Crashes?

[Thomas]

Hey, I know pilots are crazy but you ultraLight guys seem a bit over the top. I have been scanning the posts on this thread and I must say that there are alot of fatal accident posts. What's up with that?

How many of you have had a mechanical failure bad enough to put you down some place? It has been said that "any landing you can walk away from is a good one"; however, how many of you have busted your aircraft up for any reason?

I am thinking about getting into this low and slow busness but these accidents are not a good selling point. What say you? :(

[GyroRon]

Thomas you sound like you got the wrong atitude about us coming into the sport. Might want to rethink your thinking. There is a whole lot more fatal crashes in General aviation than there is in this low and slow stuff as you call it.

[Russell]

Hey, I know pilots are crazy but you ultraLight guys seem a bit over the top.
I didn't know all these N number gyro's were ultralites!!! I guess you need to read some more about gyro's You must have a misunderstanding about them. Granted some do fit into the Ultralite category. But most do not.I really hate when people at work ask me if I am still flying my ultralite!!!! That just burns my A#$
Done ranting Russ :mad:

[scottessex]

I've had just this one little incident.....
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1637

[dae]

But Russ you DO have a cute little ultralight! David

[StanFoster]

Thomas: I have had 18 real forced landings in my Bensen and my Air Command gyros. I have never scratched myself or my gyros to date. I am currently flying my RAF and although I have almost 100 trouble free hours in it...I still try to fly like my 19th forced landing is just about to happen. :eek:

I of course had training to get my private pilots license...but have never had a lesson in a gyro. Not saying I dont need lessons...ok? :D Just saying I was very comfortable and cautiously trained myself..and somehow survived scratch free... :)

I would much rather have an engine out in a gyro than in a GA aircraft.

Stan

[Flapjack]

It has been said that "any landing you can walk away from is a good one"; :(

Good landing: you can still walk;
Great landing: you can still fly!


Tom
Cessna 170B
Ron's Red Devil Dominator

[StanFoster]

Tom: good one...

[cgmg]

Thomas,

I had my first engine out at 50 hours of experience, and it was a non-event. I landed safely in a bean field, got a ride back to the airport, and brought help to get my machine out. The only damage was scratches from the bean plants.

I, like Stan, agree that I would much rather have a forced landing in a gyro, due to the ability to land with no forward roll. Dropping into the beans was no problem, as I didn't have to worry about my wheels catching on my landing roll, like I would in a plane.

Some caveats about how to handle an engine out safely in our machines: Never fly over anything you can't land on, unless you have enough altitude to glide away from it. Practice landing at idle frequently, at a minimum. I land at idle all the time, to keep practice. Get lessons, and preflight your machine.

A lot of the incidents you have read about involve not following one or more of the above caveats. There are still machines out there which are unstable, which can not be corrected for by the above safe practices. That's a whole different set of accident causes.

[bones]

I've just had a engine out after not flying for about 10 years, done about 4 hrs hops and general familiarisation then 2.5 hrs on circuts then went on a mustering job, had done about 1.5 hrs that morning, motor out over 25' Gum trees( very hard suckers) got it down through a gap of about 30' with 25' rotors, landed with no ground roll and no damage to me or my gyro, the chopper pilot who was doing a double with me said he would have had trouble getting his chopper down where i did with no damage if at all, i would like to see any other form of air craft do what i fluked in doing that morning

[StanFoster]

Mark: Good job...and I am like Mark....do a lot of landings at idle..and you should be well prepared for a real engine out. Also very much ageeing with Mark about not flying over anything you do not want to land in. Words to live by..Stan

[birdy]

The gyro,as every other machine that flys,floats or drives,is only as dangerous as it's operator.

[Thomas]

I didn't know all these N number gyro's were ultralites!!! I guess you need to read some more about gyro's You must have a misunderstanding about them. Granted some do fit into the Ultralite category. But most do not.I really hate when people at work ask me if I am still flying my ultralite!!!! That just burns my A#$
Done ranting Russ :mad:
Sorry, didn't mean to mess up your hair. But from my point of view a motor cycle is not an automobile; and a gyro is in its own category. I am not really sure how you all think about yourselves. I guess if I want to fly one of these THINGS I better get to know what makes y'all tick.

These things crash alot by your own conversations you seem to expect to crash at some point. Why?

I don't know the % compared to general aviation right off hand, but the perception is that the LIGHTER machines have a higher failure rate. There are a variety of reasons but you guys would know better than anyone else. It is obviously something that is beyond control or you all would have mastered the problem. So what are the reason or combination of reasons that a machine fails?

Not preflighting properly, is it just inherent to low level flying, weight to power ratios, pilot error (exceeding limitations), Wx, structure failures, mechanical failures. I don't understand.

If you could cut the accident rate in half what areas of the sport would you change to do that? :confused:

[birdy]

If I was you Thomas,I'd stick with the GA stuff. :rolleyes:
Gyros are only for mad men with noth'n too loose and who want to proove to everyone they are mad by fly'n these death machines :D .If you don't want to belive me,ask anyone who DOSN"T fly one. :mad:
All gyro flyers are tempoary earthlings. ;)

But seriously,
The reason I use one[two actualy]for me day job is coz it's the best aircraft avalable.It's cheap,has a high power to weight ratio,is very simple in construction,reliable and in 2200 hours in 8 years ,has never been grounded coz of the weather.

Why do people crash & burn in these very controlable strong safe machines???
I'm buggered if I know. :mad:

[StanFoster]

Birdy: Got any new mustering shots? I still would like to see a video..and it would really be cool from another aircraft watching you manuevering those cows around,

[Chopper Reid]

Have had the same thought of doing a video of a gyro working cows and seeing what it looks like from a different perspective Stan .
Pity Birdy lives so far away from here, I'd love to see him work that "feral "!!

[GyroRon]

Thomas, the fact that these are homebuilt and not using Certified powerplants is the main reason most of the people here have had engine outs.

[birdy]

Stan,mate,I'v rigged up the didg cam on a mount now so you don't git to perve on me ugly foot.
It's a different angle so you can see the flight instruments and the horison as well.
I'v promised Ken I'd send him a vid for some help he gave me,just need to git some proper footage of when the critters are piss'n me off.
Today would have been perfect,the weather was spoton and the 7oo steers give us a bit of curry.
Tally for today;0
But;
nearly knocked one bloke off his 4 wheeler,hit one steer with the right main in thick dust,and almost landed on a tree.[was look'n back,with me nose in the wind "hover'n",when I noticed a branch of a dead tree about 2' from me right tyre.was a bit further left than I thought.]

[Aussie_Paul]

After what I have had to endure Birdy, I would be very carefull re posting pics and videos etc.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chuck Irby]

Thomas,

You wrote: These things crash alot by your own conversations you seem to expect to crash at some point. Why?

You seem to be confusing "crashes" with "power outs". If you are a good FW and Helo pilot, and I have to assume that you are, then you are always looking for a place to land in case of a PO. It's no different with the typical gyro pilot.

The gyro, once the pilot is properly trained, is a very safe machine to fly. You, if you're really interested, do need to do some research on the gyro plane. With your experience, you would need very little training. Flying a gyro is the most fun thing I've ever done.

Welcome to the forum, Thomas.

[Aussie_Paul]

Chuck you said, "The gyro, once the pilot is properly trained, is a very safe machine to fly."

May I offer a slight variation to your statement?

A correctly designed gyro, once the pilot is properly trained, is a very safe machine to fly.

The two "design & training" go hand in hand to make flying a gyroplane safer than any other aircraft, in an average of all types of conditions.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chuck Irby]

Aussie Paul, I totally agree with you. It's just that I am so accustomed to flying a properly designed machine, that part slipped my mind.

[Thomas]

OK, I am begining to understand. What I have here is a failure to communicate.

When I say Crash, what I mean is landing the aircraft at a point not originally intended due to something failing or otherwise gettng broken in or on the aircraft; this is what you all refer to as a forced landing.

Forced landing, what I mean is a landing due to external forces impeding progress such as Wx, unforseen restriction to flight such as a TFR, low fuel condition; this is refered to as: a power out condition (a broken engine).

A bit confusing but I will work on it.

Crash (NO) Forced Landing (better) Power Out (Prefered) Got it. :cool:

Birdie, you might have to help me on some of this. I might have to learn to speak Australian to understand what is going on. ;)

Oh yes, almost forgot... These are NOT ULTRALIGHTS.

[Chopper Reid]

Thomas, the media use the term "crash " to sensationalize anything other than a normal landing .
Watching the news one night, the lead story was " airliner plunges 20,000feet" !! No aircraft "plunges" and when the story came out, it was a 747 jumbo that flew into volcanic dust and suffered the loss of three engines. Due to the fact that oxygen is a scarce commodity at 38,000 feet, an emergency descent was initiated by the well trained crew till by about 12,000 feet and by then, at least two engines were able to be restarted and everyone could breathe without oxygen masks. I must admit, it would have been a intersting ride but at no time was the 747 not in complete controll.
Its just a matter of how you use words.
If your aircraft has power, then any landing due to low fuel etc, is merely a "precautionary" landing .
Dont worry, you arent the only one posting here that has got into trouble for their use of the english language. ;)

[StanFoster]

Birdy: Cant wait to see more cow mustering....

[birdy]

Stan,mate,coz of all the "kill joys" in the world,there won't be much to see,only high altitude[200'] S&L shots. :(

[Doug Riley]

Thomas, some gyros are legal ultralights and some aren't. Gyros can be built either way. So far, it appears that only 2-stroke powered gyros can comply with the Part 103 weight limit for ultralights. I've attached a picture of my Gyrobee, a Part 103 ultralight.

Self-training has at least as much to do with the ultralight accident rate (in both fixed-wing and rotary-wing craft) as any other single factor. In giving gyro instruction to both G.A. pilots and total aviation novices, I've found that

(1) In a gyro designed to be stable, a G.A. pilot can handle one almost immediately AT ALTITUDE, after a short pre-flight briefing (the total beginners can, too, but it takes them a couple hours to get smooth and coordinated), but...

(2) A G.A. pilot canNOT, without a few hours' practice, safely land or take off a gyro. Many try anyway, with no instruction, and that leads to a great many of the gyro prangs you read about.

Landing a gyro isn't difficult, but it's quite different than landing a Cessna. Unlearning Cessna reflexes is what takes the time.

Takeoff is the single most difficult basic flight task. Unlike the hammer-it-and-go technique for Cessnas, in a gyro you must coordinate ground, air and rotor speeds. Part throttle is often called for, and large amounts of rudder and side-stick are necessary to counteract torque in some (but not all!) models. It takes practice and is best learned with an instructor along to save your bacon when things go bad.

[PW_Plack]

Ron A said,

"...the fact that these are homebuilt and not using Certified powerplants is the main reason most of the people here have had engine outs."

It's not the lack of FAA certification that makes most gyro engines more likely to fail, it's cheapskate or haphazard design, installation and/or maintenance of fuel, cooling and ignition systems, including contaminated fuel. How many threads do we read here about guys taking a guess on how to hook up fuel pumps? You have to do your homework, pay attention to manufacturer recommendations, and get this stuff right if you want reliability.

Most of the engine-outs I've seen described here would have happened just as certainly to a Continental A-75 in a comparable installation.

The engineers of the 1930s did a terrific job developing today's certificated aircraft engines with the materials and machining techniques of their time, but a skillfully converted EFI Soob with a similar maintenance regimen should be at least as reliable. I especially like EFI and redundant electronic ignitions. I know a veteran gyro pilot with over 1,000 hours on mostly 582s, who's never had one fail in flight.

I lost a cylinder in flight on two Continentals in two different planes in my first 120 hours as a fixed-wing pilot. I no longer put much stock in the government's very expensive seal of approval on an engine.

[Udi]

...but a skillfully converted EFI Soob with a similar maintenance regimen should be at least as reliable...

Not a chance. The secret for the reliability of the Continentals and Lycomings is in their solid construction and simplicity of operation. No way a soob conversion can get even close in terms of reliability. Your own bad experience is not a good gauge of their history. Engine failures in properly maintained aircraft engines are very very rare. Most dead stick landings/crashes are a result of fuel starvation or other kinds of neglect.

Udi

[birdy]

I gota agree Udi,the rotax 4 bangers are very basic,push rod engines.
I never did like the "rubber band" driving the cam in the EJ22.
For most people it's not a concern,but here rubber perishes much quicker and I didn't like the idea of fly'n over these ranges with it.
It wasn't the forced landing I was worried about,it was how to git the machine out if I did go down.Most cases would mean using Bell 47 or similar to lift it out coz theres no ground access for 100 miles.

[Aussie_Paul]

Preventative maintenance with the belt Birdy. Why would you let it perish?

Aussie Paul.:)

[PW_Plack]

Udi, I think the EFI Soobs are also pretty solid if slightly more complicated, and they'll never have pistons melt from pilot carelessness with manual mixture controls, or scuff and seize due to shock cooling on a careless rapid descent.

I'm with Aussie Paul on this one...If you're going to do 25-hour oil change and maintenance intervals anyway, put inspection of the cam belt on the checklist. Subaru probably calls for them to be replaced at 60,000 miles in the car, equivalent to about 1200 hours. At the higher RPM at which we run them, surely they should be reliable for 200 hours?

[birdy]

I installed a new belt with bearings in the first 150 hours [12 months]coz it was showing signes of perishing already.Not to mention the other belts and bearings exposed to the eliments.Alot more maintinance than the donk thats there now.
But the belt was only one reason I changed it Paul.

[Aussie_Paul]

Fair enough. Only joking Birdy!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul.

[Thomas]

..............
If your aircraft has power, then any landing due to low fuel etc, is merely a "precautionary" landing . Dont worry, you arent the only one posting here that has got into trouble for their use of the english language. ;)

Well, see this is another rewording for me, precautionary landing to me means any landing at an unintended site due to unforseen conditions that require the pilot to decide possible safety issues by continuing the flight into the existing conditions: such as, something falling off the aircraft, a loud unexplainable noise emitted from the aircraft, unexpected vibrations, FOD damage, bird strike etc. (low fuel meaning "engine out" is a forced landing; however, low fuel requiring refueling at an unintended location is precautionary).

I don't mean to be difficult and I am learning much about the gyro environment and the people who fly them, but someone mentioned earlier with much brovado, that these craft have N numbers which puts them into General Aviation (I think). And GA is specific in the nomenclature used.

You guys use alot of words I have never heard before and I want to get some of these meanings accurate before I get into a situation where I need clarity only to find I didn't understand the full context. Don't flame me for being ignorant, I learn something new everyday. ;)

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Thomas :

Don't worry about being ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics when discussing flying with a lot of the gyroplane group, a lot of them have not availed themselves of formal aviation schooling and are themselves ignorant of the subject.

However if you read this forum long enough the true facts will become evident as we have many knowledgable people here..........

P.S.

You are correct regarding the precautionary landing thing...even the dictonary will explain what the word means. :D

Chuck E.

[KDOG]

Don't worry about being ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics when discussing flying with a lot of the gyroplane group, a lot of them have not availed themselves of formal aviation schooling and are themselves ignorant of the subject.


Now thats a pretty, concieted, arrogant comment. What makes you think "alot" of gyro pilots are stupid and have now education when it comes to aerodynamics?

[KenSandyEggo]

He didn't say they were "stupid." It's important that you quote correctly if you're going to quote someone. He said they are ignorant of aerodynamics. For instance, the remaining RAF instructors are ignorant of aerodynamics, a self-evident fact. They advocate flying a very high thrust-offset machine without a horizontal stabilizer. By now, you should know that this is ignorant.

One of them even advocated pushing the stick forward at the top of a climb with power and attempted to justify his position through plagiarism, selective editing and basically lies. That is supremely ignorant. He may have gotten "A"s in history and English, but as to aerodynamics, he gets an "F," and is therefore ignorant......maybe a little stupid too for attempting to bull**** the people here with lies. He was quickly exposed.

P.S. You should be aware by now that a requirement for posting here is your first and LAST name in your profile. Please don't plead "ignorance." ;)

[Chaff]

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, Kevin.

Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity can't.

Some of the most intelligent people on the forum don't have much formal schooling. It's obvious, however, that they're gifted. The word ignorant is perhaps pejorative but may be accurate in some circumstances. We need to be mindful of the power of words such as these, Mr. Ellsworth. The impact can be painful.

NB: "i before e except after c", Kev.

[Doug Riley]

What we see in some of our more wrong-thinking peers is something a little scarier than either ignorance OR stupidity.

Ignorance is the simple absence of information. It's not much harder to fix than pouring water into an empty bucket -- just add info. People who mean well -- and aren't stupid -- but simply lack info are usually eager to get the data and happy to put it to use ASAP. Our voodoo aerodynamics pals aren't in this category; they're drowning in information and still won't drink a drop.

Stupidity? Maybe, but it takes some brains to build, maintain and fly a gyro (not to mention run a training business, complete with income tax, corporate documents, FAA hoops and all the rest of the legal hooey). CFIs have to show some mental aptitude just to get through all those tests.

What we've got, IMHO, is intentional refusal to learn, motivated by a toxic brew of self-interest and redneck machismo. IOW, an attitude.

The self-interest takes the form of concern about getting one's "factory approval" yanked by the likes of RAF. The machismo turns up in the "us real men don't need us no stinkin' horizontal stabilizers" credo.

Maybe it's resentment of nerds, left over from high school. A dangerous and irrational attitude to have in any technical field, in any case.

[Hognose]

IOW, an attitude.

Bingo, Doug. In fact it is something very close to the five "designated" hazardous attitudes now taught in primary training. I see the Macho and Antiauthority attitudes a lot around our crowd. Indeed, I have to fight the Antiauthority attitude myself -- I have been, at times, a poster child for same. Impulsivity may have been involved in some of the fatals but you can never be sure. Resignation is not a big issue in the gyro world.

Greg Gremminger wrote a piece, IIRC, on these for Rotorcraft, which is also reproduced on his website. They are also covered in the FAA's ADM advisory circular (#60-22), also available online. Greg's piece is better because it is gyro oriented and draws on Greg's years of gyro experience and instruction.

Thomas! Welcome! And... please understand, we talk about crashes perhaps more than their frequency justifies. First, they draw attention simply because they are unusual; second, we all have a burning desire to learn from mishaps so that they are not unnecessarily repeated; third, there is a natural human fascination with them.

We also talk about them because most of us in the forum are aware our safety record could be better. I have no desire to evaluate the grass from the root end.

cheers

-=K=-

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Chaff. :

If my words are painful to some they are not as painful as what results from believing false and dangerous information such as that coming out of the ignorant management of RAF for all these years, and taught by their disciples masquerading under the pretense of being CFI's.

Painful is what the relatives and friends of all those dead people have lived with that were killed in RAF's.

My only consideration when posting is getting the message across, if it is painful so be it.

Chuck E.

[Chopper Reid]

Not a chance. The secret for the reliability of the Continentals and Lycomings is in their solid construction and simplicity of operation. No way a soob conversion can get even close in terms of reliability. Your own bad experience is not a good gauge of their history. Engine failures in properly maintained aircraft engines are very very rare. Most dead stick landings/crashes are a result of fuel starvation or other kinds of neglect.

Udi
I know one Suburu that had 40,000 miles in a car, then was installed in a modified RAF where it did total of 3,800 hours without any overhauls . It did have the cam belt replaced but I believe it was only replaced because the owner had a lot of work coming up and he wondered just how long it could go for so he decided on preventative maintenance..
My Suby 2.2 EFI had 40,000 miles in a car and has now done 1400 hours trouble free in the gyro. I did have to replace a water pump . This engine is not using any oil.
I do agree however, that a properly operated Continental/ Lycoming are extremely reliable. That mixture controll gets a few people into trouble though ! :)

[birdy]

Doug said,
The machismo turns up in the "us real men don't need us no stinkin' horizontal stabilizers" credo.
I'm sorry if thats wot you think I'm on about Doug.
But it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Chuck E. said,

My only consideration when posting is getting the message across, if it is painful so be it.
And you keep do'n it mate,if the truth hurts someone,at least you know you got the message through ay.

[pwendell]

Doug said,
The machismo turns up in the "us real men don't need us no stinkin' horizontal stabilizers" credo.
I'm sorry if thats wot you think I'm on about Doug.
But it couldn't be farther from the truth.



Birdy,

Actually I think Chuck was referring primarily to the RAF owners/sales people who continue to insist that horizontal stabilizers are not only unnecessary, but might actually be dangerous, and that, at best, they are 'training wheels' for novice pilots.

[Doug Riley]

No, Birdy, I wasn't referring to you. I was thinking of the few diehard RAF apologists in this country.

[LARRYEBOYER]

Udi must not be aware that the EJ-20 was run for 72 hours at max rpm on a race track. This is a double overhead cam rubber band timing gear engine. Other than refueling, it was run wide open all it would go!!! The result was that it did not fail.EJ-22 and EJ-25 are virtually the same inside as far as design. I would be very interested in running a Lycoming(an excellent engine by the way)under the same standards and seeing the results. I think you might find a Lycoming with a few parts to the left and a few parts to the right and a few parts to the... well you get the idea.The goverment standard is way below what Subaru set for their test.But... as dear old Dad said,"take care of your equipment and it will take care of you".Keep the maintaince up and the engine will keep you up!As far as 2 strokes, I flew hundreds of hours in a DAC with a cyuna. Never a problem. Hundreds with a Kawalsaki. Never a missed stroke. I hope to put thousands on my Subie.Udi you are welcome to use Continental and Lycoming and the costs associated with their use. Part replacement? How much for a crank? I'll have to call my mortgage broker!!!
With a sobie, peanuts in initial cost and peanuts to maintain. Pale in comparison to the certified engines.
P.S. Udi, where do you get your information?

[Udi]

Larry - you must be kidding. Do you really believe that your soob conversion is more reliable than a certified engine? Have you ever run a fault tree analysis on anything? Engine, aircraft, anything? Do you have any idea what makes an engine RELIABLE? We are not talking durability and operation under racing conditions. We are talking aircraft reliability. If you don't know the difference than you may want to get yourself educated because you are operating under some false assumptions. No soobie conversion comes even close to being as reliable as a Continental or Lycoming.

By the way - I never said I wanted to pay for a Continental/Lycoming - I just said they were more reliable than any auto conversion. Don't put words into my mouth.

Udi

[Aussie_Paul]

Birdy, don't be so sensitive!!!!!!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul.:)

[GyroRon]

. I would be very interested in running a Lycoming(an excellent engine by the way)under the same standards and seeing the results. I think you might find a Lycoming with a few parts to the left and a few parts to the right and a few parts to the... well you get the idea.The goverment standard is way below what Subaru set for their test.Part replacement? How much for a crank? I'll have to call my mortgage broker!!!
With a sobie, peanuts in initial cost and peanuts to maintain. Pale in comparison to the certified engines.
P.S. Udi, where do you get your information?


Larry look at any airplane going across the sky and you will see a certified aircraft engine being used just like the Subaru in your comparo. Aircraft engines put out 100 percent and do so hour after hour after hour. That is what they are designed to do. A car engine wasn't designed for this. Will a Subaru hold up to aircraft duty??? Sure they have proven themselves to hold up reasonably well.

Parts replacement for a certified engine verses a Subaru??? Yes big difference! No matter how tore up your Subaru is, a running replacement is only as far away as the local junkyard and could get you back in the air for under 600$ maybe less. Certified aircraft engine parts aren't cheap, no doubt about it.

[birdy]

Not sencitive Paul,just don't want to be misunderstood.

With respect Larry,those sorts of tests mean jack sh.t.
Any machine will last along time if the load and rpm are consistant.[more constant than in reality anyway.]
It's the changes that are the test.Rpm,temp,load ect;present alot more stress and potential ware and failure.
As an indication,a few years ago I compleatly rebuilt our generator[station power].
It was a EC 100 Hino engine[36 kva],48,000 hours old and the big end bearings showed almost no ware.The same engine with the same hours in a truck wouldn't be as healthy.

[LARRYEBOYER]

Udi. An aircooled engine is not as reliable as a water cooled engine. I would trust racing standards over goverment standards anyday. As birdy said, it is about temperture change and load changes ect.... When I was running high performance air cooled snowmobiles, at anytime, someone in our club was rebuilding the aircooled engine. My father and many of the newer machines went to water cooled. The rebuilding stopped, the fuel consumption dropped, and the reliability went way up.I do not have the statistics to stand behind my statement that I believe a Sobie is as reliable, but i don't believe that you, Udi, do either.What are the standards for certification for a engine to be used in a certified aircraft? Let's take your graphs and the goverment standards and apply them.Let's see if a modern Subaru engine would meet the certification test.All, did I mention the original Subaru engine was an aircraft engine? Also excuse my stupidity. I know I am inferior to an eastern education, but I might know the difference between durability and reliability. I would like to think that my auto engine (in my 4 cars and 2 aircraft) is a durable machine. I think that if it is very durable it might just also be very reliable. There isn't alot I can do to the Subaru engine design to make it more durable, but I can make it more reliable by adding duel fuel pumps,duel ignition, ect. Do I get it yet?Do you?

[Udi]

...What are the standards for certification for a engine to be used in a certified aircraft?...

Although I do not dismiss the FAA standards like some people do, my reasoning has nothing to do with these standards. There are a few reasons I believe the Continentals and Lycomings are MUCH more reliable than auto conversions:

The Continentals and Lycomings were around for over 50 years. In this long period of time, the sole concern of these manufacturers, other than meeting FAA requirements, was to make the engines reliable. Unlike in the automobile business, in aviation reliability is not compromised for better durability or lower costs.

After millions and millions of operating hours, and I don't know how many ADs, these simple engines have been perfected to the point that engine out occurrences due to mechanical failures are very rare. Most engine problems are due to negligence. I have searched the NTSB accident website for accidents involving Cessna 172s for “loss of power”. From January 1999 until today there were only 24 such accidents. Most of them were the result of fuel starvation. Others were due to carburetor icing. Only 5 were due to mechanical failure. I don’t know how many C-172s are flying today, but that is the most popular GA airplane. Only 5 engine outs due to mechanical failure! Not bad for an air-cooled engine huh? (btw - It is not completely accurate to say these engines are air cooled - much of their cooling is achieved through the oil cooler.)

In my previous post I have mentioned fault tree analysis. This is the science of statistically quantifying the risk of a system failure. This method was first developed in the Air Force, and today we use this method to quantify risk in almost any complicated system. I personally use it in the design of chemical plants.

The most basic rule in fault tree analysis is that the risk of failure is proportional to the number of item that can fail in any given system. Take the Space Shuttle for example. Every single part in the Shuttle is designed to the highest standards, and the probability of any single item failing is very small. But there are so many operating parts in a shuttle, that the likelihood of something breaking down in any single mission is very high.

Although I agree with you that the duty-cycle (pistons, crank shaft, etc.) part of the soob is very durable and reliable, there are too many other systems that can put this reliable baby to sleep. A few examples are the ignition, cooling, and PSRU. All, non-aviation parts. Calculate the likelihood that any of these parts would fail in flight, add them up, and you get a pretty high probability for failure. But you don’t have to do the math. Just call all your RAF/soob friends and ask if they ever had to make an emergency landing due to power loss, or if they know anyone who has.

Without digging too deep, I can think of at least 4 soob-equipped gyro emergency landings in the past year - all due to mechanical failure. 4 out of how many flying? Maybe 400? Can you now see the difference between the soobs and the certified engines?

Udi

[Udi]

NTSB Identification: SEA00LA116 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, June 27, 2000 in CONCRETE, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/2/2001
Aircraft: Davis/Crouch AVID MK IV, registration: N518DC
Injuries: 2 Serious.
The pilot reported that while returning to the airport, the engine sputtered and quit, and would not restart. He attempted a forced landing in a rugged logging area. He was unable to make it to a logging road, and the airplane crashed into trees and bushes along the side of the road. The engine, a Subaru auto engine modified for experimental-aircraft use, had 309.3 hours total time and had undergone a condition inspection 5.1 flight hours/one week prior to the accident. Post-accident examinations revealed that the #1 connecting rod had fractured and penetrated the engine case. Indications of an engine overheat condition occurring at an undetermined time were also noted including melted overheat sensors on the cylinder heads, and oil baked onto the oil filler cap and the inside of a valve cover.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

Fracture of the engine's #1 connecting rod, resulting in a total loss of engine power. Factors were an engine overheat condition experienced at an undetermined time, and no suitable terrain for a forced landing.

[Udi]

NTSB Identification: CHI04LA011.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, October 13, 2003 in Augusta, MO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/2/2004
Aircraft: Domeier RV-7A, registration: N707DD
Injuries: 1 Minor.
The airplane was substantially damaged when it nosed over during a forced landing following a complete loss of engine power. The pilot reported that the airplane's nose landing gear dug into the soft sandy soil during the forced landing, causing the airplane to nose over. The airplane was powered by a Subaru automobile engine converted for aircraft use. A postaccident examination revealed that the plastic timing-belt cover and the belts for the alternator and supercharger were broken. Pieces of the alternator belt were found within the remaining portion of the timing-belt cover. The engine intake and exhaust valves had struck the top of the cylinders.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The failure of the supercharger and alternator drive belts which resulted in foreign object damage to the valve timing system and subsequent loss of engine power, and the unsuitable terrain encountered by the pilot during the forced landing. A factor was the soft terrain where the forced landing was executed.

[Udi]

NTSB Identification: NYC02LA049.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, January 22, 2002 in Danville, KY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 8/28/2002
Aircraft: Stiles Choctaw, registration: N97CS
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

On January 22, 2002, about 1445 eastern standard time, a Chocktaw homebuilt gyrocopter, N97CS, was substantially damage during a forced landing in Danville, Kentucky. The certificated commercial pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight that departed Stuart Powell Field (DVK), Danville, Kentucky. No flight plan was filed for the local personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

An off-duty Kentucky State Police trooper stated that he witnessed the accident flight. He was traveling north on a road adjacent to the airport between 1430 and 1445, and saw a small yellow gyrocopter ascend from DVK. The gyrocopter made a left turn, and flew overhead. As it passed overhead, the trooper observed a steady stream of dark gray smoke emanating from the gyrocopter. The gyrocopter then appeared to make a left turn and climb as if it was going back toward the airport. The trooper then lost site of the gyrocopter.

The wreckage was located in a field about 1 mile south of DVK, and examined by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector. The inspector observed the wreckage inverted, and canted toward its right side. Due to impact damage, he was unable to confirm flight control continuity. The inspector added that the gyrocopter was equipped with a Subaru EJ22 engine, and two separate fuel tanks. The fuel tanks were ruptured, and a strong odor of fuel was present at the accident site. The rotor blades sustained minor damage, and the propeller was not damaged. The inspector was able to rotate the engine crankshaft approximately 30 degrees, but heard metal binding inside the engine.

The pilot's brother further examined the engine. He stated that the connecting rod bearing had seized in the number one cylinder. The pilot's brother added that he did not know the age of the engine, but that the pilot removed it from an automobile and installed it in the gyrocopter.

The pilot's logbook was not recovered. However, according to his brother, the pilot had a total flight experience of approximately 6,500 hours. Of which, about 500-700 hours were in gyrocopters.

An autopsy was performed on the pilot by the Boyle County Coroner's Office, Danville, Kentucky. Toxicological testing was conducted at the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

Failure of a connecting rod bearing, which resulted in a loss of engine power during climb.

[Udi]

NTSB Identification: NYC01LA226.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 09, 2001 in Morrisdale, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/4/2002
Aircraft: Murray JN4-D, registration: N176TP
Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor.
Once the airplane was on the runway, the pilot advanced the throttle, the engine responded, and within 300 feet the airplane was airborne. After tracking runway heading for about 1/2 mile, the pilot turned the airplane into the wind to improve climb performance. "Shortly" after completing the turn, and while approximately 400 feet agl, the engine suddenly lost power. The pilot lowered the nose to maintain airspeed, and executed a 180-degree turn to maneuver for a cornfield that was behind the airplane. Because of some power lines bordering the field, the pilot elected to proceed directly to it and land with a tailwind. The pilot flew the airplane just above the field, trading airspeed to maintain altitude. When the airplane started to stall, the pilot let it settle into the field. The left wing contacted the corn, which was 10 feet tall. The airplane's nose dropped, and the airplane impacted the ground nose low. The airplane came to a stop upright, and both occupants exited. The engine was from a 1986 Subaru that was involved in an automobile accident. The engine had approximately 9,000 miles on it at the time of the automobile accident, and 93.6 flight hours in the accident airplane. Examination of the engine revealed no preimpact failures or malfunctions except for a defective ignition coil.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

Failure of the ignition coil, which resulted in a loss of engine power. A factor was the 10-foot corn in the forced landing field.

[Vance]

Hi Udi, That was very thoughtfull, well stated and nicely documented. I always enjoy the quality of your posts.

For me, one of the wonderfull qualities of an autogyro is how well it handles engine outs.

I am always amazed how well Suburu EJ 22 handles the abuse I have put them to. 5100 rpm on climb out and 4700 rpm for straight and level for an hour plus at a time. Practicing stop and gos abuse the engine on a high level. I guess the team that designed that engine missed the mark on the high side for relibility. Thank You, Vance

[rfi]

The pilot of the gyroplane accident was a customer of mine. He called me not too long before the accident and asked what could be causing low oil pressure. I suggested that he replace the oil pump but I don't think he did. He was a customer, good friend and a fellow Okie from Broken Arrow (near Tulsa).

Of the 500+ Subaru systems that I have built, his was the second internal failure of the engine. The other one was a DOHC EJ25 that broke a crankshaft after about ten hours of flight. DOHC EJ25 engines had a runout problem on the crankshaft flange.

[pwendell]

Udi,

I have to agree. Some of the great strengths of the Lycoming/Continental certificated engines are that they are very simple, way over-built, very well understood, and operated in a very conservative power range.

Larry,

There's nothing inherently less reliable about an aircooled engine as long as it is run within conservative limits. When an engine is being pushed to its performance limits water-cooled engines can more reliably develop higher power because, 1. then can be built to much tighter tolerances since they don't have to operate over a wide temperature range and 2. because they can be more reliably cooled, even at maximum output.

I don't believe that the big Lycomings and Continentals are actually 'high performance' engines, quite the opposite. The are quite heavy and have very large displacements for the amount of power they produce. They operate at low rpms and have a very simple valve train. In addition, since they are designed to produce power within quite a narrow RPM band, the engine designers could optimize the valve timing, exhaust, ignition, etc. specifically for aviation use.

I fully believe that 'high performance' aircooled engines were much less reliable than water cooled engines in snowmobiles, but I don't think the same is necessarily true for aircraft engines.

Of course I'm not going use a certificated engine in my gyro. They are too expensive and too heavy. I'm willing to risk a well maintained Rotax, and, hopefully, good judgement.

[PW_Plack]

If you are careless with maintenance on a Lycoming or Continental, you can melt internals, too. The biggest reliability problems for auto conversions is that we keep taking care of them like we do our cars - casually. If given the TLC the law requires of certificated engines, Soob failures would be very rare.

Udi, I'd argue that durability and reliability do have some overlap when the hours get high. Old, worn parts are less reliable than 100-hour parts.

[GyroRon]

There is a guy flying a RAF in South Carolina - I won't mention his name - that has about 300 hours total on his gyro since new. He has had TWO forced landings due to Crankshaft Failure on his EJ-22.

I had three forced landings due to problems with the voltage going to the coil - the wire going to the coil failed twice and once the pre rotator shorted out and killed the alternator and battery leaving no voltage for the coil.

I also was out flying one day and all seemed well as I did touch and goes at a airport about 30 miles from homebase. On one of my takeoffs I noticed a slight hesitation and then a loss of about 200 RPM at full throttle. But it was still running fine. I did another two more touch and goes and decided to land. When I got out of the gyro the tail was soaked BIG TIME in hot dripping motor oil. I checked the dipstick and couldn't even get it wet. Took 3.5 Quarts to fill it back up - the engine only holds 4! Decided to try to fly it back home and took off to do a lap around the pattern. I looked back at the engine while I was flying and it was blowing smoke and oil mist heavy from the breathers. Landed back at the same place and got my trailer the next day to get my gyro. Apparently I had lost the rings on one of the cylinders and all the compression was blowing into the crankcase and blowing out all the oil. Had I been in straight and level cross country flight I am sure the oil would have all blown out and the engine would have simply locked up with little to no warning. This was a EJ-22 out of a low miles car - 30,000 - and with about 200 hours or so flight time on it max.

I would never say Subarus are crap engines. I think they are good engines. But if certified engines were more affordable, you can bet your butt I would be flying one of them over any auto engine!

[GyroRon]

Don, besides a forced landing, how did your friend get killed landing his gyro?

[birdy]

The only stats I can produce are my own.
soob,12 unscedualed landings in 2 years.@ 300h :mad:
4 banger rotax,none in 6 years.@ 2000h :D :D

[StanFoster]

Birdy: Could you briefly detail the reasons for your soob engine outs?

I just have passed 100 hours of the most trouble free flying I have ever had. I am fearing I will get complacent about my EJ22. I still fly like it will quit the next minute because of my past history of engine outs. :eek:

Stan

[birdy]

It woz just a tired old heap of **** Stan.Besides,I love me rotaxs.
But it don't matter wot you'v got push'n,ALWAYS expect it to die,without notice.The longer it's been since your last EO ,the closer you are to your next.

[Aussie_Paul]

Birdy, was it the later ej series or the earlier ea engine?

Aussie Paul.:)

[Doug Riley]

Casey Stiles, the gyro pilot who died on the Kentucky crash of the Soob gyro, was the AFI who got me my BFI. We flew in his 618 Parsons, not the big new Soob machine, which he was still working on. He was a very kind and likeable individual. His day job was as a professional helo pilot on powerline patrol. He was no low-time rotorcraft newbie.

The rolling hills around that airport are covered with the proverbial Kentucky bluegrass, cropped by all the horses. On an overcast day, you can't see the ground contours that well. There were powerlines near the crash site. A good guess is that he had to do a last-minute dodge around the lines and either lost airspeed and mushed in hard, or collided with a hillside that looked flat from higher up.

Do people magnaflux the con rods/cranks on their Soobs? Should they? We used to do that with VW rods and cranks for aircraft conversions, even brand-new ones. Some wouldn't pass even when brand-new.

Redrives have to be very carefully designed to protect the crank from bending loads it wasn't designed to take and from hard torque pulses.

[KenSandyEggo]

I might suggest that crank failures on RAF EJ22s are most likely due to the redrive. A few have had the bearings fall out onto the hangar floor after a flight. That's why the upgrade is recommended. If you have the supplied bearings in there, they probably saw life on a wheel-barrow in rural China first. There have been documented cases of strong evidence that RAF pried off the sides of bearings and re-packed them and Peter has admitted to doing this on the phone to me. He said they do it when they are low on bearings and can't "find" any new ones.

Don once told me personally that Subaru won't sell him any Subaru parts, including engines. Then he came on Norm's Forum a few weeks later and swore up and down that RAF uses only genuine Subaru parts. He couldn't keep track of who he was lying to and what he was lying about.

[birdy]

Ken said,
There have been documented cases of strong evidence that RAF pried off the sides of bearings and re-packed them.

Now this will cause a real **** fight. :cool:

I do just that to my rotor bearings,brand new,out of the packet. :eek: :eek: ;) :p :confused: :rolleyes:

I can hear the laughter and head scratch'n from ere. :D

[Aussie_Paul]

It would be intersting to compare crankshaft failures between belt redrives and gearbox redrives.

Aussie Paul.:)

[KenSandyEggo]

Birdy chirped: "I do just that to my rotor bearings,brand new,out of the packet."

Yes, but there's a good chance that you know what you're doing and yours don't seep, fling and leak grease all over everything, like the timing belt.

[mceagle]

Thre only EJ22 crank failures that I am aware of were on RAF redrives. There is obviously a big problem with the engineering. I have not seen an exploded view of the redrive but I would suggest a problem with either harmonics or side load.
Otherwise I have not heard of a failure of any Subaru engine that was the fault of the engine itself. It is always to do with the age of the engine, or the installation, wiring or plumbing - the human factor.

[Aussie_Paul]

That was my feeling to Tim. Would I be correct in saying that a belt drive on the lower hp ea-81 with the different material in the crankshaft seemed to fare ok.

Tim the Raf problem is definately side loads. Jim will have to be carefull with the heavier Sparrow Hawk req

Aussie Paul.:)

[Aussie_Paul]

That was my feeling to Tim. Would I be correct in saying that a belt drive on the lower hp ea-81 with the different material in the crankshaft seemed to fare ok.

Tim the Raf problem is definately side loads. The heavier machines requiring the larger hp of the ej-25, and still using a belt drive could have major crank problems.

Aussie Paul.:)

[pwendell]

Jim will have to be carefull with the heavier Sparrow Hawk req

Aussie Paul.:)

You didn't hear it from me, but a little bird told me that the boys at AAI just might have something new coming down the pike that will be lots of fun and much lighter...
;)

[Chopper Reid]

One of the greatest problems any new motor is going to have, is the price !
I love the reliabilty and trouble free running of the Suby 2.2 EFI . The motor is time tested, very reliable, cheap to run and even better, is when it does need overhauling, you can buy parts anywhere and for a reasonable price !

[PW_Plack]

RAF has exploded pictures, but so far, they can't get the NTSB to release them for commercial use.

[stuart]

I'm not clear on which is easier on the crank shaft redrives with belts or gears; can anybody enlighten me? Thanks, stuart

[Aussie_Paul]

Definately the easier redrive on the crankshaft is the gear box drive. The belt is trying to pull the prop shaft and the engine crankshaft together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aussie Paul.:)

[Vance]

In my opinion gears are trying to push the prop shaft and the crank shaft apart unless it's planitary. Most gear drives have a good outboard bearing on the input shaft to lessen the bending loads and control the mesh of the gears. Most gear drives atatch to the crank in a way that isolates the crank from bending moments and have cushions to lessen the shock loads. I'm not convinced that the crankshaft failures are caused by the belt pulling the prop shaft and crankshaft together. There seems to be a lot of belt drives out there working in a most usefull way. Thank You, Vance

[rfi]

It doesn't matter whether the reduction drive is a gear, belt, or chain if it is properly designed. There are a lot of sucessful belt drives and gear drives. We don't have much experience with Hi-Vo chain drives on Subaru engines but they have a very good track record on big block Ford and Chevy engines in ag planes.

We have built about 350 cog belt drives and I only know of one crankshaft failure and that was a DOHC EJ25 which has a runout problem on the crankshaft flange. We use an outer support bearing on the outer end of the drive sprocket so that bending loads on the crank are mininimized. RAF uses the same type of system except that they use two bearings back to back.

Some of their outer support bearings are non precision bearings and do not hold up but lately they have selected a precision bearing, or at least that is what I found on one reduction drive.

Gear drives require a lot more attention to torsional vibration problems than cog belt drives and can not be as easily inspected as belt drives. The HTD cog belt drive system has been well proven in industrial applications and they will run for thousands of hours with minimal maintenance in harsh environments.

The HTD belt absorbs some of the torsional vibration and the use of a five or six pound flywheel will eliminate any problems in that area. Look at all of the belt drives that have been put on the market over the past 15 years. Belted Air Power builds and is still building belt drives for GM V6 and V8 engines. Jess Myer ran his old Globe Swift airplane for 14 years with his original reduction drive and never changed the belt. He put 4,000 hours on it.

Rotary Air Force has around 600 RAF 2000 gyroplanes out there and there have been very few complaints about the reduction drive other than the Chinese bearings for the outer support assembly.

Reductions, Inc. in Manitoba, Canada built several hundred cog belt drives. Dave Johnson started about the same time that we did. He had a few problems which I think was attributed to mechanical resonance of his light weight "box" style upper support assembly for the driven sprocket.

Stratus, Inc. has built a lot of cog belt drives for the EA81 and the EJ22 and have a very good track record. They do use a large support bearing on the EA81 crankshaft flange.

Cog belt reduction drives are typically less expensive and easier to maintain and are less expensive and less complex than gear drives. The down side for gyroplanes is that the typical offset of around 8 inches is a deterrant to obtaining center line thrust unless the drive is "turned over" like the AAI SparrowHawk. Cog belt drives are well suited for fixed wing airplanes with cowled engines with the stock intake manifold.

It's like Fords and Chevys--a matter of opinion as to which is best. I am not trying to plug my reduction drives either--I am out of the business. Tracy Crook in North Florida is developing a planetary reduction drive for the EJ series engines which is capable of handling up to 250 Hp. The drive utilizes a rubber donut torsional dampner and is well proven on Mazda engines. If it will hold up on a Mazda it will hold up on a Subaru. Although not commonly known, Mazda engines have a lot of torsional vibration. His Mazda drive sells for $2500 which is much less expensive than most gear drives and the unit for the Subaru engines will probably be about the same price.
If you are in the market for a planetary reduction drive check out his website:
www.rotaryaviation.com.

[Aussie_Paul]

IMHO, one of the disadvantages of the belt on a pusher, is that anything that comes adrift could wreck the belt. I know, I know nothing should come adrift, BUT we have the non A&P human element!!!!!

I do like the added smoothness of the belt drive though. Ah!! everything is a compromise!!!!!

One of our mustering guys with, I would imagine, well over 15,000 gyro mustering hours had a rudder cable break in flight. The prop picked it up and the cable cut the belt. There he was sitting not very high over timber with full rudder and no prop turning!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Part of the gyro is still up the tree!!!!! :D and that was more than 10 years ago.

Mceagle Tim, correct me if I have not got it right.

Aussie Paul. :)

[mceagle]

Yes the EA81 with the Amax redrive does not give Crankshaft problems. There is a large ball bearing pressed into the redrive housing and it runs on the crankshaft flange. This takes most of the side load off the crankshaft and puts it on the housing.

[KenSandyEggo]

Hey, Paul Plack! At least I got it. Good one.

[PW_Plack]

Ken, I almost went back and removed that comment! I don't want RAF guys to stay away because they think they'll get bashed here. The company appears to be deserving of at least some good-natured ribbing, but I still admire the guys who build and successfully fly RAFs.

[birdy]

Another hangup with drive belts that I had was dust and sand git'n between the belt and pully and chew'n the crap out of both.

[KenSandyEggo]

I just saw a blurb in Kitplanes for next month's issue that's about RAF and how they cleverly, or something like that, handle the horizontal stab controversy. I smell a big pile of bull**** on the horizon.

[Chopper Reid]

I smell a big pile of bull**** on the horizon.[/QUOTE]

Well said Ken, there's a few other manufacture's that could probably bask in that glory, Revolution Helicopters and NSI gearboxes. !!