Y

Yukon

Well Known Member
EI.......Auto Gas...........Ryton Sump.............???????????????????????????
********************************************************************************
** Report created 2/22/2007 Record 1 **
********************************************************************************

(Gentleman this is Brian(one of your moderators), I'm editing this post for a reason-- the above information may or may not be correct at this time... some following posts lead me to believe that this may not be correct information and I ask you to please keep in mind that we truly know nothing except someone made a power off landing and was not injured seriously. I believe Mr Paul Dye makes a very valid point in the following post as well.)

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 601DB Make/Model: RV6 Description: RV-6
Date: 02/21/2007 Time: 2215

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: AUBURN State: WA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT SHORTLY AFTER DEPARTURE, LOST ENGINE POWER AND CRASHED SOUTH OF THE
AIRPORT, AUBURN, WA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: VFR

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER

Departed: AUBURN, WA Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: SEATTLE, WA (NM01) Entry date: 02/22/2007
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John,

I certainly support posting mishap reports that are pertinent to us (and this is a perfect example) for the purpose of education. I'm not sure, however, that you help the flow of information by immediately speculating (indirectly) about causes before we have any information at all. The first questions that I ask are:

1) Is this this someone that anyone here knows?
2) Are they all right?
3) Can someone give us some good factual details?

By starting off your post with a question relating to the "hot button" controversial issues, you might make people less inclined to share their experience, as they might not want to get beat up by people that want to make a point. I've debriefed people on mishaps literally thousands of times, and have found that I learn a lot more by not being confrontational from the start. Just a thought.

Paul
 
Yukon said:
EI.......Auto Gas...........Ryton Sump.............???????????????????????????
********************************************************************************
** How in the world do you suggest that at this point????????????
Click to expand...
 
Pilot is ok. Forced landing was on the airfield. Unknown reason for engine failure. Pilot did an outstanding job getting the aircraft to an area where he did not hit anything and had room to decelerate. After seeing this I will say If you have an engine failure pick a hard surface as he did so the aircraft can slide to get rid of energy. Soft surface could have stopped the aircraft in a shorter distance causing more damage/injury or a flip over. I was at the airport. Really nothing else to report until the engine is torn down.

Pre mishap info: Lyc, Mags, 100LL (plenty of it). All plain jane.

mike
 
Did the engine seize?

Was it windmilling as it came down?..Do you know if the prop was turnable after the landing?

Just wondering?

Frank
 
asav8tor said:
Pilot is ok. Forced landing was on the airfield. Unknown reason for engine failure. Pilot did an outstanding job getting the aircraft to an area where he did not hit anything and had room to decelerate.
Click to expand...
I am confused. According to the inflammatory post by Yukon the "official" initial report shows 1 fatality. What gives? Are you two talking about the same accident?
 
Steve, I think you saw the 1 in front of Fatal...the 1 is for Crew #.

# Crew: 1 Fat: 0

No fatality in this one.
 
cjensen said:
Steve, I think you saw the 1 in front of Fatal...the 1 is for Crew #.

# Crew: 1 Fat: 0

No fatality in this one.
Click to expand...
Ahhh! Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I need to read those things more closely.
 
night flight?

Was this accident really at 2200hrs local or was that 2200Z?? An engine failure resulting in no injuries is quite an achievement, at night even more so. High pucker factor! Glad to hear everyone's alright!
 
On the field?

Mike,

I fly out of Auburn as well. If he put it back on the runway and didn't run through the fence and parking lot on the departure, he must have just been airborne. Any further details that you know of?

Jim
 
It was day VFR about 1430 LCL time. Accomplished the forced landing 90 to the left of rwy hdg. On the airfield. Hit nothing. Stopped in an area of tie downs. Looking around I do not think there was a more suitable area given his position at the time of engine failure. Yes it was windmilling. If I ever have an engine failure I hope I am able to do as well as he did. No injuries, no damage to anything on the ground.

mike
 
Good Job

That's outstanding if he did no damage! There's not a lot of room at that end of the field.
 
Well, I guess I'm confused. The first post says auto gas, then someone says it had plenty of 100LL.

Is it possible to report facts instead of guessing?
 
Any word on the cause of the Oregon off-field landing

I think it was a Harmon rocket. Took off fron Sandy (?) and had to land 25 miles or so north in a neighborhood short a few miles of an airport.
 
I thought...

cjensen said:
Steve, I think you saw the 1 in front of Fatal...the 1 is for Crew #.

# Crew: 1 Fat: 0

No fatality in this one.
Click to expand...

That this was a comment about the size of the crew person.

Kent
 
Chickenlips said:
"....I heard he ingested a chicken at 2500' and forgot to pull the air bypass!.... :p
Click to expand...
It might have been a chicken.......or an RV. They weren't sure when they pulled the remains out of the air intake. :D
 
brianwallis said:
Please keep it civil gentleman... no need to refer to someone as fat.
thank you.
Click to expand...

Huh? Relax, he was being civil... just using a sense of humor. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Ironflight said:
John,

I certainly support posting mishap reports that are pertinent to us (and this is a perfect example) for the purpose of education. I'm not sure, however, that you help the flow of information by immediately speculating (indirectly) about causes before we have any information at all. The first questions that I ask are:

1) Is this this someone that anyone here knows?
2) Are they all right?
3) Can someone give us some good factual details?

By starting off your post with a question relating to the "hot button" controversial issues, you might make people less inclined to share their experience, as they might not want to get beat up by people that want to make a point. I've debriefed people on mishaps literally thousands of times, and have found that I learn a lot more by not being confrontational from the start. Just a thought.

Paul
Click to expand...

How could I possibly know what caused this accident? The report said no injuries or fatalities, why should I ask these questions Paul?

I'm not speculating, I'm suggesting that guys think twice about risky behaviors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am having a hard time reading between the lines....

John, I guess we have a "failure to communicate". When I read you first post on this thread, I understood that you were indicating that the accident was caused by:

"EI.......Auto Gas...........Ryton Sump.............???????????????????????????"

I think that a lot of others made the same assumption. You need to be clearer if I am to understand your intent.

Kent
 
Yukon said:
How could I possibly know what caused this accident? The report said no injuries or fatalities, why should I ask these questions Paul?

I'm not speculating, I'm suggesting that guys think twice about risky behaviors.
Click to expand...

We have a new record!
 
kentb said:
John, I guess we have a "failure to communicate". When I read you first post on this thread, I understood that you were indicating that the accident was caused by:

"EI.......Auto Gas...........Ryton Sump.............???????????????????????????"

I think that a lot of others made the same assumption. You need to be clearer if I am to understand your intent.

Kent
Click to expand...
John, I agree with Kent here. It is often not exactly clear whether you are presenting factual information or are presenting a cynical opinion of other's views on a subject. I also took your statement to mean that you thought that perhaps this accident was caused by electronic ignition or auto gas or Ryton sumps.

If there is one thing that is obviously clear from reading your posts it is the fact that you do not believe in any experimentation in the experimental airplane market. I would like to say that I understand where you are coming from in your comments about risks associated with our endeavors. As the saying goes (and might I add, the saying can definitely be over used in certain circles), "You are entitled to your opinion".

Kent asked that you be more clear in your intent. I would disagree with Kent on this idea. I believe you have been very clear in your intent throughout your posts. I take from your posts that your intent is to prove to everyone else that your view is the one that everyone else should adhere to. Of course I most definitely could be wrong in my understanding of your intent. If that is the case then please correct me on my inference. I am more than willing to admit to everyone reading that I was wrong.

These forums are in place to provide information for the benefit of all who read them. There is great benefit in reading about what others have done when "experimenting" with their projects. Without those experiments, and the talk of what transpired from them, there would be precious little advancement in what any of us do regardless of how one wants to measure advancement.

If you decide that "you and yours" will not be experimenting with your experimental then that is your prerogative. Please accept that others might not hold to the same beliefs as you.
 
Steve, I suppose that is a valid criticism. I guess with the rash of electronic ignition problems lately, as well as Frank's Mogas scare, I would have thought that my economy of words would have been sufficient to pose a question, not an answer, to my friends familiar with these issues. MY BAD!

TO BE CLEAR:

*8 or 10 Ryton sumps have blown off, with one or more fatality.
*Looks like 10-15 REALLY BAD experiences with electronic ignition
*Frank's a huge MOGAS proponent.......Currently on AVGAS

I like experimentation, but in small doses. TO BE CLEAR, and I don't want any misunderstanding.......Put a Ryton sump on an engine with an Emag, fuel it with auto fuel, run it lean of peak, then file IFR with one of Van's alternators...............you will come to grief, it's just a matter of time.

You know what, my concerns are not directed toward you thrill-seeking adrenaline junkies who race motorcycles, cars and skydive naked :) I'm speaking to the 100 hr neophyte who mortgaged his home to the hilt thinking this is a no-brainer exercise of mix and match experimental airplane parts.
These admonitions are directed to the guy who wants fun and safe flying.

Be conservative guys, or get ready to pay the piper. This is serious business.
 
Yukon said:
*8 or 10 Ryton sumps have blown off, with one or more fatality.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this information? My understanding was that all the failures were during start-up, not in-flight. (BTW: I don't have the Ryton sump on my XP-360...I have the vertical draft aluminum setup)
 
Jamie said:
Where did you get this information? My understanding was that all the failures were during start-up, not in-flight. (BTW: I don't have the Ryton sump on my XP-360...I have the vertical draft aluminum setup)
Click to expand...

From a number of sources, including the manufacturer, users and the family of a deceased ryton user.

In many cases, an engine start preceeds flight! :) I suppose sometimes the rupture isn't as severe, and the airplane becomes airborne with a compromised intake system.

I guess all one really needs to know is these sumps have been withdrawn from the market. This is why I don't fly untested parts. To save what.......8 pounds?
 
Last edited:
Yukon said:
Steve, I suppose that is a valid criticism. I guess with the rash of electronic ignition problems lately, as well as Frank's Mogas scare, I would have thought that my economy of words would have been sufficient to pose a question, not an answer, to my friends familiar with these issues. MY BAD!

TO BE CLEAR:

*Frank's a huge MOGAS proponent.......Currently on AVGAS

Be conservative guys, or get ready to pay the piper. This is serious business.
Click to expand...

John,

Frank had a scare and he was using mogas, but there is no evidence mogas caused whatever happened.

About the only thing that will cause an engine problem with any fuel we use is a vapor lock, fuel pump failure, or contamination - none of these will result in a high CHT and oil temperature. Mogas is a most unlikely culprit in whatever happened. The evidence does not support such a conclusion.
 
Ryton sump engine failure causing fatality??

I'll second Jamie's question and say that I am only aware of one fatality involving an aircraft equipped with a Ryton sump. As of today, there has been no determination or factual information based on examination of the airframe that it involved the sump. The engine failure could have either been a fuel or electrical issue.

Let's try to be a lot more reliant on facts than hearsay, rumor or conjecture here...just because my aircraft was painted blue and crashed does not mean that was the cause of it.

Superior ain't makin the Ryton sump anymore...many of them failed due to a failure mode that was discovered after they were put in the field. It was a great concept that didn't address all the design requirements. And yes, we pilots, including me (flying experimental aircraft) tested it and found those flaws. I think those are the facts for now.
 
Bob Brown said:
I'll second Jamie's question and say that I am only aware of one fatality involving an aircraft equipped with a Ryton sump. As of today, there has been no determination or factual information based on examination of the airframe that it involved the sump. The engine failure could have either been a fuel or electrical issue.

Let's try to be a lot more reliant on facts than hearsay, rumor or conjecture here...just because my aircraft was painted blue and crashed does not mean that was the cause of it.

Superior ain't makin the Ryton sump anymore...many of them failed due to a failure mode that was discovered after they were put in the field. It was a great concept that didn't address all the design requirements. And yes, we pilots, including me (flying experimental aircraft) tested it and found those flaws. I think those are the facts for now.
Click to expand...

Good to hear from you Bob! You are one of my data points. Isn't one potential fatality enough, for such a useless mod?
 
Yukon said:
You know what, my concerns are not directed toward you
These admonitions are directed to the guy who wants fun and safe flying.

Be conservative guys, or get ready to pay the piper. This is serious business.
Click to expand...
Well, to set the record straight concerning "me and mine", I am not a "thrill-seeking adrenaline junkies who race motorcycles, cars and skydive naked :)"

Sometimes flying scares the begeezus out of me! I have little desire to put myself in such dangerous situations that I will not come out of alive. And I say that from the experience of having done so already. I have had two engine failures at low altitude in the past year. They happened within ten months of each other. I am going to tell you something from that experience. THERE AINT NOTHING MORE SCARY THAN BEING 200 FEET OVER TREES AND WATER WITH NO POWER AND A DEAD PROP!! Thrill-seeking! No Thank You!

Yukon said:
I'm speaking to the 100 hr neophyte who mortgaged his home to the hilt thinking this is a no-brainer exercise of mix and match experimental airplane parts.
Click to expand...
Having built one airplane already and having had above said experiences in that airplane, I also do not think of this airplane building business as a "no-brainer exercise". That is why I ask the questions I do on these forums. I want factual information pro and con on the real issues. Having someone state that something has to be a specific way
1) because that is the way it has always been done
2) because there is some measure of emotion tied to the belief
3) or even worse, because there is some economic incentive to keep people doing things a certain way
​
does nothing to help me make informed decisions on the important aspects of constructing my airplane, and I think all aspects of constructing my airplane are important.
 
Last edited:
John (Yukon):

Do you have an n-number of the accident aircraft? Many of us would probably be interested in digging into that a little more. A google search for "Ryton sump fatality" returns this thread as the top response. :)
 
No Jaimie, I shouldn't tell you that. I'll get kicked off the forum for sure.
Suffice it to say, he was on his second sump, blowing the first one off earlier in the week. Like Bob said, it is still under investigation, but the feds don't spent much time on experimental crashes. I guess the fact that it isn't made anymore is all we need to know.
 
David-aviator said:
John,

Frank had a scare and he was using mogas, but there is no evidence mogas caused whatever happened.

About the only thing that will cause an engine problem with any fuel we use is a vapor lock, fuel pump failure, or contamination - none of these will result in a high CHT and oil temperature. Mogas is a most unlikely culprit in whatever happened. The evidence does not support such a conclusion.
Click to expand...

I disagree David. A random advance angle will cause more detonation with
low octane fuel. True, there may be two causes compounding the problem but he is no longer using auto fuel, and he is still flying........
 
Yukon said:
Steve,

TWO engine failures? In what?
Click to expand...
I built and currently am flying a Challenger II with one of those two stroke Rotax engines that has been referenced earlier. I will agree with earlier posts about two stroke failures being attributed to pilot "mismanagement". That was the case with my first engine failure when I experienced a cold seizure at an altitude of 300' agl over trees and a pond. That failure was due to my stupidity in mismanaging the throttle that caused a sudden dump of cold fuel into a hot cylinder. With an engine that only has about 40 lb/ft of torque per cylinder it was very easy to understand why an expanded piston pushing through a shrinking cylinder would seize up an engine with only 500 cc of displacement. Miraculously I was able to clear the trees and the pond and land (ok, to be accurate I really fell, as in stalled the last 10 or so feet) in a side yard of some houses I was coming down over. The plane did sustain considerable airframe damage that I had to repair. However, I was lucky enough to be able to set the plane down without any physical injury to me at all. Of course I cannot say that I did not sustain some emotional scarring from the incident. Not to mention the emotional gut wrenching my wife experienced as she stood on the ground underneath me as she watched the entire incident unfold in front of her.

The second engine failure was not necessarily due to pilot mismanagement but it did totally destroy an engine that had only 52 hours on it. I had learned my lesson from the previous failure and had plenty of altitude. That altitude did allow me time to pick a place to set the plane down that did not result in any damage to the airframe but the engine had rod bearings that decided to give up the attempt to hold the rod off of the crankshaft. The subsequent result of which was a complete and total destruction of the case, crankshaft, cylinder wall, piston, rod, bearings (hmmm, I think that was all) for that cylinder.

Oh, and my wife got to watch that incident unfold above her head as well. Needless to say then, I have since given up on hoping she will ever ride with me in this airplane again.
 
Well God bless you Steve.....I'm preaching to the choir! That silence isn't much fun is it! You are a **** of an aviator to survive two of them,without a scratch!

So I guess you won't be installing any marginal equipment in your airplane! I read somewhere that the 2 stroke Rotax have 15 times the failure rate of the fleet average in ultralights.

No doubt, 2 strokes suck for reliability in aircraft. Install reliable, proven equipment in your 9 and you will stay out of the trees.
 
Yukon said:
Well God bless you Steve.....I'm preaching to the choir! That silence isn't much fun is it! You are a **** of an aviator to survive two of them,without a scratch!
Click to expand...
No, I don't feel I am any better or worse of an aviator than you or any other pilot. The reality is that when things get quiet and you can avoid panicking you just have to remember one important fact. The engine is not what makes an airplane fly. To be sure, without it your flight will not be as long, but your airplane will still fly just as well as it did when that big fan was turning. Remember that and fly the airplane all the way "to the scene of the crash" (taken without permission from Ron White. Sorry Ron, it is just too good of a line not to repeat! :D).

Yukon said:
So I guess you won't be installing any marginal equipment in your airplane!
Click to expand...
Well that all depends on what you see as "marginal equipment". I am interested in using an ECI IO340 engine that the manufacturer states will produce somewhere between 180 and 185 HP in an airframe that Vans states should not have more than 160 HP strapped to it. I intend to use fuel injection instead of carbs, I will be installing electronic ignition as I am not convinced electronic ignition, in and of itself, is a bad thing. I am interested in the possibilities of using mogas, ethanol, diesel as alternatives to using 100LL because I do not believe that 100LL is the Holy Grail of aviation fuel.

On the issue of fuel, all of these threads the past several days concerning fuels is of great interest to me. I do not feel that 92 octane fuel is a high risk for aviation engines. I do not believe that vapor lock is an issue with that fuel in these engines if our discussions on other threads pan out concerning the proper plumbing of fuel lines, tanks, pumps, etc. is taken into consideration. I do not feel that water contamination in any of our fuel tanks is ever going to really be a serious issue unless of course there is some catastrophic event that allows for a great amount of water into the fuel tanks and I further believe that this is even more of a non issue the more alcohol a blended gasoline has in it. I do not feel that alcohol in our fuels is the nasty gremlin that all naysayers believe it is.

Having said all of that since the IO340 has a compression ratio of 9.5:1 and the manufacturer recommends only 100LL, if I end up installing this engine I will be using 100LL fuel in it unless there is some other information that comes out that proves this engine will run fine with some other type of fuel.

Taking into consideration the discussion with the recent Pmag debate on the other threads I believe the concerns with EI are not because the technique of using EI to provide spark is suspect. The implementation of such technique perhaps, but not the actuality of using it. I will say that I had hopes of using at least one Pmag but until I read more on the causes of the recent "failure" I will hold off on that decision for sure.

So perhaps I am looking to take on more risk than you might do given my situation but I don't see it as taking on unnecessary risk. Mainly because I am not quite convinced that the mitigation of said risks are not going to be taken care of should I choose to use such "new" technologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.