeoff when directional control could not be maintained during the takeoff roll.

NTSB Identification: CHI05LA094.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Sunday, April 10, 2005 in Kendallville, IN
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/07/2005
Aircraft: Tschida Glastar, registration: N5DK
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The amateur-built experimental airplane was substantially damaged when it lost engine power after takeoff. The pilot was in the traffic pattern and attempted to execute a forced landing on the departure runway. However, the glide path was not sufficient to reach the runway and the airplane impacted a road and ditch adjacent to the airport. This was the first flight of the airplane. The pilot was the owner and builder of the aircraft. The pilot stated that after takeoff, he experienced a "very quick" 8-knot reduction in airspeed. The loss in airspeed was followed by a reduction in engine exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of about 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The pilot noted that the loss of airspeed felt like "someone momentarily deployed a speed brake but the airspeed remained at the lower speed." He recalled that the fuel pressure indicated 10 pounds per square inch (psi) at that time. The pilot stated that when he reached a point abeam the end of the runway and began a 180-degree turn to final approach for landing, a second airspeed reduction occurred. He reported that while maintaining a 65-knot glide speed, the glide path would not allow a landing on the runway. The pilot reported that the field adjacent to the airport was too small to permit a safe landing. Because there was no traffic on the road adjoining the airport, he elected to dive toward it in an effort to maintain enough airspeed to pull up and land in a grass area off the end of the runway. However, the airplane's nose wheel caught the edge of the roadway and the aircraft slid across the road and into a ditch. A post-accident inspection revealed that a piece of silicone rubber sealant obstructed the inlet of the internal engine fuel filter. The pilot/builder reported that to the best of his knowledge the sealant material was not used in the construction of the airplane and he was unsure of the source. In addition, a Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane. He noted that several bends in the fuel lines were flattened and did not have a uniform cross-section at those locations.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
A loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of the fuel flow restriction at the internal engine fuel filter due the presence of the silicone sealant material. Contributing factors were the unsuitable terrain for a forced landing short of the airport property, as well as the road and ditch.


And it goes on, and on, and on..........

True, these are all too common in homebuiltairplanes. However, you are leaving out all the parallel certified aircraft accidents that read just like these. Human error is common. Making work done on aircraft be done by A&E's doesn't guarantee anything.
 
Always seems to be fuel system glitches that get those backyard cowboy pilots. Which is better then spam can pilots, they just run out of fuel.:D
 
True, these are all too common in homebuiltairplanes. However, you are leaving out all the parallel certified aircraft accidents that read just like these. Human error is common. Making work done on aircraft be done by A&E's doesn't guarantee anything.

Nor does it address the the original question, but hey, he's on a roll. :rolleyes:
 
True, these are all too common in homebuiltairplanes. However, you are leaving out all the parallel certified aircraft accidents that read just like these. Human error is common. Making work done on aircraft be done by A&E's doesn't guarantee anything.

A&E is a Cable network.
 
Nor does it address the the original question, but hey, he's on a roll. :rolleyes:
What was the original question? :lol:

Does anyone have actual time in one of these planes?

I do find it interesting that most of the planes for sale have relatively low time....
 
What was the original question? :lol:

Does anyone have actual time in one of these planes?

I do find it interesting that most of the planes for sale have relatively low time....

If you're truly interested in one, PM me and I'll give you the contact info on my friend who built one and was the star of that NTSB report R&W pointed out. He was fond of the plane, not real fond of the MX that was performed on the turbine.
 
Clearly, construction and maintenance has to be done in accordance with acceptable standards and procedures using proper materials.

Not my cup of tea. I would rather stick to piston engines due to cost of fuel and maintenance. But if you have the bucks, why not? :dunno:
 
I Have one that I built in 2002. Have over 1300 hours on it now. Avoid it. In my opinion it is a really dangerous airplane. I use it for my business, but will be chopping it up with a chainsaw when I'm finished for liability reasons. First off...the kit is a piece of crap. I threw away most all of it except the fiberglass airframe itself. Came with wheels and brakes that were way under the gross weight limit for the airplane. Came with a used, repaired tailwheel. Lots of auto hoses, fittings, etc. Instead of AN fittings on the flap rods for example, they inserted smaller diameter tubes inside the larger tubes and hogged a nasty weld on it. Two separate times, then finished it off with a piece of Home Depot threaded rod welded in. The SS control cables were not aircraft grade. The pullies were off an ultralight. No cable guard safeties on the pully brackets, etc. They used Morse cables for the elevator. Told me they were rated 1500 lbs. which would have been adequate. But that was for pull rating. Push ratings were under 400 lbs. Very dangerous set-up. They molded a fiberglass header tank behind the firewall for separating air from the fuel into the engine. It split apart one day while taxiing. My feet were standing in Jet-A. Luckily I've built an airplane before, and tossed most everything and fixed it all myself. As for the airframe....It is hand laid crap. They build boats there. Looks like a homemade boat. The two halves of the fuselage are not symmetrical. Left and right wing root molded into the fuselage is 1 inch longer on one side in chord, and about 1 degree difference in angle of incidence. It was very difficult to measure and set angles on this airplane. There isn't a straight line, or anything level anywhere on it. They started with a smaller airplane, and kept putting in spacers into the fuselage to make it longer and wider. They increased the wing area by lengthening the chord. But nowhere near enough horizontal stab or elevator is added. They had trouble flaring the plane on touchdown so they they fixed it by cranking the Horizontal stabilizer down. There is around 8 degrees difference between the wing and Horizontal Stabilizer angles. Yes...8 DEGREES! The last airplane I built, and the factory airplane I measured was about 1-1.5 degrees. This airplane has no pitch stability whatsoever. Roll stability is negative over 15-20 degrees bank angle. Even with outside rudder it will roll over on you without corrective roll input. With the flaps down on a go around you better add power slowly as the flaps come up or it'll put you on your back. A test pilot who was flying the restrictions off a customers "Factory built" plane got killed at Aerocomps home airport on a go-around. It is very, very difficult to land. Huge prop, tall springy gear, huge turbine lag, high idle thrust, poor aileron authority when slow, and fuel level right-left is very difficult to keep balanced. I consider every landing an adventure. I'm not an unskilled person. Ex-motorcycle and car racer. Good one too. over 6000 hours in 35 years. I did have a prop strike once. But it was 16, gust 26 at a 45 degree crosswind. 9" heaves in the runway too. Found out later when I flew commercial 737 out of there. We were hanging by our seat belts on the initial TO roll. $40,000 in cost to repair. And it was only 1.5" bent at the tips.
Now for the Walter engine. It is great!! Love it. Change the oil at 300 hours, change fuel filter, bleed air out of the FCU, and borescope inspection once a year. Always use Prist in the fuel. Otherwise just no maintenance on it. It's good for 1500 hours. Diemech Turbines does a fantastic job building and maintaining them. Follow their advice on operating it too, and you'll be fine. $25K every 1500 hundred hours motor and prop. Cheap. Other than the prop strike I haven't spent more than $1000 in 14 years on it. My annual inspection in 2002 on my C-320 twin was running $10K-$15K every year. The Comp 7 runs me less than $100 a year. It has been a very productive plane in my aerial surveying business in Alaska. Seen some rough duty, and bad weather, but I survived it all. But I hate the airplane, and hate flying it. Only fun part is the climb out. With a light load it'll do 4000'/min easy. Some asked if the factory has a maintenance plan. Yes they do. Required for any turbine, even a homebuilt. It was a real hassle to get it approved by the FAA too. To summarize...avoid these planes.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention.....I had a conversation with an engineer who was involved with a lawsuit concerning a Compair8 that had separated from it's floats. He did say the airframe was very strong. But had seen one where the builder had attached the trailing spar pickups with large wood screws to the fuselage. This was a plane that was "Custom" built for a customer. He discovered this defect after a fatal crash that separated the wings from the fuselage. It wasn't a factor in the crash though. Another problem could be the wing strut fuselage carry-thru bar. It is a T-Section bar. But the vertical leg of the "T" is tapered. I asked them how I was to fit the wing strut ends over it. They told me they used a belt sander to thin out the wider section of the bar!! Yes....One of the most critical pieces of metal in the whole aircraft structure, and they're grinding it with a belt sander. I had to go find a machine shop to take the taper out the proper way. There are lot's of things like this with the kit. I forget now how much work it was to fix it all. But hey! It's all OK, because they claimed "It's one of the few homebuilt planes to get a full FAA Part 23 Design Analysis" uh-huh....Part 23 is not an "Analysis", it is a design standard. So they whipped out a paper napkin one day and wrote "FAILED" on it. There, they did an FAA Part 23 Analysis. So technically speaking they weren't lying?
 
Last edited:
SUMMARY AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF EIGHT SKYDIVERS AT JÄMIJÄRVI ON 20 APRIL 2014 On Easter Sunday, 20 April 2014 at 15:40 Finnish time (UTC + 3h) an accident occurred at Jä- mijärvi aerodrome when a Comp Air 8 aircraft, registration OH-XDZ, carrying skydivers crashed into the woods. In addition to the pilot there were ten skydivers on board. The pilot and two skydivers managed to bail out of the aircraft. Eight skydivers died in the collision with the ground. The OH-XDZ was the first turboprop aircraft in the experimental category in Finland. It was built in Finland from an aircraft kit. The Tampere Skydiving Club’s (TamLK) skydiving event “Easter Boogie” was in progress at Jä- mijärvi aerodrome. Finland’s Sport Aviators’ Comp Air 8 aircraft was reserved for the event; with it skydivers were being carried to the altitude of 4 000 m. The eighth Comp Air flight of the day reached the jump run, which was at 4 230 m over the southern runway of the aerodrome. The skydivers noticed that they had overshot the jump run and requested a new one from the pilot. The pilot increased engine power and simultaneously began turning to the left. During the turn the aircraft began to descend and its airspeed increased, which the pilot did not immediately realise. The pilot pulled on the control stick and the aircraft levelled out or went into a shallow climb. He reduced engine power to idle, in conjunction with which the airflow over the horizontal stabiliser probably decreased suddenly, which generated a rapid nose-down movement. As the angle of attack was decreasing a downward force was generated on the wing. The right wing’s wing strut buckled upwards and the right wing folded down against the jump door around the wing root mountings. The aircraft lost its controllability instantaneously and began to rotate around its vertical axis in a flight condition resembling an inverted spin. In the aircraft a decision to make an emergency jump was made. The wing which had folded against the jump door prevented exiting through the door. The pilot and two skydivers sitting at the front of the airplane bailed out through the pilot’s door. The others did not have enough time to bail out. They died in the collision with the ground. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the collision and the fire.
 
The high-wing, tailwheel, turboprop idea is pretty cool, but what I have read on other forums, falls pretty much in line with what people are saying on here. Funny I google the tail number(N4075Z) of the green one they show on their website...guy crashed it doing a touch and go. I think a turbine powered Thunder Mustang would be more fun.
 
Thats the one I was referring to who was a hired pilot to fly off the 40 hour restrictions for the owner. French pilot. It put the nose almost straight up when he applied power.
 
Eight or ten years ago looked at one that was going together. IIRC, I saw ordinary plywood (building supply stuff) in the spars. I saw light piano hinges on the ailerons, not something you want to see on an airplane this size and speed. The whole thing looked crude and cheap.
 
I'm glad I found this thread. I'm haphazardly looking for/at 4 seat high wing EAB planes, and have known about AeroComp for quite some time. Their kit prices didn't seem too outrageous, but they nickel and dime you to death. The turbine models sound a little too exciting for my tastes; I would build a CompAir 4 and hang a recip. on it instead of a turbine. But, the kit contents and factory construction methods seem to leave a lot to be desired. I guess you really get what you pay for.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top