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

[Danny7]

Originally Posted by Hard Knox

Mike can rant, the NTSB can cloud the issue with pages and pages of paper, others can defend the "right to choose" any engine for their project, but the facts are that if an airplane engine were in use on the airplane in question, it would not have failed in the fashion it did. I know airplanes with airplane engines crash as well, but they would not have failed in this manner if a battery connection came apart.

FWIW

even if it has dual EI?

or dual EI and electronic controlled FI?

or lycomings IE 2?

[rv6ejguy]

The point I was trying to make was with dual electrically dependent EIs on a Lycoming, the engine would have stopped just as surely as it did with the Sube in this instance.

The cases I was referring to involved Emag/ Pmags (sorry I can't keep these straight) and software/ mystery issues. One if I remember led to a successful forced landing on a highway. The search feature here unfortunately gives hundreds of hits so I can't find what I'm looking for. There have been other EI failures as well (fortunately only one at a time).

Point being primarily though is that any electrically dependent EI is going to go dark if power is interrupted and some are going to go dark for other reasons even with power there- sensor failures, mechanical failures, software glitches and maybe even board failures. In this case the Subaru had an SDS EMS (digital fuel and spark control) on it- which needs electrons to work.

The nice thing about a Lycoming is that it is set up for twin ignition already and you can use two different EIs, two of the same, two mags or a mag and an EI.

[D Freddo]

I think we are concentrating on side issues.Things mechanical and electrical. Some people should not be flying aeroplanes

[TSwezey]

Originally Posted by D Freddo

I think we are concentrating on side issues.Things mechanical and electrical. Some people should not be flying aeroplanes

You are probably right about this one David.

[RVbySDI]

I am afraid this thread may be running its course to a conclusion if it is going to morph into the dreaded AUTO CONVERSION ENGINES ARE EVIL! vain.

Come on guys if you want to debate auto engines or proclaim your disdain or acceptance of them there are other threads to do that in. This thread holds a great deal of value in its content without rehashing that debate.

Go somewhere else to rehash please!

[Shockwave]

It sounds like he had a backup electrical system, with X-TIE and Buss Selector switches. Those switches were found in the off and normal positions.

Did he have dual batteries? Do you even need a battery if the alternator is supplying power?

If only he would have slowed down and become familiar with what he had.

[RV7Guy]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

The point I was trying to make was with dual electrically dependent EIs on a Lycoming, the engine would have stopped just as surely as it did with the Sube in this instance.

The cases I was referring to involved Emag/ Pmags (sorry I can't keep these straight) and software/ mystery issues. One if I remember led to a successful forced landing on a highway.

The event in which you speak happened to a friend of mine. Although a Pmag failed, it was all pilot error from there. He failed to isolate the mag, (do a mag check in flight), went to full rich at a high altitude, didn't throttle back to get the temps under control and slow the advanced timing and ultimately VOLUNTARILY shut the engine down. If he would have simply switched to the good mag he would have been fine. He is a low time pilot with very little fixed wing time prior to building the RV.

I know you are a huge proponent of Alt engines and probably one of the few that can make them work. I am not and have seen too much in the way of lack of success for airplanes. They seem to work fine on Gyro copters and in cars but in RV's the success just isn't there. No real significant numbers of hours to show success. Quite the contrary. The collection of broken planes is growing faster than the success stories.

[DanH]

This isn't about auto engines or electrical dependence....or shouldn't be.

There are perfectly reasonable ways to approach the construction and testing of even the most radical flying machine. And there are perfectly unreasonable ways.

[videobobk]

This has been a helpful thread. A practical result--I did the TC bit yesterday, looking over a nicely put together 40% RV-9A. I probably listened more for "attitude" than I had before, and I had a better sense of responsibility than a few weeks ago. I came away knowing I hadn't met another out of control accident waiting to happen.

Bob Kelly

[N8RV]

Captain Obvious here.

I think we (the homebuilding community) have created some of this mindset by selling airplane kits with the sales pitch, "Anybody with a moderate skill set can build an airplane ... it's affordable ... great performance ... etc."

If many first-time builders would limit their building and flying to the light sport class, we'd probably have a better track record. However, when a low-time, low-experience pilot buys into the concept of building his dream machine, it's often MUCH faster, MUCH more complicated than the spam can that he's been flying.

Maybe Mr. First-time Builder buys a basic RV kit but then wanders the rows of fabulous RVs at Oshkosh ... and strolls the candy-filled rows of vendors in the exhibition halls ... and reads threads here on VAF about how others have built in redundancy in their electronic ignition systems ... and suddenly his basic, VFR-equipped RV has sprouted various antennae and pretty boxes chock-full of information that he now has to process.

As others have said, building the airframe isn't all that demanding. However, when we start adding all of the bells and whistles that make our dream plane a reality, there's a requisite amount of time and energy that must be spent learning not only how to install the systems, but also how to interpret and process the information that those systems present while we're flying.

Some people, lured into the myth that building a plane is really not all that hard, find themselves ill-equipped to deal with the intricasies of installation, calibration and evaluation of their dream planes and would be better served to build a simpler plane and settle for less speed, less "wow" and more safety. However, they would probably be fishermen instead of pilots were that the case.

The more RVs that are completed, the higher the accident stats will climb, sadly. It's just an actuarial fact that we need to expect. However, building and flying within our true skill set and not our finances or egos will help insure that we don't become part of those statistics.

Captain Obvious out.