There have been a number of comments on this forum that ultralights are dangerous junk. I've flown both advanced ultralights and certified GA aircraft, and I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on the matter.
The statistics show that certified GA aircraft have a higher fatality rate than ultralights per registered aircraft (I can't any statistics on fatalities per hour flown). So are certified aircraft really safer?
I've been to ultralight meetings and heard lots of horror stories from people who have had engine failures from their Subaru engines or crashes due to poor construction. But I've also flown a professionally built Merlin advanced ultralight with a 4 stroke rotax engine and I was more confident in it than I would be in a poorly maintained 30-year old 172.
I can think of a number of reasons why ultralights might be safer
- lower stall speed
- less inclination for the pilot to fly illegally into IMC
- they're difficult to overload (no space for 4 people and lots of baggage)
- new(er) engines
As for the engines, does anyone have any statistics for reliability of 2- and 4- stroke rotax versus lycoming and continental? I searched but I couldn't find any.
My own guess is that the 4 stroke rotax is about as reliable as a lycoming. The US military uses turbocharged rotax 914 because it was the only engine that gave them the reliability they required. In speaking to my ultralight instructor, he had never had an engine failure in a 4-stroke rotax, but he had a few in 2-strokes. I've heard people mention about the lack of carb-heat on ultralights, but as far as I understand there is a carb-heat option for the rotax.
Also, I noticed on this page that the accident rate for advanced ultralights is actually 4 times the rate for basic ultralights:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... 1/menu.htm
Can anyone shed any light on why this might be the case? I would have thought that advanced ultralights should have been safer.
Dave
Advanced ultralight vs certified: which is safer?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Personally, I wouldn't hesitate one minute in flying a nice advanced-ultralight or homebuilt etc. as opposed to a certified aircraft if the purpose was the same (ie: recreational flying) since the operating cost is much lower.
There are some pretty decent advanced-ultralights on the market these days, most of which put your general aviation Cessna to shame.
If I was in the market to buy a personal aircraft for private recreational use, I'd almost certainly opt for a decent homebuilt or other non-certified machine.
There are some pretty decent advanced-ultralights on the market these days, most of which put your general aviation Cessna to shame.
If I was in the market to buy a personal aircraft for private recreational use, I'd almost certainly opt for a decent homebuilt or other non-certified machine.
Sounds like you have been talking to a salesman.
Which manned aircraft does the US militarty use the engine in ???NONE
They use the engine in UAV's .And each UAV team has extensive maintenance to do before and after each flight of the Un-manned UAV
Did they explain what the four man UAV teams do to the UAV engine after each recovery ???and the strict maintenance regime that the military use befor each launch ??? Did they also explain that the Lycoming certified aircraft engines are used on other UAV's to enhance the reliabilty of the launches .
I would not fly any " poorly maintained aircraft" as that would just be stupid.
A properly maintained and certified airplane is always going to be safer to fly in than something that is an experimental uncertified aircraft .
You will not find any reliable stats on uncertified aircraft or their accesories as there is no duty to report on any difficulty to the certification people.Although one former student of mine who used to instruct on "Advanced Ultra-lights "in Vancouver .He had eleven engine failures in flight in 75 hours of flight .No report was made to any authority.So you will never now what a piece of shit they are flying around in.
Joining a decent flying club and renting club aircraft is still the cheapest safest best bang for your buck. You can take along a real instructor for added safety if you want .Or split the costs with other members on long cross country flights. Most clubs have some nice equipment these days as that is what the members want.If there is not a club in your area Start one !!!!
Which manned aircraft does the US militarty use the engine in ???NONE
They use the engine in UAV's .And each UAV team has extensive maintenance to do before and after each flight of the Un-manned UAV
Did they explain what the four man UAV teams do to the UAV engine after each recovery ???and the strict maintenance regime that the military use befor each launch ??? Did they also explain that the Lycoming certified aircraft engines are used on other UAV's to enhance the reliabilty of the launches .
I would not fly any " poorly maintained aircraft" as that would just be stupid.
A properly maintained and certified airplane is always going to be safer to fly in than something that is an experimental uncertified aircraft .
You will not find any reliable stats on uncertified aircraft or their accesories as there is no duty to report on any difficulty to the certification people.Although one former student of mine who used to instruct on "Advanced Ultra-lights "in Vancouver .He had eleven engine failures in flight in 75 hours of flight .No report was made to any authority.So you will never now what a piece of shit they are flying around in.
Joining a decent flying club and renting club aircraft is still the cheapest safest best bang for your buck. You can take along a real instructor for added safety if you want .Or split the costs with other members on long cross country flights. Most clubs have some nice equipment these days as that is what the members want.If there is not a club in your area Start one !!!!
-
Mile High Guy
- Rank 2
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:52 pm
- Location: CYVR
To answer your question on the differenences between ultralights and advanced ultlalights is simple. With a basic ultralight all you have to do is tell TC that it will fly. With an advanced version you have to prove it by showing all the same data that Cessna or anyone else would. Also, in a basic ultralight not only do you have to wear a helmet, you cannot take an unlicensed pax with you. In an advanced you can, and the helmet is not required.
As for the rotax debate, its simple. The rotax is a very reliable engine but it has a bad rep (in some places) not because of the engine but because of the catagory it's used in. Unlike a cerified aircraft, ultralights are owner maintained. The rotax engine is a very high reving engine and must be maintained properly, but because ultralighters are normally on a budget they tend to push regular maintenance and thus troubles arise.
As for performace,
My advanced ultralight was BRS equiped, able to carry almost 700lbs, cruise at 120 knots, climb at 1180 fpm, and had a 600 N/M range with a 16:1 glide ratio sipping 4.5 gallons an hour of MoGAS. I was based YVR and routinely flew in and out of there much to the scurge of ATC as with an "I" reg they had to give me 5 min clearance.
Hope this helps
MHG.
As for the rotax debate, its simple. The rotax is a very reliable engine but it has a bad rep (in some places) not because of the engine but because of the catagory it's used in. Unlike a cerified aircraft, ultralights are owner maintained. The rotax engine is a very high reving engine and must be maintained properly, but because ultralighters are normally on a budget they tend to push regular maintenance and thus troubles arise.
As for performace,
My advanced ultralight was BRS equiped, able to carry almost 700lbs, cruise at 120 knots, climb at 1180 fpm, and had a 600 N/M range with a 16:1 glide ratio sipping 4.5 gallons an hour of MoGAS. I was based YVR and routinely flew in and out of there much to the scurge of ATC as with an "I" reg they had to give me 5 min clearance.
Hope this helps
MHG.
See me for aviation goodies.
2R: no, I haven't been talking to a salesman. I'm just interested in getting to the facts. It is not true to say that "You will not find any reliable stats on uncertified aircraft or their accesories as there is no duty to report on any difficulty to the certification people". All fatalities must be reported, no matter how the aircraft is certified (or uncertified). And the stats clearly show that ultralights have fewer fatalities.
Regarding the engines: nobody seems to know whether rotax or lycoming is more reliable, but everyone has an opinion. My ultralight instructor had never had an engine failure in a 4-stroke rotax, but he's had a few in 2-strokes. He wouldn't fly in anything using a Subaru because he's never seen one that hasn't had an engine failure.
Right now I'm considering purchasing a cessna 172 or similar, but I'm also considering advanced ultralights due to lower operating costs and higher reliability/safety in having a newer airframe and engine for the same price.
So are there any stats about the failure rate of rotax vs lycoming?
Dave
Regarding the engines: nobody seems to know whether rotax or lycoming is more reliable, but everyone has an opinion. My ultralight instructor had never had an engine failure in a 4-stroke rotax, but he's had a few in 2-strokes. He wouldn't fly in anything using a Subaru because he's never seen one that hasn't had an engine failure.
Right now I'm considering purchasing a cessna 172 or similar, but I'm also considering advanced ultralights due to lower operating costs and higher reliability/safety in having a newer airframe and engine for the same price.
So are there any stats about the failure rate of rotax vs lycoming?
Dave
Not all failures result in fatalities and so they are not reported and you will never know the facts about those products.Where did you get your stats about them having fewer fatalities ???From the salesman ???
Please feel free to post the stats if you find any that would stand scrutiny.
When you have finished your research and had time to reflect on it you will see that what i said is TRUE.
The new Cessna 162 has a Continental engine and looks like excellent value .Try and arrange a test flight when they come north before you decide on what you will buy.
Please feel free to post the stats if you find any that would stand scrutiny.
When you have finished your research and had time to reflect on it you will see that what i said is TRUE.
The new Cessna 162 has a Continental engine and looks like excellent value .Try and arrange a test flight when they come north before you decide on what you will buy.
2R: why are you so defensive and insecure? As I said before, I have never been near an ultralight salesman. I am open-minded and am looking for the facts. For some reason you don't seem to want to hear the facts - you have made up your mind and that is that. There is no point discussing this further with you.
For the rest of the people on this forum, here are the fatality stats:
http://www.upac.ca/index.php?option=com ... &Itemid=56
As you can see, ultralight fatalities are about half that of GA aircraft (per aircraft registered). There are no stats on fatalities per flight hour.
It should be pretty easy to verify the figures through transport canada and tsb (I haven't done that, but I assume that upac haven't blatantly fiddled with the numbers).
Dave
For the rest of the people on this forum, here are the fatality stats:
http://www.upac.ca/index.php?option=com ... &Itemid=56
As you can see, ultralight fatalities are about half that of GA aircraft (per aircraft registered). There are no stats on fatalities per flight hour.
It should be pretty easy to verify the figures through transport canada and tsb (I haven't done that, but I assume that upac haven't blatantly fiddled with the numbers).
Dave
cessna 162
Also, 2R: you may not have noticed, but the cessna 162 is an uncertified aircraft, so you would need to register it as either an ultralight or amateur built. From the specs, it doesn't look like very good value. The same price as a Flight Design CT but with a lower useful load and slower cruise speed.
Dave
Dave
Wow i am completly underwhelmed the unbiased stats from the Ultralight Site.
I have seen three serious incidents involving ultralights and No reports were made to anyone about them to anyone.So if no reports are required to be made by all involved the stats become useless.Until The type of reporting that applies to certified aircraft is applied to ultralights everytime the ultralights have a problem the stats will continue to be useless in the writting of any accurate assessment of reliability.
Nil Factum
Please feel free to post any other unbiased stats that will hold up to scrutiny by an honest eye
Have you considered flying a deckchair with helium balloons ???Not much training or certification required there and really cheap .
I have seen three serious incidents involving ultralights and No reports were made to anyone about them to anyone.So if no reports are required to be made by all involved the stats become useless.Until The type of reporting that applies to certified aircraft is applied to ultralights everytime the ultralights have a problem the stats will continue to be useless in the writting of any accurate assessment of reliability.
Nil Factum
Please feel free to post any other unbiased stats that will hold up to scrutiny by an honest eye
Have you considered flying a deckchair with helium balloons ???Not much training or certification required there and really cheap .
2R: the stats are originally from Transport Canada, so you can verify them pretty easily. As I pointed out before, you are required to notify TC when there is an ultralight fatality (you don't have much choice - they'll find out anyway). I thought this should be obvious to most people, but clearly not.
Try using a few braincells next time you try to enter an argument, if you have any to use that is. I really hope you're not a pilot.
Dave
Try using a few braincells next time you try to enter an argument, if you have any to use that is. I really hope you're not a pilot.
Dave
I just did a quick calculated the fatality statistics for the period 2001-2005:
Registered aeroplanes (non ultralight) June 2003: 15842
Registered ultralights June 2003: 4834
Aeroplane fatal accidents (2001-2005 average): 23
Ultralight fatal accidents (2001-2005 average): 7
Aeroplane fatal accidents per 1000 registrations: 1.452
Ultralight fatal accidents per 1000 registrations: 1.448
For this period there isn't really any difference between GA and ultralight fatal accident rates. From the data it looks like the GA accident rate has come down significantly (from 2.2 fatal accidents per 1000 registrations in the 1987-1996 period), but the ultralight fatal accident rate has stayed about the same. So it looks to me like ultralights are just as safe as certified GA aircraft.
Dave
Registered aeroplanes (non ultralight) June 2003: 15842
Registered ultralights June 2003: 4834
Aeroplane fatal accidents (2001-2005 average): 23
Ultralight fatal accidents (2001-2005 average): 7
Aeroplane fatal accidents per 1000 registrations: 1.452
Ultralight fatal accidents per 1000 registrations: 1.448
For this period there isn't really any difference between GA and ultralight fatal accident rates. From the data it looks like the GA accident rate has come down significantly (from 2.2 fatal accidents per 1000 registrations in the 1987-1996 period), but the ultralight fatal accident rate has stayed about the same. So it looks to me like ultralights are just as safe as certified GA aircraft.
Dave
Go ahead and answer your own questions and ignore the opinions that YOU asked for.
I cannot wait to see what your next six posts will be about .More insults perhaps ??? An admission of never completing highschool math or a confession of fondness for the company of farm animals .Quite a popular pastime on some farms in Alberta
I was serious you should get the deck chair out and use some helium balloons !!!!That way when you fly by and people will say hey look at the balloons and you will think they are talking about the other balloons .
In your research did you find out what the military used the snowmobile engines for ????Or are you just going to answer you own questions again and ignore those stupid enough to answer you
I cannot wait to see what your next six posts will be about .More insults perhaps ??? An admission of never completing highschool math or a confession of fondness for the company of farm animals .Quite a popular pastime on some farms in Alberta
I was serious you should get the deck chair out and use some helium balloons !!!!That way when you fly by and people will say hey look at the balloons and you will think they are talking about the other balloons .
In your research did you find out what the military used the snowmobile engines for ????Or are you just going to answer you own questions again and ignore those stupid enough to answer you
Cessna 162? Got any pics? Usually, the engine, or the airframe ain't the problem....it's the pilot. That's really where the safety "buck" stops. Pilots write themselves off on a regular basis in very well built, well maintained aircraft. Be it the most basic home built, or a new fresh from the factory Bonanza! Stupid still kills.
Doc is right, most accidents are caused by dumb pilots. Living near an airport I see a lot of presumably illegal low-flying. I can't verify if they are commercial because I never have a chance to get the registration, but I suspect they are just sightseeing flights.
I answered my own question about ultralight safety, but I'd still be interested in any statistics about the reliability of rotax versus lycoming or continental engines. I can't find any statistics at all.
Also, going back to the statistic that showed more AULA accidents than BULA per registered aircraft: that statistic was for all accidents, not fatalities, so the reason is probably that more AULA accidents are reported.
2R: if you post ridiculous, uninformed crap you will get insulted. Live with it (or better still, don't post crap).
Dave
I answered my own question about ultralight safety, but I'd still be interested in any statistics about the reliability of rotax versus lycoming or continental engines. I can't find any statistics at all.
Also, going back to the statistic that showed more AULA accidents than BULA per registered aircraft: that statistic was for all accidents, not fatalities, so the reason is probably that more AULA accidents are reported.
2R: if you post ridiculous, uninformed crap you will get insulted. Live with it (or better still, don't post crap).
Dave
Certified: expensive, heavy, under-performing, sub-optimal, docile. Safe? I guess so. Some people are dangerous with a whipper-snipper.
Homebuilt: as good as the guy who made it, which means that most are terrible, and a very few are superb. If you must buy a homebuilt, buy one that has built several of the same type (and don't buy the first).
Ultralight: absolutely no engineering research or development goes into ultralights. They have incredibly unreliable engines, which fail with amazing frequency. Even more frightening is their dangerous handling characteristics, such as extreme lateral instability and powerful adverse yaw. Ultralights fly like a prototype which was designed without a computer and received absolutely no engineering development. I landed one on water once and it scared the crap out of me - the float mounts. which appeared to be constructed of lawn chair tubing, flexed like a beaver tail.
The above is worth what you paid me for it.
Homebuilt: as good as the guy who made it, which means that most are terrible, and a very few are superb. If you must buy a homebuilt, buy one that has built several of the same type (and don't buy the first).
Ultralight: absolutely no engineering research or development goes into ultralights. They have incredibly unreliable engines, which fail with amazing frequency. Even more frightening is their dangerous handling characteristics, such as extreme lateral instability and powerful adverse yaw. Ultralights fly like a prototype which was designed without a computer and received absolutely no engineering development. I landed one on water once and it scared the crap out of me - the float mounts. which appeared to be constructed of lawn chair tubing, flexed like a beaver tail.
The above is worth what you paid me for it.
Hey 2R, I didn't insult you for disagreeing with me. I insulted you for being an idiot and saying things like I must have been talking to an ultralight salesman even after I told you I hadn't, and ridiculing the upac statistics without looking into them (and they appear to be correct).
Disagree with me and I'm happy. Start posting stupid and abusive comments and you will get what you deserve. You have a very arrogant, know-it-all attitude. You're right and you don't care about the facts, and anyone disagreeing with you gets a dose of your nasty sarcasm and put-downs. Unfortunately that seems to be quite common on this board, so it doesn't really surprise me.
Hedley: that might apply to some ultralights, but not all. Try flying the Merlin - it is incredibly docile, safe and easy to fly with better handling characteristics than a cessna 172 or cherokee. And with a 4 stroke rotax the engine is highly reliable in my experience and that of other people I have spoken to. Also there are factory-built composite ultralights that have a lot of design and engineering behind them. But you get what you pay for. There is a big difference between a homebuilt with a car engine costing $10k and a factory built advanced ultralight with a rotax 912 costing 100k.
Disagree with me and I'm happy. Start posting stupid and abusive comments and you will get what you deserve. You have a very arrogant, know-it-all attitude. You're right and you don't care about the facts, and anyone disagreeing with you gets a dose of your nasty sarcasm and put-downs. Unfortunately that seems to be quite common on this board, so it doesn't really surprise me.
Hedley: that might apply to some ultralights, but not all. Try flying the Merlin - it is incredibly docile, safe and easy to fly with better handling characteristics than a cessna 172 or cherokee. And with a 4 stroke rotax the engine is highly reliable in my experience and that of other people I have spoken to. Also there are factory-built composite ultralights that have a lot of design and engineering behind them. But you get what you pay for. There is a big difference between a homebuilt with a car engine costing $10k and a factory built advanced ultralight with a rotax 912 costing 100k.
You sound just like an ultra-light salesperson on commision.
And yes i do know a lot about Ultralights in particular as i was in one the week before it crashed and killed two people .When the instructor asked me if i wanted to see a spin .I asked if he looped and rolled them .When he said they could loop and be rolled .I asked him to take me back as gently as he could without any of the dangerous stuff.
It was metal fatique that killed the young instructor. The only one i felt sorry for was the poor victim who had been fed the same lies you are trying to spread about them being safe.The instructor should have known better .
For the last time. If no one is obliged to report an engine failure on an ultralight there will be no stats available to make an accurate assessment possible.
As a Pilot i do not think of the glass as half full or half empty but as perhaps 5 ozs in a 10 oz glass.The information provided on the ultralight site is incomplete and cannot allow for a truthful accurate assessment or comparasion .It is not like comparing apples to oranges as not all the oranges have been counted.
Please feel free to go buy one and enjoy your next flight in it .
Preferably before your next eight posts !!!
And yes i do know a lot about Ultralights in particular as i was in one the week before it crashed and killed two people .When the instructor asked me if i wanted to see a spin .I asked if he looped and rolled them .When he said they could loop and be rolled .I asked him to take me back as gently as he could without any of the dangerous stuff.
It was metal fatique that killed the young instructor. The only one i felt sorry for was the poor victim who had been fed the same lies you are trying to spread about them being safe.The instructor should have known better .
For the last time. If no one is obliged to report an engine failure on an ultralight there will be no stats available to make an accurate assessment possible.
As a Pilot i do not think of the glass as half full or half empty but as perhaps 5 ozs in a 10 oz glass.The information provided on the ultralight site is incomplete and cannot allow for a truthful accurate assessment or comparasion .It is not like comparing apples to oranges as not all the oranges have been counted.
Please feel free to go buy one and enjoy your next flight in it .
Preferably before your next eight posts !!!
Statistical comparisons are tricky and depend on a lot of comparative factors such as the proportional numbers of AULA versus GA aircraft in use, the type of flying whether VFR or IFR (GA IFR accidents probably drive up the numbers), the number of hours flown for each category of aircraft, the way incidents are reported, etc.
Overall I think the main issue with AULAs and recreational private pilots is lack of exposure and familiarity. For the most part PPLs flying for sport don't have much experience with AULAs because the infrastructure just isn't as extensive. If you want to fly you inevitably end up at the local flying school which is usually a Cessna or Piper operation.
That may change in the future if the Light Sport aircraft really does succeed in re-vitalizing GA in the US. LSAs are really a kind of compromise between the Wild West of Ultra-light designs noted by Hedley and a more systematic approach that's been developed with the FAA in tandem with AOPA and the LSA manufacturers. The escalating cost of certified aircraft, combined with aging fleets and pilots are providing some real impetus for this initiative.
There's no question that there several interesting LSA designs coming out including a recent addition by Cirrus.
Overall I think the main issue with AULAs and recreational private pilots is lack of exposure and familiarity. For the most part PPLs flying for sport don't have much experience with AULAs because the infrastructure just isn't as extensive. If you want to fly you inevitably end up at the local flying school which is usually a Cessna or Piper operation.
That may change in the future if the Light Sport aircraft really does succeed in re-vitalizing GA in the US. LSAs are really a kind of compromise between the Wild West of Ultra-light designs noted by Hedley and a more systematic approach that's been developed with the FAA in tandem with AOPA and the LSA manufacturers. The escalating cost of certified aircraft, combined with aging fleets and pilots are providing some real impetus for this initiative.
There's no question that there several interesting LSA designs coming out including a recent addition by Cirrus.
2R
2R: please do not accuse me of spreading lies.. I have not posted any lies here and I challenge you to point out where I have done so or retract your remark. I stated the fatality statistics for ultralights, of which there is no doubt, but you seem to have a problem with that. Do you think someone is covering up the fatalities? Somehow lots of people are dying without letting TC know about it?
Just because you've had a bad experience with an ultralight doesn't mean they are all bad. Just like if you were trying to purchase a certified aircraft and found they were all riddled with severe corrosion doesn't mean all certified aircraft are flying rust-buckets (although many definitely are).
Dave
Just because you've had a bad experience with an ultralight doesn't mean they are all bad. Just like if you were trying to purchase a certified aircraft and found they were all riddled with severe corrosion doesn't mean all certified aircraft are flying rust-buckets (although many definitely are).
Dave
just a quick note on the 912 Rotax, I was under the impression that the USAF was using Katana's for their initial trainer these days, now Im assuming at the moment they are using the C1s but when they first switched over to Diamond was it with the C1s or the A1s?
Iv heard a number or horror stories about the 912, however iv also heard from a number of people who claim that the issues with the 912 were a direct result of mishandling the engine by both the operator (using the wrong fuel) and the AMEs (treating it like a Continental, rather than how it wanted to be treated)
Iv heard a number or horror stories about the 912, however iv also heard from a number of people who claim that the issues with the 912 were a direct result of mishandling the engine by both the operator (using the wrong fuel) and the AMEs (treating it like a Continental, rather than how it wanted to be treated)
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Interesting argument going on here.
2R, can you explain this to me?
Does one look for instructor certification and avoid all the uncertified ones?
2R, can you explain this to me?
How does someone tell what a real instructor is from a not real instructor?. You can take along a real instructor for added safety if you want .
Does one look for instructor certification and avoid all the uncertified ones?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Mile High Guy
- Rank 2
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:52 pm
- Location: CYVR
I've heard a number or horror stories about the 912, however iv also heard from a number of people who claim that the issues with the 912 were a direct result of mishandling the engine by both the operator (using the wrong fuel) and the AMEs (treating it like a Continental, rather than how it wanted to be treated)
As I posted earlier, and you are right, the 912 and 912S are very advanced engines and MUST be looked after as per the manual. As the 912 is used mainly in a owner maintentance situation, it's often not done right. Thus the bad news.
As for the Katana, they no longer use the 912s in the planes.
As I posted earlier, and you are right, the 912 and 912S are very advanced engines and MUST be looked after as per the manual. As the 912 is used mainly in a owner maintentance situation, it's often not done right. Thus the bad news.
As for the Katana, they no longer use the 912s in the planes.
See me for aviation goodies.
-
mikegtzg
- Rank 5
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:05 am
- Location: 1000' & 66 kts. above Manitoba
Interesting argument here. I am based on a field that has and had at least 35 homebuilts, basic ultralights, and advanced ultralights.
Thankfully none of the aircraft in any of these classes has had any type of fatal accident in the last 6 years (my limit of involvment).
There has been a tremendous amount of 2- stroke engine failures. Enough that practically every aircraft that had a 2-stroke experienced at least one engine out landing. These have been in trikes (delta wing flying karts) and both basic and advanced ultralights. For a variety of reasons as well. Fuel system failure, engine seizure, and even a sticky throttle cable.
Perhaps some of these issues are maintenance related. But the trouble was also experienced by the most educated of the 2 -stroke flyers.
One benefit that offsets these engine woes is the fact that the type of aircraft they are normally installed in have low stall speeds. And a successful forced landing w/o major damage to either the person and airframe is quite common.
The newer and faster Advanced Ultralights that are growing in numbers here are a new breed. Most have the more advanced Rotax 4-stroke 912 or 912S. And from what I've seen. Appear to have less trouble than there 2-stroke precursors.
Another group of accidents with these aircraft would likely happen regardless of the engine type. With the low gross and empty weights of these smaller aircraft. There is very little inertia. Where this plays a big role is in the landing. A pilot that would normally fly a 172 or a Cherkoee can be fairly sloppy in the flair on landing, and still let it settle pull back a bit, and a fairly decent landing may result.
With these very light aircraft. They have a tendency to slow down fairly quickly. So if a flair is a little off, any attempt at salvaging the landing w/o ample power applied usually results in a stall and landing gear damage.
In regard to the homebuilts registered aircraft. Most of these aircraft have Continental, Lycoming, or Rotax 4-Strokes. And the owners are quite diligent in there maintenance. I have seen virtually no difference in issues arising from operating these aircraft compared to the folks that fly 150's, 172,s, and Cherokees.
The only issue that seems to come up with homebuilt aircraft is the pilot building or purchasing one outside there experience level. There are models that have delightful flight characteristics. And there are a few that require a skill set that many of us may never have. And these accidents have thankfully only caused a few wrecks but not lives. This similar type of issue raises itself in the Certified aircraft market as well. Anyone with deep pockets can buy more aircraft than they should.
Unfortunately aircraft are less forgiving than cars and snowmobiles.
Thankfully none of the aircraft in any of these classes has had any type of fatal accident in the last 6 years (my limit of involvment).
There has been a tremendous amount of 2- stroke engine failures. Enough that practically every aircraft that had a 2-stroke experienced at least one engine out landing. These have been in trikes (delta wing flying karts) and both basic and advanced ultralights. For a variety of reasons as well. Fuel system failure, engine seizure, and even a sticky throttle cable.
Perhaps some of these issues are maintenance related. But the trouble was also experienced by the most educated of the 2 -stroke flyers.
One benefit that offsets these engine woes is the fact that the type of aircraft they are normally installed in have low stall speeds. And a successful forced landing w/o major damage to either the person and airframe is quite common.
The newer and faster Advanced Ultralights that are growing in numbers here are a new breed. Most have the more advanced Rotax 4-stroke 912 or 912S. And from what I've seen. Appear to have less trouble than there 2-stroke precursors.
Another group of accidents with these aircraft would likely happen regardless of the engine type. With the low gross and empty weights of these smaller aircraft. There is very little inertia. Where this plays a big role is in the landing. A pilot that would normally fly a 172 or a Cherkoee can be fairly sloppy in the flair on landing, and still let it settle pull back a bit, and a fairly decent landing may result.
With these very light aircraft. They have a tendency to slow down fairly quickly. So if a flair is a little off, any attempt at salvaging the landing w/o ample power applied usually results in a stall and landing gear damage.
In regard to the homebuilts registered aircraft. Most of these aircraft have Continental, Lycoming, or Rotax 4-Strokes. And the owners are quite diligent in there maintenance. I have seen virtually no difference in issues arising from operating these aircraft compared to the folks that fly 150's, 172,s, and Cherokees.
The only issue that seems to come up with homebuilt aircraft is the pilot building or purchasing one outside there experience level. There are models that have delightful flight characteristics. And there are a few that require a skill set that many of us may never have. And these accidents have thankfully only caused a few wrecks but not lives. This similar type of issue raises itself in the Certified aircraft market as well. Anyone with deep pockets can buy more aircraft than they should.
Unfortunately aircraft are less forgiving than cars and snowmobiles.
