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

[King]

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

I am surprised Peas has not jumped in here. 99% (if not all) of the EZ (or canard) accidents are due to pilot error and/or builder deviation from instructions.

To say that the design is flawed, because some bonehead wanted to get done with his elevator today and not wait until tomorow and do the job correctly, is wrong.

Some airplanes are of a very critical design and must be built very carefully in order to maintain safety and extract the most performance.

We had a sailplane here that the pilot had to bail out of because he lost elevator authority and was afraid he would not be able to put it down safely. You know why he lost control? (Peas might be able to answer this one.) The gap seal on the elevator came loose in a small area. Due to the loss of the gap seal, he lost complete elevator authority. Bad design? No! The pilot may have not performed a complete pre-flight, or it's just that %$@t happens. Many sailplane pilot's have lost control on takeoff and were killed because the did not install the horizontal stab correctly, and it came off during initial tow. Bad design? No! In a hurry to gt in the sky and did not perform positive control checks.

King

[First time Juke]

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

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 10:41 am Post subject: CANARD SAFETY AND CRASHES



VEZ FATAL ACCIDENTS (30)
6 - Weather Related. "Flight into----"
3 - Fuel Management (Out of gas)
4 - Low Altitude operations (Includes hot-dogging)
5 - Engine Failure (Carb heat 1, Prop Failure 1)
5 - T.O. and Climb Performance
3 - Loss of Control
2 - Wing Attach Bolts Left Out
1 - Winglet Attach Failure (Winglet not per plans)
1 - Alcohol Related

LEZ FATAL ACCIDENTS (22 - includes John D, John Graves & Gus Sabo)
5 - Weather Related "Flight into----"
3 - Fuel Management (all selector related)
8 - Low Altitude Operations (includes hot-dogging)
3 - Engine Failure (Maint. related 2, Carb Ice 1)
2 - Loss of control (Pilot technique)
1 - T.O. and Climb Performance

COMBINED FATAL ACCIDENTS (52)
11 - Weather Related
6 - Fuel Management
12 - Low Altitude
8 - Engine Failure
5 - Loss of Control
6 - T.O. and Climb Performance

VEZ NON-FATAL ACCIDENTS (50)
1 - Weather Related
10 - Fuel Management (Mostly running out of gas)
1 - Low Altitude
12 - Engine Failure (Mostly maintenance related)
4 - Engine Failure - Carb Ice
2 - Prop Failure
2 - Loss of Control (Canopy opening)
0 - T.O. and Climb Performance
5 - Low EZ Flight Experience
3 - Landing Accidents (Gusts, etc)
4 - Pilot Bad Judgement (2 hard landings, 2 low approach)
2 - Hand Prop - "Got Away"
1 - Airframe Maintenance (Elev. Torque Tube cracked)
3 - Misc. Ground Accidents

LEZ NON-FATAL ACCIDENTS (41)
1 - Weather Related
11 - Fuel Management (2 selector related)
3 - Low Altitude Operations (2 involved hot-dogging)
10 - Engine Failure (Most Maintenance Related)
2 - Carb Ice
4 - Prop Failure
1 - Loss of Control (Deep Stall)
0 - Pilot Control, (Canopy Opening)
0 - T.O. and Climb Performance
0 - Low EZ Flight Experience
0 - Landing Accidents
5 - Pilot Bad Judgement (2 T.O., 3 Landing)
0 - Hand Prop
2 - Airframe Maintenance (1 N.G. Failure, 1 Rt. Brake Failure)
1 - Pilot Physical Impairment

Those 143 accidents by Dec 5th 2003. Possibly those figures are normal...in comparison to other aircrafts built home.

Found on the fourth page of my link.

http://70.183.88.150/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1139&highlight=accident

I am inclined to think there is no design flaw. Somehow I do feel that if those folks built an Ultralite whoever bought or built a EZE the figures would be much higher.

[Leo]

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

I've seen sailplanes take off with controls disconnected. Watched one pilot gracefully settle into a pond as he tried to latch a canopy he had forgotten (and that airflow was keeping closed, so a non-event).
Pilots get distracted by little things and forget to fly.
Once watched a guy messing with an RV-4 adding cardboard fence strips on the wing to "adjust his stall". Messed around till eventually it would'nt fly and he dinged it up. Does'nt take much.
I would venture that very rarely is the problem with the design.

[First time Juke]

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

6 fatal accidents due to valve selector ( 21 non fatal )...one weird valve.

[AirDOGGe]

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

6 fatal accidents due to valve selector ( 21 non fatal )...one weird valve.

I've heard that cause mentioned a lot with all forms of aircraft....Most of the time, the pilot selected the wrong tank or fuel setting, and couldn't figure out the problem until it was too late.

2 - Wing Attach Bolts Left Out

Whoa! Now THERE's a real no-no...What really amazes me is that it happened more than once.

[First time Juke]

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

Right Airdogge,

Despite the fact that there was a clear warning not to fly a Vari-Ez until the elevator has been fixed; there is no ( not a single ) mention to design flaw or inadequate control surfaces. It was good that someone figured out it before nothing happened.

I recall the 200+ death german Luftwaffe pilots who flew F-104 Starfighters. They were long wondering what went wrong and why the dudes had not deployed a parachute; until one guy was able to by himself fix the wires of the e-seat and was able to eject outa a doomed Starfighter. I'd say he was one clever aviator.

regards,

Juke T

[Victor Archer]

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

JUKE, you seem to be obsessed with death and disaster as it relates to aviation. I am getting tired of you posting clips of planes crashing and the constant bringing up of failed projects and the unfortunate loss of great pilots. Let them be.

[First time Juke]

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

Here is a quotation from the Canard pages ( search:design and flaw ):

I called George Peterson and asked were he got the information about the
Roncz canard being on the Denver aircraft. He gave me the name of a person
who I called and he claims that he never made that statement. If the GU25
was not a problem then why was it necessary to design the Roncz canard?

[Pylon1_Mark]

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

Has anyone ever figured out why the engines on the Pond Racer were constantly overheating? I have always suspected the "g" loads caused a restriction of coolant flow. It seemed to be fine in straight and level flight. The automotive based racing engines were never designed for the air racing enviroment. I wonder if a boost pump for the coolant could have overcome the effect of race conditions.

Just pure conjecture on my part. I'm sure someone here has more knowledge of it than I do.

Kevin

The engines were designed for methanol, that's what they used in F1 racing. As we all know, methanol is a much cooler burning fuel - and the tight fitting cowlings, coolant systems, ect. were all designed utilizing the design parameters of a methanol fueled engine. As you probably know, you also need a lot more methanol in the tank to fuel the racer as it consumes this fuel much faster then avgas. The wet wings on the Pond Racer were designed for methanol - but just enough for takeoff, a 10 lap race, landing, and a minimal reserve. Problem was that they were not large enough to hold the required "contingency fuel" for a prolonged formation join up, in the event of a runway closure due to an emergency, ect. Therefore, the Pond Racer was forced to run avgas. This caused the overheating issues that plagued the team.

Burt Rutan is a great aircraft designer, no one can really say otherwise given his involvement within the aircraft community. His only fault in the Pond Racer as I see it - is that he didn't have any practical experience in designing air racers and missed the mark when designing the wet wings. It was a huge oversite IMHO

[First time Juke]

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

JUKE, you seem to be obsessed with death and disaster as it relates to aviation. I am getting tired of you posting clips of planes crashing and the constant bringing up of failed projects and the unfortunate loss of great pilots. Let them be.

OK Marauder !

Just wanted to clear this matter. I know this is taking us nowhere talking about these accidents. I think safety is a foremost matter in aviation. Brakes my heart to see and hear people dying in aviation accidents. If it could be avoided by more information I'd be more than glad to talk about it all throug the nite.

rgds,

Juke

[spacegrrrl]

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

I'd like to make a couple of points after reading through all of the posts.

1. Space girl says the pod was designed poorly and failed. I disagree. Rick survived the impact and expired in the fire. Sounds like the pod worked to some extent. The end result is the same unfortunately.

2. Someone also mentioned the lack of performance comapared to the RV, Glassair and Lancair type aircraft. You completely missed Rutan's whole design philosiphy. They are supposed to be economical, easy to build, EASY TO FLY!! aircraft, and they are exactly that! They were never designed to get every last knot per h.p.

~Red

1. I based my statement on a comment from an EMT. Clearly he got it wrong. I stand by my assesment of the fire risk (and poor performance) that resulted from the inward spanwise flows the forward swept wing caused. The center pod was supposed to keep the cockpit away from fire and yet it filled with flaming fuel.

2. None of Rutan's designs have proven to be easier to fly than similar convential designs. In particular in terms of landing. They also can not be flown off of the wide range of surfaces or runways the RV series can.

As for the canard issue. Rontz designed a much safer canard. The original canard was designed with a poorly choosen laminar section. Things like bug strikes and rain could disrupt the flow sufficently to reduce pitch authority to unsafe levels.

Michele

[Peashooter]

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

2. None of Rutan's designs have proven to be easier to fly than similar convential designs. In particular in terms of landing. They also can not be flown off of the wide range of surfaces or runways the RV series can. Michele

My Long EZ is a wonderful ride. EZ to fly and EZ to land. (I get consistent squeakers that just roll on.) It is different, but not hard at all. I could fly it off grass if I went to 5x5 tires, but I've elected to stay on paved surfaces and go a little faster. Gravel and FOD are a no-no with a wooden pusher prop!!! You are right about the original GAW canard airfoil. Mine trims down 500 ft/min. in rain. I can trim it out, but as soon as I'm in dry air, I'm climbing. Net is, it's not flown in hard IFR conditions. There are a lot of Longs that are flown IFR all the time, though. As for the RVs, you'll be glad to know that a Rocket F1-EVO lies in my future. Peas

[First time Juke]

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

One question regarding Pond Racer;

How was the cooling of the engine organized. I recall it was constantly overheating ?

I can see the outlet perhaps of the radiator here, but where is the air intake ?

http://www.mojave.ca.us/museum/images/air/air-races-pond-racer-01-8.jpg

rgds,

Juke


PS: I am sorry about the bitter tone in my earlier critics towards Burt Rutan . He is very clever in certain areas of aviation and achieved a lot. I do not envy him, but I am proud of the good things he has done for aviation.

Go Rutan Go !

[440_Magnum]

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

The crew chief told me the engines were developed by a car racing engine builder that didn't grasp, and after a while his understanding was, wouldn't grasp that there was a different type of operation from a car borne set-up to an airplane set-up.

The history of the Pond racer is one of the reasons that I feel so strongly against adapting automotive engines for aircraft applications. The parameter space that you need to design within is just SO different that adapting an auto engine for aircraft will almost always result in a very poorly optimized package, even if it "works OK." The Falconer engines are the closest thing to a counterexample I can think of right off, and they're SO far removed from their automotive roots that they're not even a good counterexample.

I would never fault Rutan for trying new and innovative things, though. I think his place in aviation history is secure, and he will be seen in a positive light and not a negative one. My only observation about his designs it that they *always* seem to me to be somewhat overly complex. Why do they ALL have multiple booms, or airfoils in odd places, lots of intersections, etc.? While all the companies that build airplanes to be reliable and efficient year in and year out have converged on simple conventional fuselage/empennage designs, *none* of Rutan's seem to follow that simple pattern. Why is that? Some of the Rutan designs make good use of all their unique features (look at how White Knight mates up to Spaceship One, and it doesn't look quite so silly as it does when seen by itself) but of what value is all that in a racer?

[MRussell]

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

OK I just read this whole thread for the first time (didn't know it existed)... it answered a ton of questions I've had for more than a decade.
I take the exact same view as 440 Magnum about adapting car engines to aircraft. Spot on!

What I want to know is... how the hell did a severe engine failure become a fire in the (centrally located) cockpit?