That's the flaw in a plane with a canopy. Most canopies are either acrylic or plexiglass and tend to break apart in a flip over situation but if they don't you can still easily break it with a good kick. The bigger problem is trying to squeeze out between where the canopy was and the ground. You can't slide out like you can with an airplane with a door. It's all a tradeoff. It's harder to get out of but it also provides a much more unobstructed view making other airplanes easier to spot and a midair less likely.
Why didn't they fly the plane back to the runway?
- Thread starter MountainDude
- Start date
wanttaja
En-Route
Yup. When I do my analysis of a year's homebuilt accidents, I do an initial search based on the "Amateur-Built" flag. Typically, about five percent of a year's accidents so flagged are NOT homebuilts...Production airplanes, warbirds, Light Sports, ultralights, etc.
Works the other way, too. Every year I find ~5 or so accidents without the flag set that have homebuilt-like names.
Ron Wanttaja
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok, thanks. I kinda figured foot power would have a lot to do with exiting. I have never been in a plane upside down on the ground, but been in a few upside down race cars. Adrenaline sure helped me get out..
ColinD
Pre-takeoff checklist
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,821
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
I have a Sonex, a VTX motorcycle, and an older VW Beetle. They all have one thing in common, they ain't made for crashin' ...
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup…because there have been zero* accidents after doors or baggage compartments of certificates popped open in flight.
*I’m not sure how many of what digits should come before the zero, but I wouldn’t be surprised by a number equivalent to the homebuilts.
wanttaja
En-Route
Well...I like to believe I'm pretty well versed in the homebuilt vs. production safety statistics. By my methods, homebuilts have a fleet accident rate about 45% higher.
And just about all of that is related to mechanical issues. To a large degree due to non-traditional engines, but there is an elevated level of failure in other systems as well.
It is "experimental" aviation, after all, and that does come with a cost.
Ron Wanttaja
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,811
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
You break the canopy and crawl out. Some, you can jettison before you land, but I'd be reluctant to do that. The canopy offers some protection. You'd rather it hit the rock than your noggin hit the rock.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,821
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
I posted this story in the other, earlier thread a few years ago about this same crash when the subject of being flipped upside down came up:
"A fellow pilot was killed some years ago in an off airport crash of a tail wheel Sonex that flipped. His son, in the plane with him, got a few scratches from crawling out of the broken canopy to go and find help. God only knows when your number will be called ..."
Most in the Sonex community might recall this accident and the loss of a friend named Tom Huebbe.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
I perfectly understand your overall cost idea. Now you’re reading comprehension is strained. I made it clear that I had a significantly higher than normal annual this year due to exhaust system replacement. There’s no way I’m at ten to one over what I’ve spent on my 140 compared to your homemade plane. I bought it for $22,000 in 2011. I turned down more than twice that recently. Even with engine work, annuals and fuel, I couldn’t be over $70K for thirteen years of flying. That prorates to about $5.5k per year. So, you’ve operated for a total cost of $550 per year? (10 to 1?)
What is the TBO?
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
Well stated!
Yeah,even if a home made plane COULD be flown for 90% less money, which I find impossible to believe unless you are comparing something like a Bonaza to a Sonex, is the risk of mechanical failure worth it. There will be pilot error issues with all planes, but increased chance of mechanical failure is probably my biggest objection anyway.
I’ve only been to Oshkosh twice, many years ago and both times, homemade planes broke up over the lake resulting in fatalities.
Thank you no! My family, friends and myself are more valuable to me than that.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,811
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Please look up those accidents and share a link. I've been going to Oshkosh <almost> every year for 30 years and don't remember any airframe failures.
wanttaja
En-Route
My Fly Baby has a Continental engine, burns autogas, and typical yearly maintenance runs about $200, with annuals (e.g. Condition inspection) costs $300. Transponder check, too. It is dead-nuts simple, with fewer systems TO break. My biggest outlay has been for federally-required systems like a transponder and ADS-B out. Given my druthers, I would have chucked the electrical system and not installed the fancy electronics.
Now, no question our missions are different. You wouldn't see much utility in my airplane, and I've got no desire for a multi-passenger travelling airplane. (normally, I'd say "Crowd Killer" but I'm being polite
)I first flew a Fly Baby (the original prototype) about 35 years ago. On that first takeoff, I was laughing out loud, it was so much fun. I doubt I'll find a plane more suited to me.
Now, in all the budget stuff above, I haven't mentioned the hangar cost. The previous airplane in my hangar was a Twin Comanche, so you know I ain't saving any money there....
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
I'm away from home and don't have my accident database, but one was a Petrel amphibian in, I think, 1992. Tail boom separated, it was missing several laminations.
Situation hadn't been helped, the previous day, when the plane sank in the lake, and they hauled it out with a log chain around the aforementioned tail boom.
By the way, it was the company demonstrator.
CHI92FA223, I think.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,811
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Like I said. Been attending for 30 years. No airframe failures. (My first Oshkosh was '94.)
THE BRAZILIAN MANUFACTURED AMPHIBIAN HOMEBUILT KIT AIRPLANE HAD NOT MADE ANY WATER LANDINGS OR TAKEOFFS PRIOR TO ITS ARRIVAL AT THE EAA FLY-IN. IT HAD BEEN PARKED IN A COVE ADJACENT TO A LAKE. SOMETIME DURING THE EVENING AND/OR EARLY MORNING THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE AIRPLANE BECAME PARTIALLY SUBMERGED WHILE MOORED DUE TO ROUGH WEATHER AND WATER. IT WAS BROUGHT CLOSE TO SHORE AND THE WATER REMOVED. PRIOR TO THE FLIGHT WITNESSES OBSERVED THE PILOT AND AN ASSOCIATE PULLING THE AIRPLANE ONTO SHORE BY THE TAILBOOM. DURING THE SECOND DAY OF FLYING, THE EMPENNAGE AND TAILBOOM ASSEMBLY SEPARATED FROM THE FUSELAGE/HULL DURING A DESCENT. POST-CRASH EXAMINATION REVEALED THAT THE TAILBOOM WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH ONLY FOUR OF THE SIX REQUIRED CARBON FIBER LAMINATE PLIES. IN ADDITION, THE STRIPS UTILIZED TO HOLD THE TAILBOOM TOGETHER WERE ALSO MINUS ONE CARBON FIBER LAMINATE PLY. THE TAILBOOM CAME ASSEMBLED FROM THE KIT MANUFACTURER IN BRAZIL.
Craig
Cleared for Takeoff
Ron: I was thinking the NTSB report on Bill's accident mentioned that there was a trail of luggage contents from approximately where the canopy opened and the impact area? Stuff flying around in the cockpit would also be a heck of a distraction too.
The Navion canopy can be flown in the open (at least to the first notch) position. However, you're well advised to NOT have anything loose in the cockpit. My mechanic had words she learned in the Navy to say after she attempted to taxi my plane with the canopy open and blew the packing peanuts that were in the opened box of Rosen Sunvisors in the backseat all over her hangar.
My other mechanic (who owned a mechanic), but his then young kid in one back seat once and then strapped down all his charts and stuff under the seatbelt on the other side and took off with the canopy open. Ten minutes into the flight there was a strange vibration and he is staring at the engine instruments trying to figure it out and then it stopped. A few minutes later it happened again. Still he was unable to diagnose it. The third time he caught something out of the corner of his eye. His son was plucking sectionals out from under the seatbelt. He'd then let them unfold flapping out in the slipstream making the buzzing/vibration until he lost his grip and they would blow completely out, and then he'd go grab another.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Could not help laughing, this is just too funny.!!
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hopefully no injuries to make breaking the canopy time consuming (in case of fire). I guess adding a BFH within reach of the pilot to assist breaking anything would be helpful, as long as the BFH doesn't come out of its mount during the crash sequence and knock the pilot on the noggin...
Gilbert Buettner
Line Up and Wait
The very first fatality at Oshkosh during the EAA convention was an airframe failure. Dewey Bryant of Michigan's Upper Peninsula had an airplane he designed called the "Bryant Roadable." It was designed to have the wings folded up so it could be driven on the surface like a car. Unfortunately for Dewey, one wing folded up right after takeoff and he perished.
It was in the mid 70s, so beyond your 30-year timeframe. I was one of the reporters who covered the story.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
The last time I went to Oskosh was 1992 I believe. Since it means so much to you, you can spend YOUR time to look it up.
wanttaja
En-Route
Home now. Did a little digging, and only found one other structure-related accident at Oshkosh...A "Bryan Roadable" in 1974 didn't have its foldable wing secured.
Looking at my 1998-2022 database, there were also cases of control failure at Oshkosh 2009. RV-9 and a Baby Ace, both had failures of a weld on a rudder pedal.
In the 25 years my database covers, there are 91 cases of airframe structural failure (not limited to Oshkosh), of which 56 resulted in fatalities. About half of the 91 were related to construction or maintenance errors.
Fourteen of the 91 cases were overloads imposed by the pilot, usually during aerobatics.
Ron Wanttaja
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
Well, there ya’ go!
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
Factory built Sonex equivalent?…….. hmmmmmmm…… let me see…… ; is there a shed somewhere being used as a factory? Well, if it’s factory built, it wouldn’t be flimsy enough, or uncertified enough to be considered an equivalent, so I guess there isn’t one.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
That sort of goes along with what I read on this forum many years ago, that legally you could take basic flight in a 747 although it might cost a few more bucks.
Kevin Eggert
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2020
- Messages
- 124
- Display Name
Display name:
Kevin
I would be real curious to see the weight/balance numbers for that flight. I certainly don't have any facts, but as long of a takeoff roll and struggle to gain altitude as I saw in that video, you really have to think they were drastically overweight.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
Back to the homemade airplane issue:
Anyone ever read FAR 91.319?
Anyone ever read FAR 91.319?
Pinecone
En-Route
So your time is worth NOTHING? How much do you or did you earn when working?????
Oh, and remember, his cost included parts.
Do you measure everything you do in life against hiw much you could be esrning if working a job instead? I sure don't try to cost value my hobbies. It would be a very boring life if I only did things that earned mr more money than working.
Pinecone
En-Route
YOU were the one quoting prices.
It always makes things much cheaper when you consider the labor to be FREE.
I only started naming prices because you specifically asked. Your admission that it always makes things cheaper when you consider the labor to be free is exactly why many chose to go experimental. Instead of paying a mechanic to do simple work you can do it yourself. No I do not compare time I spend on a hobby against what I could potentially make working as I’m sure most others on here don’t either. That’s why it’s called a hobby and not a job.
This is the last post I’m going to make in this thread because you seem to want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Experimental aviation gives me options to save money that an owning a standard certified aircraft does not and that’s all that really matters to me. If you are happy flying what you own then more power to you and have at it. I stated why I think it can be much cheaper to go experimental, provided real world numbers to support my assertion and see no point in continuing to debate them with someone who hasn’t done the same and reads my posts to argue not to understand. Have a good day and stay safe flying.