WWI Replica Safety

[Jeff Brooks]

Here is a bunch of Replica Accidents reports from the NTSB. Interesting reading.

SE5A – 28 Aug 2008
CHI08CA168

Fokker VI – 30 Sep 2007
NYC07LA243

SE5A – 17 Sep 2007
NYC07LA232

Fokker DVII – 13 Jul 2007
NYC07LA167

Sopwith Camel – 13 Jul 2007
LAX07LA220


ATL07CA097

Dr1 – 24 Sep 2006
ATL07LA021

Curtis Jenny
DEN06CA123

Howard Whyte Nieuport 28 9/30/2005
IAD05LA144

Palin Nieuport 11 8/13/2006
NYC05LA133

Palen Sopwith Camel - 5/9/2005
NYC05CA080

Gordon E. Brown Nieuport C-1
MIA05LA098

Peter A. Geiser Lee/ Nieuprt 17 – 3/26/2005
LAX05CA123

SE5A – 12/13/2003
FTW04LA041

Wright Model B – 5/19/2003
NYC03LA111

Nieuport 11 Bebe – 2/13/2003
SEA03LA039

Wright Flyer (1903) – 14 Oct 2004
CHI04LA010

Curtis JN-4D – 26 Jun 2002
CHI02LA176

Curtis JN-4D - 9 Sep 2001
NYC01LA226

Nieuport 24 – 31 May 2001
NYC01LA135

SE5A 19 Aug 2001
LAX00LA307

Fokker Dr1 – 23 Feb 1990
DEN90LA067

and finally!

YouTube - De Havilland Biplane Hits A Cow During Landing In A Meadow

YouTube - De Havilland Biplane Hits A Cow During Landing In A Meadow

[Joe Perkel]

Alright now,..don't have a cow man!

I must admit to a good laugh there on that one. They must have just clipped it. a full impact on a cow at that speed I would think could fold in the wing a bit. I couldn't turn on the volume this morning, so I assume that was a forced landing right after takeoff.

Some of these reports can give you a bit of a chuckle, like this guy......

upon touchdown on the main wheels the airplane "deliberately" went to the left

Watch out for those sneaky airplanes now,..they have a mind of their own!

The pilot's recommendation to prevent this from happening again would be to have the airplane inspected by an FAA Inspector, and to do more taxi testing before flight.

Na!... Why spoil the surprise!

You can have some fun with these, and still learn from it.

Some not so funny, and some a reminder of how simple mistakes can be made by the most experienced (14 thousand hour) pilots,, such as attempting a takeoff from runway 18 with the wind 360 @ 14.

FTW04LA041

Thanks Jeff, interesting stuff!

[RobW]

Hey Jeff,
thanks for posting that... I can use that info to update the replica database I built... lots of planes on the FAA registry are dead or long gone but linger there forever...

rob

[baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Baldeagle,

Anything to be learned from this one?,..could you elaborate please?

This was the rudder hinge failure on a Fokker Triplane in England. I believe that the CAA accident report has been posted somewhere here in the past.




-

[j ferguson]

Joe,

If you don't drink and fly, pay attention to weather including wind conditions, check the fuel with a stick or your finger, drain the sumps, do a through pre-flight, don't design a plane or invent its systems if you don't know what you're doing, and do fly a plane whose other examples have generally been airworthy under the conditions you plan to fly under, it seems to me that you take yourself out of the group that has had most of the events chronicled in reports like those posted by Jeff Brooks

I would have to assume that if 10,000 plus flights have been made with rotary engine aircraft - and if I maintain the plane to similar or maybe better standards than the people who operated those aircraft, then I should have mostly good experiences. The fact that one operator failed to check his fuel and ran out, does not suggest any risk to me whatever - so long as I always check fuel.

As to this business of automobiles being more dangerous than planes, Four people I knew have been killed in auto accidents since I was 21. This might be out of a group of thousands over the years. During the period when I flew actively, 1973-85, five people that I ate breakfast with at PWK on Sunday mornings as well as the guy who gave me my Instrument check-ride were lost in airplane accidents. This might be out of a group of say 60-70 people - a high mortality rate for sure. Maybe this is atypical.

So to add one other idea to the WW1 Replica Safety Pool, Fly out of a field where there are other replicas.

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by j ferguson

Joe,

I would have to assume that if 10,000 plus flights have been made with rotary engine aircraft - and if I maintain the plane to similar or maybe better standards than the people who operated those aircraft, then I should have mostly good experiences.

John,

Again, a communication issue. I wish you guy's were in the room!

Here's the thing......

I am also evaluating the remote possibility of mounting a new Oberusel Rotary to the Sopwith should one become eventually available from the New Zealand group!!!

"But, Joe,..you're confusing us now,... arent you the guy worried about the thing falling apart and catching fire??!!"

What I am, is someone who will ask the tough questions, even if those questions, (or the answers), are not convenient to my plan or line of thinking.

The Performance, Historical, monetary, and emotional value of potentially doing this does not escape me. Particularly, the performance side of it. However, I note pretty much in depth on post number 19 "Best Rotaries", why it is the Murrin accident bothers me so much.

Statistics, are simply one of many tools that I use in evaluating something I know little about.

Hope this clarifies my thought process a bit.

[Maxim08]

Joe,
What is it about Fred Murrin's accident that bothers you so?
It wasn't an engine reliability issue but one of fuel supply to the engine. Not a rotary only issue. In fact when our D VII crashed - on exactly the same day - Friday the 13th - and within 1 hour of Fred's incident, it was due to the same primary cause: insufficent fuel pressure leading to no engine power (Ranger with Ellsion throttle body).
Regards,
John

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by Maxim08

Joe,
What is it about Fred Murrin's accident that bothers you so?
Regards,
John

Hi John,

Because that accident was attributed to the particular quirks of a specialized fuel system for a particular engine design (rotary). Moreover, this was at the hands of a premier expert which put's into question any consideration I may have towards a rotary.

Like others, I am also taken with the notion of an all authentic machine, particularly if it turns out that someone produces a marketable new replica later down the road. The problem for me personally, is that Murrins accident puts a rather large question / exclamation mark on those potential desires.

We should all consider these discussions here as "Hangar talk." The problem with that, is that often times there is a loss of "intent" between writer and reader when the other forms of human communication are missing.

Happy New Year!

[Flysafe]

There needs to be some clarification with respect to the GWFM DVII accident causal factors. First, the aircraft had a full tank of fuel, second the engine did not fail, rather it failed to produce sufficient power to maintain level flight, in other words it was a partial power loss. Significantly different than the Murrin Camel accident. The reason for the DVII partial power loss was insufficient fuel pressure to the Elison throttle body caused by leakage at the fuel filter assembly. The fuel filter leakage was caused by a loosening of the filter assembly cap, which was not equipped with a lockwire assembly. The loose cap was not easily detectable during routine maintenance. The fuel system design will be revisited during the aircraft rebuild to address these deficiencies.

In the Murrin accident the primary causal factors were insufficient fuel quantity, coupled with an "original" fuel system of a higher than normal level of complexity built from very limited information. I have the highest level of respect for Fred Murrin, his superb building skills and his quest for authenticity, but it comes with risks that in this case led to a serious accident.

This brings up a very interesting discussion - the subject of fuel tank/system design and minimum quantities for flight. In the certified aircraft world there are specific requirements for design and test of fuel tanks and systems, fuel flow, unusable fuel and minimum fuel for flight, not so in the world of homebuilt aircraft. In many cases we find out the hard way what the minimum fuel for flight is. This is one critical area where we need to focus risk management. We need to design conservative, reliable, simple fuel systems and during the initial pre-flight engine runs determine minimum fuel quantities, unusable fuel values and any pitch/roll attitude limits for low fuel quantities. This requires some patient work, but is a very worthwhile investment in time and effort.

When it comes to flying WWI aircraft, unlike the world of large jet aircraft where the cost of carrying extra fuel can be enormous, be ultra conservative when making fuel decisions. To coin an old phrase "fuel is like brains, you can never have too much". Before and during flight understand your fuel endurance and have a plan that ensures you always operate within the limits of that range. When in doubt gas up or land for fuel.

Reviewing many GA accident reports, including WWI Replica accidents indicates that many are caused by poor fuel decisions.

The problem with a poor fuel decisions is that it often leads to an engine failure. An engine failure and subsequent forced approach is challenging in any GA aircraft and in a WWI replica the chances of a succcessful landing with no major injuries is very low.

I am always reminded of wise words from one of the first Chief Pilots I worked for, who held a commercial pilots licence the year the Hindenburg crashed who said: "Use your head to think carefully and don't end up in a situation where you will need superior flying skills to get you out of a situation because you made inferior decisions".

[Jeff Brooks]

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Because that accident was attributed to the particular quirks of a specialized fuel system for a particular engine design (rotary). Moreover, this was at the hands of a premier expert which put's into question any consideration I may have towards a rotary.

Like others, I am also taken with the notion of an all authentic machine, particularly if it turns out that someone produces a marketable new replica later down the road. The problem for me personally, is that Murrins accident puts a rather large question / exclamation mark on those potential desires.

Joe,
The original fuel system issue aside, using the original engine would produce more thrust than a modern engine, which will create a safer flying condition altogether. The flight controls will respond better, you could lift a heavier plane (if over built), and deal with the higher temps down there in gatorville.

With a modern engine, you have the higher prop speeds, which result in less propeller disc size. Less thrust is like an overgrossed aircraft ... not safe at all. For a seaplane, you will need that extra thrust just to break free from the grip of the water.

This issue has come up many times before, and is usually closely followed with a discussion on full size vs scale to get the most out of a modern engine.

And, as the GWFM accident shows, even the modern engines can have issues when they are in the home build arena. Production built aircraft have stricter rules, and are regularly inspected for compliance to those rules. Modern engines in homebuilt aircraft can have maintenance cycles at what ever the intervals the builder wants.

So, if using safety to decide which engine to put into your reproduction, I say go with a original engine for the power, but you can always tweak the fuel system & if possible ignition with a backup.