|
|
Interesting stats.
One factor I did not see is the amount of flying each group does. I have a plane in each group and the certified model in my 2 plane fleet does 1/20th of the flying as my experimental model. Most owners do not have 2 planes however, I believe there are more flight hours per plane for experimentals that certifieds...
That is a complete guess but I would like to see this comparrison based on flight hours...
Thanks for sharing..
Randy Snarr
N694RS
235/320
N4442U Cessna 150 in the hangar with dust on it...
"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible"
-Simon Newcomb, 1902
--- On Mon, 7/11/11, Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com> wrote:
From: Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 7:44 AM
Jeff,
I couldn't find anything useful either in a scan of news letters or under
the button "safety". The Safety Wire article was too small to read and is
missing page 3. How ridiculous that the EAA reserved safety info only
for counselors. Oh well.........
I have attached Lee Metcalf's Lancair accident analyses thru 2005 and the
copy of an article I had laying around that points out why one should be
suspicious of "experimental" accident stats. Perhaps the community
will find these interesting.
Scott
In a message dated 7/10/2011 2:18:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
vtailjeff@aol.com writes:
Scott,
The summary and white paper is on the web site. lobo is now deeply
involved in other EAA and FAA aviation safety projects.
Best regards,
Jeff
Sent from my iPad
Jeff,
Any analysis is of interest to all - especially those that can't make
your session at OSH. Perhaps some summary at the LOBO site?
Scott Krueger
In a message dated 7/8/2011 7:40:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, vtailjeff@aol.com writes:
Mark,
Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been to Oshkosh
Airventure? These accidents are discussed in detail there. Based on your
comments about the engines you would be surprised. In many cases it was
not the engine.
Jeff Edwards
-----Original
Message----- From: Mark Steitle < msteitle@gmail.com> To: lml@lancaironline.netSent:
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair
Steve,
I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy. Even if he
was a jerk, we still need to solve this riddle. Is LOBO following up
on each of these crashes to learn what the experts determine to be the
cause(s)? If not, we'll continue to be having these conversations
until we eventually run out of pilots, or airplanes.
Mark
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steve Colwell <mcmess1919@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I would sure would like to know why all of these
"certified engines" are quitting on takeoff.
Mark
S.
Maybe the engine driven fuel
pump is failing. We are running low boost continuously in case the
engine pump fails and to address fuel pressure issues at altitude, hot
fuel, vapor lock and other problems.
I understand the engine will not
make full power on low boost (reduce manifold pressure and settle for
less power?)
Or, it might quit if high boost
is on and the mixture is not adjusted.
Since engine driven pump
failure, heat and altitude all affect fuel delivery, it would seem using
the low boost continuously could solve or make these problems
manageable.
Dr. Lyle Koen did our last two
physicals. He was a very likeable guy who built one of the early
IV’s and had over 1000 hours on it. We talked to him about joining
LOBO and coming to the Branson Fly-In.
Given the more knowledgeable
than usual witness account, could training have changed this
outcome?
Steve Legacy
IO550
=
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|
|
|