Dan Lloyd RV-10 "Factual" report out...

[Mike S]

Mark, welcome to VAF.

I thought your login name was referencing your preference in beer.

Good to have you aboard.

What kind of RV you building----status.

[molson309]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Mark, welcome to VAF.

I thought your login name was referencing your preference in beer.

Good to have you aboard.

What kind of RV you building----status.

Thanks Mike -

Heh. I get the beer reference a lot, it helps people remember me!

I have a flying RV-7A, N407V, and am in the process of building an F1 Rocket. It's about 50% done with another 80% to go

This accident really struck a chord with me. I think there's something in this that just about anyone can identify with; perhaps the resultant exposure and discussion will save the life of someone else that may be going down the same path.

The old saying "haste makes waste" has never seemed more appropriate.

[rv6ejguy]

I looked over most of the data here and some things don't fit together. All the witnesses state that the engine appeared to be running right up to impact. The propeller analysis says the prop was NOT turning at impact. Somebody is mistaken. Given the position of where one blade was found, this would seem to support the conclusion that the prop was not likely turning at impact.

Tox says no CO present. Seems unlikely that the aircraft was on fire prior to impact.

The photo of the contactor connection doesn't allow us to conclude much. The aircraft was absolutely destroyed in the impact judging from the photos. The cable to the contactor could easily have been pulled out of the lug on impact.

The photos of the terrain suggest that there were plenty of open fields to put a plane down in the event of a power loss.

The GPS data is most telling IMO along with the witness statements. GS was down to about 60 knots while the aircraft was in a very tight, banked turn at very low altitude, over 1.5 miles from the airport. Why, we'll never know. In the last 39 seconds before impact, the turn radius tightens up to about 450ft. In the last 10-15 seconds speed bleeds from 90 to 60 knots. If the aircraft was in clean configuration and banked as sharply as the witnesses state with speed bleeding back that rapidly, a stall was imminent. Even with full flap, the aircraft was likely to stall performing this banked turn at such low speed. The last 4-5 seconds saw a loss of altitude of 150-200 feet. Why was he maneuvering at about 200 feet AGL for the last minute of flight so far from the runway?

Best fit is simply a stall while performing a very tight turn at low altitude IMO. Wings level just prior to impact from witness statements suggests the pilot was not incapacitated but perhaps attempting to recover too late. Given that the aircraft slid about 100 feet, this suggests that the impact angle was towards the lower side of the 35-60 degrees estimated and that the final GPS GS report of 71 knots makes sense.

Additional items I noticed on the weight and balance report was that it included the weight of 10 quarts of oil. Perhaps this would have been a clue to an experienced person signing off the aircraft that the whole report was bogus since these engines hold about half that amount. Second, the rear baggage bulkheads were not found at the site. Either not installed or consumed by the fire. These are structural and must be installed for flight.

[AltonD]

Originally Posted by molson309

Thanks Mike -
The old saying "haste makes waste" has never seemed more appropriate.

I am in the final throws of finsihing my RV7A. Everyone asks "When will it fly?" I have been telling them Ocotber. After digesting this report, the answer is now "It will fly when it flies. I will not be rushed."

[Mel]

Originally Posted by AltonD

After digesting this report, the answer is now "It will fly when it flies. I will not be rushed."

"I usually tell people that it will not fly until it's finished. If I change my mind and decide to fly it before it's finished, I'll call you first."

[JDRhodes]

Originally Posted by Mel

"I usually tell people that it will not fly until it's finished. If I change my mind and decide to fly it before it's finished, I'll call you first."

Gotta tell yourself that, more importantly!

[Frank Smidler]

Originally Posted by AltonD

I am in the final throws of finsihing my RV7A. Everyone asks "When will it fly?" I have been telling them Ocotber. After digesting this report, the answer is now "It will fly when it flies. I will not be rushed."

I always told anyone who asked when I would be finished that it would be Tuesday. They would give me a shocked look, and ask the follow up question "This Tuesday?". I would respond, No, but by claiming Tuesday I will not be more than 3 days off.

[carlrai]

I always used Saturday.
And actually, it turned out that way after saying it for 7 years.....

[sblack]

Originally Posted by airguy

Jerry,

Drifting a bit off-topic for this thread again, I know, but you asked. Mods - move this as you see fit.


The idea of running twin electric pumps is not new, and I don't claim it for my own - I actually got the idea from Frankh here on VAF, I don't know where he got it from. The concept is that we can greatly reduce, if not totally eliminate, the issue of vapor lock by designing the fuel system in a "hydraulically correct" fashion. .

A friend and colleague, John D, who is a pneumatic aircraft systems engineer, has been flying his -6 for some 10 yrs on this same setup. He has an H2AD which does not have a pad for a mech fuel pump (as I understand it). So he has 2 electric pumps on 2 separate circuits with 2 batteries. He (being a Systems Engineer) did a detailed failure analysis and has an involved pre-flight procedure to check both and he replaces one battery every 2 yrs (despite my insisting that he should cycle it and measure capacity before replacing it).

So he has something that I believe provides and equivalent or better level of safety compared to the standard mechanical with electric backup. I would argue that it is likely better from a reliability point of view because of the vapor lock issue and the crappy reliability of those ancient mechanical fuel pumps with their rubber diaphragms which crack etc. They always remind me of the pump on the well at my great grandfathers circa 1850 dairy farm - you know the type with the big arm on it? The electric pumps are small, cheap, easy to swap out and you can even carry one in the spares compartment along with some tools so you can deal with a failure on a trip.

But, like has been mentioned elsewhere, the devil is in the details. One could use a similar scheme, but the wrong type of switch (a left or right selector that if it fries kills both pumps), with incorrect plumbing or venting etc etc and make it a ticking time bomb. You can do that with ANY system. You really need to do your research and a lot of planning and thinking about what-ifs. John did his homework and he has a system that works and has been very reliable. Probably replacing batteries as often as he does is the main downside, but that is a choice he made. I would run the batteries on condition personally, monitoring their health, since I have a battery cycler.

[longline]

are "not found". I have not been able to access either of the referenced files. Not sure what is happening.

Cannot locate by name of pilot or type of aircraft. Worth the read, but cannot see it right now.