The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

[King]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Denver accident:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Also, the Board determined that the pilot's inadequate preflight planning and preparation, specifically his failure to refuel the airplane, was causal. The Board determined that the builder's decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of airplane were factors in the accident.

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

The sad fact of the Pond racer was Rutan's false claim of pilot safety. The forward swep wings created a centerwise flow that filled the pod with flaiming fuel. Also the center pod was supposed to be built like an F1 (the car) safety tub, It collapsed on in impact and it was the pod collapse, not the fire that took Rick's life. (heard from the EMT's after the crash). Besides the plane was just wrong from a "go fast" point of view. Intersection drag guarantied it could never be as fast as promised. I talked to Rick just before he launched for that last flight. He was happy to be there and have the opportunity to fly the Pond but I think you could tell he was also happy it was to be the last year it was ever going to be raced. To be fair to everyone involved Rick clearly understood the risks and took the gamble. You have to wonder how they got anyone to fly it as may times as those flights ended in "maydays". I have several pictures of it sttting on the ramp pooring out fuel from all the leaks! Yikes!

As for the Beech Starship, all I can say is look at the success of the Pigaio and you can see that sort of design can be successful (Pigagio seems to be). I think it is very interesting that Beech bought all the Starships back. Make me wonder just what was lurking in there.

Michele

[Unregistered]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Spellcheck please.

[stumac]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Look at a side view of Nemesis NXT and a side view of the Pond Racer. They look very similar.

[King]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Also the center pod was supposed to be built like an F1 (the car) safety tub, It collapsed on in impact and it was the pod collapse, not the fire that took Rick's life. (heard from the EMT's after the crash).

Wrong again. According to the autopsy report, the cause of death was thermal burns, not blunt force trauma. There was a fire in the cockpit before he ever made it to the ground.

[King]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

As for the Beech Starship, all I can say is look at the success of the Pigaio and you can see that sort of design can be successful (Pigagio seems to be). I think it is very interesting that Beech bought all the Starships back. Make me wonder just what was lurking in there.

Michele

Your comparing apples to oranges here. Yeah they are both round, just a different color. I say the orange and the apple are very different.

The Piaggio P-180 is an aluminum conventional construction airplane that looks kinda like a Starship. The Starship was of a composite non-conventional construction that the FAA had never really worked with before. The airplane broke alot of ground for future certified composite aircraft. Once the FAA got done with the certification requirements, the airplane really could not make its projected performance. The biggest problem was acceptance by the consumer. It was not accepted, therefore Raytheon/Beechcraft did not want to support those few aircraft in the field (which many are LOVED by thier owners and they won't give them back), so they went on a campaign to purchase them all back. I looked it up and there appears to be at least 6 Starships still flying.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Spellcheck please.

coming, eventually... sorry...

[First time Juke]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

You are very incorrect on this assumption or your research found is flawed.

John Denver ran out of fuel. He was unable to switch his fuel tank valve due to the location that it was installed in by the previous owner. He was working his problem in the cockpit and not flying the airplane....unfortunantly.... he crashed.

And the rest of your post......................you didn't really write that did you?

King

I wrote every word of my post and I have a very good source that states the well known deficiency in the early Vari-Eze canard foils.

If John Denver lost control while trying to find a valve..why couldn´t he regain the control. He was flying pretty high over at Lovers Point.

I don't mean that there couldn't be a chance for a racer to brake the Bear record. It just has to be perfect with a perfect team.

Why do you ask ?

[AirDOGGe]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

If John Denver lost control while trying to find a valve..why couldn´t he regain the control.

I heard that he was only at 500 feet to begin with. By the time he realized that he was rolling and diving down, he had no time to recover.


There's a VERY good Rutan interview at AVweb.com that gives some light as to how Burt looks at the Pond Racer. He states that the plane design wasn't a failure, but that it was a failure in whole because it didn't fullfill it's "mission" of creating an alternative for WWII aircraft as unlimited racers.

http://www.avweb.com/news/profiles/182970-1.html

It also has some discussion from him on the John Denver tragedy.


-----------


As far as engines go, so many people compare the performance of car engines versus aircraft, but the enviroment and performance requirements are so different that it goes beyond apples & oranges.

Possibly the closest car engines in performance requirements would be and Nascar and Indy superspeedway racers (both have to deliver max or near-max power for lengthy amounts of time, without much change in throttle positions or engine RPM).

Aircraft engines suffer different torque loads and forces upon it from vibrations and fluctuating torque-loads of propellers. Making an engine that can survive an unlimited airrace AND be competitive is very difficult and VERY expensive.

Remember the Thunder Engine, a large displacement automotive V8 that was converted for aircraft use? It was a dream of a California based company that promised "turboprop performance at piston engine prices". It too was predicted to deliver 1000 hp.

They never could get the engines to last for any decent length of time at those power levels, due to the workloads and stresses required by aircraft(and that's with a motor much larger than the 3-liter Nissan V6s.)

In the end, Orenda took over the project and reduced it's rating to "only" 600hp (500hp continuous at max power) to make it reliable. If I recall correctly, nothing of the original car engine was left in the finished project, thus wiping out all the savings of using less costly automotive products in an aircraft powerplant.

So in other words, I don't think even having highly-paid F1 engine techs in the pits would have helped the Pond Racer. There was simply too much being asked of those automotive V6's.

----------

I tried to find some text on the 'net about the Thunder Engine's history, but my searches came up blank. I DID find a picture though.

LINKS
This aircraft concept site has a photo of the Orenda V8, for those who have never viewed it...The Thunder engine looked very similar to this one:

http://www.simviation.com/aeroworks/concepts/concept5.html

P.S....(I recall the Thunder Engine well because the metal-etching company I worked for at the time was contracted by T.E. to try making some experimental metal head gaskets for it, using a photo-chemical etching process(essentially using acids to eat away at thin sheet-metal parts to shape them)).

[First time Juke]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I heard that he was only at 500 feet to begin with. By the time he realized that he was rolling and diving down, he had no time to recover.

Ok Airdogge !

I have apparently been missinformed about John Denvers death. There has been another Vari-Eze accident in moist air during a take off..it was in the web.

Thanks for correcting me.

rgds,

Juke

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Wrong again. According to the autopsy report, the cause of death was thermal burns, not blunt force trauma. There was a fire in the cockpit before he ever made it to the ground.

I based my statement from a comment an EMT made after returning from the crash. He said the pod collapsed and the pilot couldn't have survived the injury caused by the safety harness attached to the pod structure. Fire in the cockpit was one of the things Rutan claimed the Pond Racer was designed to prevent which it clearly didn't as span wise flows from the forward swept wing filled the pod with burning gasoline. The center pod did not maintain integrity as claimed either. The bottom line is it was a poor design for a variety of reasons.

The Rutan homebuilts are another example of less optimal design. Compare the overall performance and utility of any of canard variants he spawned to a similarly horsepowered RV series design (or Lancair as well) and they come up short. They look cool but that is about their only claim to fame.

My point about the Pigagio was that an alternative platform aircraft could succeed in that commercial space.

I definitely respect Rutan's accomplishments in other areas but in terms of unlimited air racers and homebuilt aircraft I have to say others have done better.

Michele

[King]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I based my statement from a comment an EMT made after returning from the crash. He said the pod collapsed and the pilot couldn't have survived the injury caused by the safety harness attached to the pod structure. Fire in the cockpit was one of the things Rutan claimed the Pond Racer was designed to prevent which it clearly didn't as span wise flows from the forward swept wing filled the pod with burning gasoline. The center pod did not maintain integrity as claimed either. The bottom line is it was a poor design for a variety of reasons.

The Rutan homebuilts are another example of less optimal design. Compare the overall performance and utility of any of canard variants he spawned to a similarly horsepowered RV series design (or Lancair as well) and they come up short. They look cool but that is about their only claim to fame.

My point about the Pigagio was that an alternative platform aircraft could succeed in that commercial space.

I definitely respect Rutan's accomplishments in other areas but in terms of unlimited air racers and homebuilt aircraft I have to say others have done better.

Michele

I do not disagree with your points,and I am not standing up for Rutan in any way.

I just like to make sure the facts are straight. To many rumors run around on things like this.

[AirDOGGe]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Speaking of facts, we really don't know what kind of impact forces the pilot's pod was actually subjected to, or from what direction. You can only make a plane so strong without making it too heavy to fly, regardless of choice of materials. It's impossible to make a plane survivable in all crash circumstances. Even those praised F1 cockpits can be destroyed under the right crash conditions.


We should consider Rutan's Amsoil racer of the 80's in this topic (design loosely based on the Rutan Quickie and Q2 homebuilts). When it crashed hard at 200mph, the engine, wings etc. were violently ripped off and the plane destroyed, yet the cockpit portion remained remarkably intact and the pilot climbed out and walked away uininjured. Was it the design that saved the pilot, or just the instances of that particular crash? Perhaps both? (the cockpit was designed to withstand 22 G's, but some crashes can easily exceed that limit).

The official NTSB report made no mention of any physical injuries to Mr. Brickert by the airframe itself, or by it's destruction via impact forces.

I suspect the EMT was just making a quick observation (the cockpit was completely destroyed by fire, so I don't know what he actually saw). In truth, we all thought at first that Dan Mortenson was gravely hurt after we saw the Amsoil Racer destroyed, only to be pleasantly suprised when we saw him stand up without any assistance. First observations can be misleading...That's why I trust officially and throughly investigated reports over all else.

NTSB REPORT: Pond Racer - Sept. 14, 1993

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X13415&ntsbno=LAX93FA352&akey=1

Anyway, it's just my opinion, but I think I'd feel safer in a Rutan-designed aircraft than most others. The man has simply convinced me that he knows what he is doing when he designs an airplane.


---


Juke, I found some information that verifies what you spoke of concerning the problems with Varieze/Long-EZ canards. I'll post it here for any owners who are not yet aware of the warning, for safety reasons:

http://alexander.voivoditch.free.fr/main.html

Mandatory Ground & Elevator Inspection

In light of a recent fatal accident, Rutan Aircraft Factory has called for a Mandatory Ground urging all builders and canard pilots to inspect their elevators for correct shape, size and balance.

While the NTSB investigation is not complete, it appears that the elevator was incorrectly shaped and counterweighted resulting in separation. The elevator is the most important part of any aircraft and should be built to exact specifications. Here is the downloadable documentation for more information:

http://alexander.voivoditch.free.fr/mangndelevators.pdf

The following inspection is required before next flight. While it is true that RAF cannot issue an AD, we are requesting, in the strongest possible way, that all owners of Varieze and Long-EZ aircraft comply with this inspection before you fly again. (quoting from the company)

If there is another aircraft out there somewhere that is built like the one recently involved in an accident, it will probably kill someone. Please help us to locate it and save a life. (quoting from the company)

Also important check this one http://ez.org/corrosion.htm/

(NOTE: The last link mentioned in the quoted article seems to be dead, but the http://ez.org site is still active.)

---

[First time Juke]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Good work Airdogge. Now I am glad I opened my mouth.
I heard about it from a california based aeroplane designer.

[King]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Rutan like any aeroplanedesigner who is in avantgarde does take calculated risks when exploring something new. John Denver died in a Vari-Eze accident when his kite did not recover from a spin which was a result of the poor canard foil in the early Vari-Ezes.

Ah, but you said it was a poor design. What is posted above appears to be a builder problem.