Crashes?

[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 and unreliability

Udi and unreliability

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]

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

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.