shuttle
Well Known Member
Kitplanes Mag - Safety Is No Accident - Non-tradional Engines?
Have just read the July 2010 'Safety Is No Accident' article in Kitplanes Magazine
( http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/27_7/exploring/Safety_Is_No_Accident_Vans_RV_9272-1.phtml )
Without placing blame on the engines, the article states that 87% of RV's involved in accidents in the US over the 10 year analysis period had traditional (Lycoming/clone) engines and thus 13% had non-traditional engines (excluding the RV-12).
We have very few non-traditional engines in the UK RV fleet. It got me wondering whether that 13% non-traditional engine figure was representative across the entire US RV fleet?
The quoted 36% of RV-9A accidents involving a/c with non-traditional engines seemed very high to me.
Is that remotely representative of the US RV-9A fleet?
Have just read the July 2010 'Safety Is No Accident' article in Kitplanes Magazine
( http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/27_7/exploring/Safety_Is_No_Accident_Vans_RV_9272-1.phtml )
Without placing blame on the engines, the article states that 87% of RV's involved in accidents in the US over the 10 year analysis period had traditional (Lycoming/clone) engines and thus 13% had non-traditional engines (excluding the RV-12).
We have very few non-traditional engines in the UK RV fleet. It got me wondering whether that 13% non-traditional engine figure was representative across the entire US RV fleet?
The quoted 36% of RV-9A accidents involving a/c with non-traditional engines seemed very high to me.
Is that remotely representative of the US RV-9A fleet?
Last edited: