|
I believe LNC-2's alone have
hit the 2000 mark.
Please post all the
statistics..
Locations, Annual Hours,
Models of Lancair's, Actual Accidents / Incidents for all Lancair's, LOBO and
Non LOBO, Etc.
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:19
AM
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents
factoids
over 2000 kits sold; approx 1000 flying;
200 members (20% of the flying fleet)
-----Original
Message----- From: Jim Nordin < panelmaker@earthlink.net> To:
lml@lancaironline.netSent: Fri,
Jan 8, 2010 6:27 pm Subject: [LML] 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
So a reasonable question
is: What percentage of Lancairs are LOBO
affiliated?
Jim
Or could it be that more people who fly aren't members
of LOBO so the odds are with you.
Sent
from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Date: Fri, 08 Jan
2010 14:09:12 -0500
Subject: [LML]
Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
The important part
is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty significant when not a single LOBO
member joins the NTSB club in 2009 -- a better question would be why are LOBO
members "safer" than the general Lancair community? You probably only have to
look at the recent LML discussions to answer that question for yourself.
Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in
2009 compared to 2008? Or any airplane for that matter? Just
a few years ago, I'd see and hear planes fly all the time. Now,
I'm lucky to hear one a month and never see them. Sadly, GA is
dying. In Rochester, it's $80 to land a small plane - $40 ramp fee
plus $40 landing fee. Less planes fly, less planes crash but I'm
not sure that should be interpreted as an improvement.
--- On
Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com>
wrote:
Interesting
fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair accidents last
year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatalities)
in 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO member.
This parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it
up!
Some
random experiences in Fuel (mis)management.
Gotcha
#1. Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold front
in a C-180 ambhibian. Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel
tank - appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel
the ladder! On way to Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is
now Tri-State expressway. Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under
the old style cover. Landed without incident on the Tri-state
(prior to concrete being laid.)
Gotcha
#2. In a T-6. Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks
every 1/2 hour. Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on
third switch attempt the selector handle broke off. Now unable to
fly on fuller tank, so diverted to alternate airport and landed.
No passenger in back seat as there is a second selector there.
Henceforth carried a vicegrip as do about 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6
pilots.
Gotcha
#3. In a twin comanche with tip tanks. Heated hangar in N.
Wisc. Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the
twins peculiar low point central drain. Left for Florida, with
full mains, full aux and full tips. My proceedure is to taxi out on
the mains, switch to aux for run up then back to mains for take
off. Uneventfull cruise at 8500'. Full aux and tips showing
on the gauges. At cruise I swith to left Aux tank, engine quites, back
to main everything ok. Same with rt engine. Analysis frozen
water in both aux tanks. After landing and over night in heated
hanger drain over a gallon of water from sump. A/c always
hangared!
Gotcha#4. I
was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it had a fuel
system not unlike a Lnc-2. Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity feed
to the header. The CFI "student" checks the fuel. " half
full header, half full wing aux tanks". We were only going to do
touch and goes in Sedona, AZ. After 2-3 landings we turned on
the aux which drains into the mains so as to continue circuits and
the 4th landing was "dead stick".
Moral of
the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the tanks
and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers and
hopefully no more GOTCHA'S.
Bob
Mitchell
L320
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel
Planning
I rely
heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity. On refueling, it is
invariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but
there is one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you
in the lurch, and a bad one at that. If a leak develops upstream
of the fuel totalizer sensor, or you leave a fuel cap off, you can be
draining or vacuuming a large fraction of your fuel overboard, but the
fuel totalizer does not recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely
only on the totalizer.
Accordingly,
we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the fuel left in
the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss and that we
can rely on the fuel totalizer.
|
|