Whats the true safety record for Rutan Designs?


Ryszard Zadow
 

The reason for the subject of this post comes from the comment Dick VanGrunsven made at the 2019 RAFE forum "The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium". Dick stated the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good. Though I believe we have more support out there than most "orphaned designs" like it of not, we technically fit in that definition so I was wondering if anyone has every actually crunched the numbers by searching the NTSB and/or Air Safety Foundation databases? 

We're hosting that forum again this year. The lead in topic will be about insurance and the aging Pilot. Tracy Martin of Aircraft Insurance Resources will be on the stage and hopefully a few other experts like we had in 2019. Tracy will discuss the dilemma many Pilots face now and we all may one day. 

See y'all there July 31, 0830 am , Forum Stage 5 

If you missed that 2019 forum the full recording of it is on YouTube at The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium AirVenture 2019 




Izzy
 

Attached is an analysis I performed on the NTSB Database in 2011. The reason I did this was to try to determine how often a canard could roll over during an accident with an eye towards justifying the effort, weight and complexity of designing reliable and functional rollover protection in my Cozy IV. This analysis result is reflected in the "Rollover?" field for each record. 

The list includes a record of every NTSB reported Rutan based canard accident the NTSB investigated which I was able to identify from 1983 until 2011. The list selection criteria was Rutan or Rutan based designs only. Because the builder could name the design anything they wanted to, it's possible there are Rutan based canards not included in this list, particularly if they had an unconventional Make or Model name. If the NTSB didn't report on it, it wasn't in the list, so it's likely there are many that never captured the attention of the NTSB.

I identified 229 NTSB accident events meeting the criteria in the date range. No data was published prior to 1983. 

The accident reports were text only and typically no photos of the scene were available so I only reported "Rollover?=yes" where there was some comment or other evidence that the aircraft ended up inverted. In some cases, I searched the archives, CP and Canard Newsletters for additional details for a given accident. 

There are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. Out of those 27 records, 9 Event Id's reported at least one fatality. So if the aircraft does end up inverted on the ground, there's at least a 1 in 3 change someone won't survive it. 

The actual numbers are probably higher since many of the reports didn't explicitly state the final resting orientation of the aircraft and photos were not available unless I paid huge sums of money to the government and requested the "blue file" (or something like that) from the NTSB for a given accident. 

Now, is the fact that it's inverted the reason for the fatality? No, that's not a valid conclusion. But the ratios are significant enough that a reasonable person might decide that the design could be made safer with correctly designed rollover protection. So who's responsibility is it to design such a system? The builder? The Operator? If it's not correctly designed, it could make things worse, as is the case with N795DB. 

Given my personal priorities (1. Safety, 2. Reliability, 3. Performance, 4. Aesthetics), the numbers suggest rollover protection is worth the extra weight,time to build and complexity for some builders and fliers. 

When I went to the community with this, there wasn't much of a splash and a lot of pushback. I attributed the indifference to a lack of ownership for the design (which supports Dick VanGrunsven's comments). Some feel the plans provide adequate protection, but the numbers don't support this. Since no one is responsible for the design anymore, we are left to our own "devices". Sadly, N795DB had an improper rollover protection device installed, a side hinged canopy (on a Cozy 4) and spar mounted battery that departed the mount. The result was a battery that hit the canopy support when it flew off the spar, which twisted the canopy clockwise, then broke the rollover protection that was incorrectly bolted to the top of the pilot seat back. The metal rollover bar impacted the pilot at the base of his skull which resulted fatal blunt force trauma to the back of the pilots head. This was not in the NTSB report. This information came from a direct interview with the widow who shared with me the autopsy report. The accident would likely have been survivable had the builder used something like Mike's design. 

Mike Melvill created some plans (attached) for rollover protection which you can actually see installed in his LongEze in the July 2021 Canard Calendar. 

Tell Tracy I said hello and good luck with her presentation. 

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Monday, July 12, 2021, 09:49:42 PM EDT, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:


The reason for the subject of this post comes from the comment Dick VanGrunsven made at the 2019 RAFE forum "The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium". Dick stated the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good. Though I believe we have more support out there than most "orphaned designs" like it of not, we technically fit in that definition so I was wondering if anyone has every actually crunched the numbers by searching the NTSB and/or Air Safety Foundation databases? 

We're hosting that forum again this year. The lead in topic will be about insurance and the aging Pilot. Tracy Martin of Aircraft Insurance Resources will be on the stage and hopefully a few other experts like we had in 2019. Tracy will discuss the dilemma many Pilots face now and we all may one day. 

See y'all there July 31, 0830 am , Forum Stage 5 

If you missed that 2019 forum the full recording of it is on YouTube at The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium AirVenture 2019 




Izzy
 

Correction, 
"there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. "

Should read
"there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 12% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. "

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:53:19 AM EDT, I. N. Briggs via groups.io <inbriggs@...> wrote:


Attached is an analysis I performed on the NTSB Database in 2011. The reason I did this was to try to determine how often a canard could roll over during an accident with an eye towards justifying the effort, weight and complexity of designing reliable and functional rollover protection in my Cozy IV. This analysis result is reflected in the "Rollover?" field for each record. 

The list includes a record of every NTSB reported Rutan based canard accident the NTSB investigated which I was able to identify from 1983 until 2011. The list selection criteria was Rutan or Rutan based designs only. Because the builder could name the design anything they wanted to, it's possible there are Rutan based canards not included in this list, particularly if they had an unconventional Make or Model name. If the NTSB didn't report on it, it wasn't in the list, so it's likely there are many that never captured the attention of the NTSB.

I identified 229 NTSB accident events meeting the criteria in the date range. No data was published prior to 1983. 

The accident reports were text only and typically no photos of the scene were available so I only reported "Rollover?=yes" where there was some comment or other evidence that the aircraft ended up inverted. In some cases, I searched the archives, CP and Canard Newsletters for additional details for a given accident. 

There are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. Out of those 27 records, 9 Event Id's reported at least one fatality. So if the aircraft does end up inverted on the ground, there's at least a 1 in 3 change someone won't survive it. 

The actual numbers are probably higher since many of the reports didn't explicitly state the final resting orientation of the aircraft and photos were not available unless I paid huge sums of money to the government and requested the "blue file" (or something like that) from the NTSB for a given accident. 

Now, is the fact that it's inverted the reason for the fatality? No, that's not a valid conclusion. But the ratios are significant enough that a reasonable person might decide that the design could be made safer with correctly designed rollover protection. So who's responsibility is it to design such a system? The builder? The Operator? If it's not correctly designed, it could make things worse, as is the case with N795DB. 

Given my personal priorities (1. Safety, 2. Reliability, 3. Performance, 4. Aesthetics), the numbers suggest rollover protection is worth the extra weight,time to build and complexity for some builders and fliers. 

When I went to the community with this, there wasn't much of a splash and a lot of pushback. I attributed the indifference to a lack of ownership for the design (which supports Dick VanGrunsven's comments). Some feel the plans provide adequate protection, but the numbers don't support this. Since no one is responsible for the design anymore, we are left to our own "devices". Sadly, N795DB had an improper rollover protection device installed, a side hinged canopy (on a Cozy 4) and spar mounted battery that departed the mount. The result was a battery that hit the canopy support when it flew off the spar, which twisted the canopy clockwise, then broke the rollover protection that was incorrectly bolted to the top of the pilot seat back. The metal rollover bar impacted the pilot at the base of his skull which resulted fatal blunt force trauma to the back of the pilots head. This was not in the NTSB report. This information came from a direct interview with the widow who shared with me the autopsy report. The accident would likely have been survivable had the builder used something like Mike's design. 

Mike Melvill created some plans (attached) for rollover protection which you can actually see installed in his LongEze in the July 2021 Canard Calendar. 

Tell Tracy I said hello and good luck with her presentation. 

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Monday, July 12, 2021, 09:49:42 PM EDT, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:


The reason for the subject of this post comes from the comment Dick VanGrunsven made at the 2019 RAFE forum "The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium". Dick stated the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good. Though I believe we have more support out there than most "orphaned designs" like it of not, we technically fit in that definition so I was wondering if anyone has every actually crunched the numbers by searching the NTSB and/or Air Safety Foundation databases? 

We're hosting that forum again this year. The lead in topic will be about insurance and the aging Pilot. Tracy Martin of Aircraft Insurance Resources will be on the stage and hopefully a few other experts like we had in 2019. Tracy will discuss the dilemma many Pilots face now and we all may one day. 

See y'all there July 31, 0830 am , Forum Stage 5 

If you missed that 2019 forum the full recording of it is on YouTube at The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium AirVenture 2019 




aviationeyes
 

I have not heard the talk, but the stand alone statement that the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good, does not necessarily say anything about the safety record of the Rutan canards. There are many orphaned designs and my bet is that they don't all have the same safety records. The canards have some inherent safety based elements, most notably resistance to the infamous base to final stall-spin. I would accept that the roll-over structure is the weakest safety element of the design and reason RAF later offered a re-design of that element.
I can recall seeing a couple of Ron Wantaja articles (he specializes in writing about homebuilt safety stats) where there is some info about canards. The canards were at best only slightly better than average in the fleet of homebuilts, if I recall correctly. Not bad considering its an orphaned design.
--Jose

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021, at 9:48 PM, Ryszard Zadow wrote:
The reason for the subject of this post comes from the comment Dick VanGrunsven made at the 2019 RAFE forum "The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium". Dick stated the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good. Though I believe we have more support out there than most "orphaned designs" like it of not, we technically fit in that definition so I was wondering if anyone has every actually crunched the numbers by searching the NTSB and/or Air Safety Foundation databases? 

We're hosting that forum again this year. The lead in topic will be about insurance and the aging Pilot. Tracy Martin of Aircraft Insurance Resources will be on the stage and hopefully a few other experts like we had in 2019. Tracy will discuss the dilemma many Pilots face now and we all may one day. 

See y'all there July 31, 0830 am , Forum Stage 5 

If you missed that 2019 forum the full recording of it is on YouTube at The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium AirVenture 2019 




-- 
  



KEN4ZZ
 

Hi Izzy-

Just FYI - I wouldn't get to worked up re using that data.  I'm line 28.  It WAS a roll over - not listed as such.  Listed as 'substantial damage'.   I guess that's subjective, but I had N4ZZ repaired and flying the next spring.  I calls my plane a LongEZ.  Nope; it's a VariEze.  Point is, while I have no doubt that your analysis methodology is sound, the source data was perhaps, ummmmmm, many times recorded in a less than precise manner.

I've been told by several folks that non-commercial light aircraft accidents that are non-fatal do not get high priority from the NTSB.  True???  I can't say one way or another.

Ken

On 7/13/2021 11:00 AM, I. N. Briggs via groups.io wrote:
Correction, 
"there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. "

Should read
"there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 12% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. "

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:53:19 AM EDT, I. N. Briggs via groups.io <inbriggs@...> wrote:


Attached is an analysis I performed on the NTSB Database in 2011. The reason I did this was to try to determine how often a canard could roll over during an accident with an eye towards justifying the effort, weight and complexity of designing reliable and functional rollover protection in my Cozy IV. This analysis result is reflected in the "Rollover?" field for each record. 

The list includes a record of every NTSB reported Rutan based canard accident the NTSB investigated which I was able to identify from 1983 until 2011. The list selection criteria was Rutan or Rutan based designs only. Because the builder could name the design anything they wanted to, it's possible there are Rutan based canards not included in this list, particularly if they had an unconventional Make or Model name. If the NTSB didn't report on it, it wasn't in the list, so it's likely there are many that never captured the attention of the NTSB.

I identified 229 NTSB accident events meeting the criteria in the date range. No data was published prior to 1983. 

The accident reports were text only and typically no photos of the scene were available so I only reported "Rollover?=yes" where there was some comment or other evidence that the aircraft ended up inverted. In some cases, I searched the archives, CP and Canard Newsletters for additional details for a given accident. 

There are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. Out of those 27 records, 9 Event Id's reported at least one fatality. So if the aircraft does end up inverted on the ground, there's at least a 1 in 3 change someone won't survive it. 

The actual numbers are probably higher since many of the reports didn't explicitly state the final resting orientation of the aircraft and photos were not available unless I paid huge sums of money to the government and requested the "blue file" (or something like that) from the NTSB for a given accident. 

Now, is the fact that it's inverted the reason for the fatality? No, that's not a valid conclusion. But the ratios are significant enough that a reasonable person might decide that the design could be made safer with correctly designed rollover protection. So who's responsibility is it to design such a system? The builder? The Operator? If it's not correctly designed, it could make things worse, as is the case with N795DB. 

Given my personal priorities (1. Safety, 2. Reliability, 3. Performance, 4. Aesthetics), the numbers suggest rollover protection is worth the extra weight,time to build and complexity for some builders and fliers. 

When I went to the community with this, there wasn't much of a splash and a lot of pushback. I attributed the indifference to a lack of ownership for the design (which supports Dick VanGrunsven's comments). Some feel the plans provide adequate protection, but the numbers don't support this. Since no one is responsible for the design anymore, we are left to our own "devices". Sadly, N795DB had an improper rollover protection device installed, a side hinged canopy (on a Cozy 4) and spar mounted battery that departed the mount. The result was a battery that hit the canopy support when it flew off the spar, which twisted the canopy clockwise, then broke the rollover protection that was incorrectly bolted to the top of the pilot seat back. The metal rollover bar impacted the pilot at the base of his skull which resulted fatal blunt force trauma to the back of the pilots head. This was not in the NTSB report. This information came from a direct interview with the widow who shared with me the autopsy report. The accident would likely have been survivable had the builder used something like Mike's design. 

Mike Melvill created some plans (attached) for rollover protection which you can actually see installed in his LongEze in the July 2021 Canard Calendar. 

Tell Tracy I said hello and good luck with her presentation. 

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Monday, July 12, 2021, 09:49:42 PM EDT, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:


The reason for the subject of this post comes from the comment Dick VanGrunsven made at the 2019 RAFE forum "The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium". Dick stated the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good. Though I believe we have more support out there than most "orphaned designs" like it of not, we technically fit in that definition so I was wondering if anyone has every actually crunched the numbers by searching the NTSB and/or Air Safety Foundation databases? 

We're hosting that forum again this year. The lead in topic will be about insurance and the aging Pilot. Tracy Martin of Aircraft Insurance Resources will be on the stage and hopefully a few other experts like we had in 2019. Tracy will discuss the dilemma many Pilots face now and we all may one day. 

See y'all there July 31, 0830 am , Forum Stage 5 

If you missed that 2019 forum the full recording of it is on YouTube at The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium AirVenture 2019 




Izzy
 

I agree Ken, I was very disappointed with the quality and completeness of the NTSB reports. I actually sent a letter to my state Senator on two occasions requesting an increase the NTSB's budget and earmark it for GA Experimental aircraft. Considering it's the worst performing category, it seems it would be good for safety to get better reporting. 

As far as getting "worked up" no such thing here; and, your example makes my point that the actual numbers ARE higher than I've been able to verify. 


Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 01:02:56 PM EDT, KEN4ZZ via groups.io <ken4zz@...> wrote:


Hi Izzy-

Just FYI - I wouldn't get to worked up re using that data.  I'm line 28.  It WAS a roll over - not listed as such.  Listed as 'substantial damage'.   I guess that's subjective, but I had N4ZZ repaired and flying the next spring.  I calls my plane a LongEZ.  Nope; it's a VariEze.  Point is, while I have no doubt that your analysis methodology is sound, the source data was perhaps, ummmmmm, many times recorded in a less than precise manner.

I've been told by several folks that non-commercial light aircraft accidents that are non-fatal do not get high priority from the NTSB.  True???  I can't say one way or another.

Ken

On 7/13/2021 11:00 AM, I. N. Briggs via groups.io wrote:
Correction, 
"there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. "

Should read
"there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 12% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. "

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:53:19 AM EDT, I. N. Briggs via groups.io <inbriggs@...> wrote:


Attached is an analysis I performed on the NTSB Database in 2011. The reason I did this was to try to determine how often a canard could roll over during an accident with an eye towards justifying the effort, weight and complexity of designing reliable and functional rollover protection in my Cozy IV. This analysis result is reflected in the "Rollover?" field for each record. 

The list includes a record of every NTSB reported Rutan based canard accident the NTSB investigated which I was able to identify from 1983 until 2011. The list selection criteria was Rutan or Rutan based designs only. Because the builder could name the design anything they wanted to, it's possible there are Rutan based canards not included in this list, particularly if they had an unconventional Make or Model name. If the NTSB didn't report on it, it wasn't in the list, so it's likely there are many that never captured the attention of the NTSB.

I identified 229 NTSB accident events meeting the criteria in the date range. No data was published prior to 1983. 

The accident reports were text only and typically no photos of the scene were available so I only reported "Rollover?=yes" where there was some comment or other evidence that the aircraft ended up inverted. In some cases, I searched the archives, CP and Canard Newsletters for additional details for a given accident. 

There are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. Out of those 27 records, 9 Event Id's reported at least one fatality. So if the aircraft does end up inverted on the ground, there's at least a 1 in 3 change someone won't survive it. 

The actual numbers are probably higher since many of the reports didn't explicitly state the final resting orientation of the aircraft and photos were not available unless I paid huge sums of money to the government and requested the "blue file" (or something like that) from the NTSB for a given accident. 

Now, is the fact that it's inverted the reason for the fatality? No, that's not a valid conclusion. But the ratios are significant enough that a reasonable person might decide that the design could be made safer with correctly designed rollover protection. So who's responsibility is it to design such a system? The builder? The Operator? If it's not correctly designed, it could make things worse, as is the case with N795DB. 

Given my personal priorities (1. Safety, 2. Reliability, 3. Performance, 4. Aesthetics), the numbers suggest rollover protection is worth the extra weight,time to build and complexity for some builders and fliers. 

When I went to the community with this, there wasn't much of a splash and a lot of pushback. I attributed the indifference to a lack of ownership for the design (which supports Dick VanGrunsven's comments). Some feel the plans provide adequate protection, but the numbers don't support this. Since no one is responsible for the design anymore, we are left to our own "devices". Sadly, N795DB had an improper rollover protection device installed, a side hinged canopy (on a Cozy 4) and spar mounted battery that departed the mount. The result was a battery that hit the canopy support when it flew off the spar, which twisted the canopy clockwise, then broke the rollover protection that was incorrectly bolted to the top of the pilot seat back. The metal rollover bar impacted the pilot at the base of his skull which resulted fatal blunt force trauma to the back of the pilots head. This was not in the NTSB report. This information came from a direct interview with the widow who shared with me the autopsy report. The accident would likely have been survivable had the builder used something like Mike's design. 

Mike Melvill created some plans (attached) for rollover protection which you can actually see installed in his LongEze in the July 2021 Canard Calendar. 

Tell Tracy I said hello and good luck with her presentation. 

Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Monday, July 12, 2021, 09:49:42 PM EDT, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:


The reason for the subject of this post comes from the comment Dick VanGrunsven made at the 2019 RAFE forum "The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium". Dick stated the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good. Though I believe we have more support out there than most "orphaned designs" like it of not, we technically fit in that definition so I was wondering if anyone has every actually crunched the numbers by searching the NTSB and/or Air Safety Foundation databases? 

We're hosting that forum again this year. The lead in topic will be about insurance and the aging Pilot. Tracy Martin of Aircraft Insurance Resources will be on the stage and hopefully a few other experts like we had in 2019. Tracy will discuss the dilemma many Pilots face now and we all may one day. 

See y'all there July 31, 0830 am , Forum Stage 5 

If you missed that 2019 forum the full recording of it is on YouTube at The Future of Rutan Designs Symposium AirVenture 2019 




James Russell
 

Hi Izzy:

Kudos to you for doing the research AND publishing it!

My good friend was crew chief on Charlie Hillard's Sea Fury. He begged Charlie to install a roll-over bar. Apparently the Sea Fury (re-engined) is very nose-heavy - you wouldn't think so looking at it - and you're supposed to get the flaps up before braking.

In motor racing, I have seen many people come thru big crashes due to stout roll-over protection. That's w/ the SCCA's 1.5G lateral, 5.5G longitudinal, 7.5G vertical specs - which needs 1.50" x 0.095" 4130 tubing to meet (@ 2000 lbs gross). An roll-over install also provides handy pick-ups for head rests, shoulder harnesses, canopy stays, etc.

Spend the weight!

Regards,
James


 

Anyone know how much will adding the Melvill structure weighs?  Was it ever tested in some way for it's designed purpose?


Bill Allen
 

My “design” is  “approved by Rutan per CP102/103 but I’ve never tested it and hope I never have to. If I do have to, it will be better than nothing. If I were to do it again I would probably make it more like the design by Walter Gee.

I’ve spoken with, and read the accounts of those (Curtis Wright/ Rob Harris)  who have had forced landings and inversions who have been very glad that their head and neck were not the highest point in the mud. To my mind, a roll structure is like seatbelts - flight is possible without them, but when you need them, you really do need them.

Bill Allen

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 21:01, Jeff Holdridge via groups.io <jridge16=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Anyone know how much will adding the Melvill structure weighs?  Was it ever tested in some way for it's designed purpose?

--


Walter Gee
 

Bill

   Thanks for the endorsement but the design belongs to Peter Cozzolino. He has built a lot of cars in his race shop and he used the same principles as when he was building ASA stock cars. I haven’t had to use it yet but if I do I will give you a full report!

Walter Gee
N85KW


On Jul 21, 2021, at 17:06, Bill Allen <billallensworld@...> wrote:


My “design” is  “approved by Rutan per CP102/103 but I’ve never tested it and hope I never have to. If I do have to, it will be better than nothing. If I were to do it again I would probably make it more like the design by Walter Gee.

I’ve spoken with, and read the accounts of those (Curtis Wright/ Rob Harris)  who have had forced landings and inversions who have been very glad that their head and neck were not the highest point in the mud. To my mind, a roll structure is like seatbelts - flight is possible without them, but when you need them, you really do need them.

Bill Allen

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 21:01, Jeff Holdridge via groups.io <jridge16=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Anyone know how much will adding the Melvill structure weighs?  Was it ever tested in some way for it's designed purpose?

--


David A Froble
 

On 7/21/2021 4:01 PM, Jeff Holdridge via groups.io wrote:
Anyone know how much will adding the Melvill structure weighs? Was it
ever tested in some way for it's designed purpose?
Have you read the instructions for building it? Not much material there, but, some significant (in my inexperienced opinion) work involved.

As far as I know, no EZ with the roll-over structure has been rolled over. I'm guessing Mike declined a test to destruction.

They did write that they asked Burt to look it over, and apparently he gave it his approval.

Got to be better than nothing.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


David A Froble
 

On 7/21/2021 5:32 PM, Walter Gee via groups.io wrote:
Bill

Thanks for the endorsement but the design belongs to Peter Cozzolino.
He has built a lot of cars in his race shop and he used the same
principles as when he was building ASA stock cars. I haven’t had to use
it yet but if I do I will give you a full report!
Ah, how can I put this delicately. If you do use it, we all hope it worked successfully, so that you can give a full report.

:-)

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


skovbjerg
 

So, are there any vendors out there for the LEZ roll over structure?.
Jay

On Jul 21, 2021, at 19:12, David A Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:



On 7/21/2021 5:32 PM, Walter Gee via groups.io wrote:
Bill

Thanks for the endorsement but the design belongs to Peter Cozzolino.
He has built a lot of cars in his race shop and he used the same
principles as when he was building ASA stock cars. I haven’t had to use
it yet but if I do I will give you a full report!
Ah, how can I put this delicately. If you do use it, we all hope it worked successfully, so that you can give a full report.

:-)

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


Bob Holliston
 

I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh 1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think? 


On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:29 PM skovbjerg <skovbjerg@...> wrote:
So, are there any vendors out there for the LEZ roll over structure?.
Jay

On Jul 21, 2021, at 19:12, David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:



On 7/21/2021 5:32 PM, Walter Gee via groups.io wrote:
> Bill
>
>   Thanks for the endorsement but the design belongs to Peter Cozzolino.
> He has built a lot of cars in his race shop and he used the same
> principles as when he was building ASA stock cars. I haven’t had to use
> it yet but if I do I will give you a full report!

Ah, how can I put this delicately.  If you do use it, we all hope it worked successfully, so that you can give a full report.

:-)

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486













--


David A Froble
 

On 7/22/2021 12:40 PM, Bob Holliston wrote:
I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be
pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over
structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh
1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of
glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and
glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front
and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think?
What do I think?

Wow, you like to leave things wide open, huh?

While I've thought about this topic quite a bit, I have no experience to relate, nor engineering data. However ...

I think that Mike's solution is better than a roll bar. Remember, I could be very wrong. If there is some type of a crash, and inverted aircraft, I'd guess that normally the aircraft would still be in motion, sliding on the ground, or such. If the canopy is gone, a roll bar could "dig in" and that might be a bad thing. Of course, with Mike's solution, if the canopy is gone, probably so is any protection.

What I'd prefer would be to scrap the plans canopy design, and go to something like the Berkut canopies. The "hoop" that supports both the front and read canopies is probably a rather strong structure, at least it should be, and would give the best of either, Mikes solution or a roll bar. On top of that, the Berkut canopies just look so "kool". Maybe easier to seal against leakage also.

Best plan, don't crash ....

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


Bob Holliston
 

Actually, I think Burt designed Mike's roll over. Canopy gone? Burt also designed stronger latches to prevent that. I have the plans.... somewhere. I think very few have been built, and I only know of one person that's done it, but I don't get out much. 


On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:
On 7/22/2021 12:40 PM, Bob Holliston wrote:
> I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be
> pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over
> structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh
> 1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of
> glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and
> glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front
> and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think?

What do I think?

Wow, you like to leave things wide open, huh?

While I've thought about this topic quite a bit, I have no experience to
relate, nor engineering data.  However ...

I think that Mike's solution is better than a roll bar.  Remember, I
could be very wrong.  If there is some type of a crash, and inverted
aircraft, I'd guess that normally the aircraft would still be in motion,
sliding on the ground, or such.  If the canopy is gone, a roll bar could
"dig in" and that might be a bad thing.  Of course, with Mike's
solution, if the canopy is gone, probably so is any protection.

What I'd prefer would be to scrap the plans canopy design, and go to
something like the Berkut canopies.  The "hoop" that supports both the
front and read canopies is probably a rather strong structure, at least
it should be, and would give the best of either, Mikes solution or a
roll bar.  On top of that, the Berkut canopies just look so "kool".
Maybe easier to seal against leakage also.

Best plan, don't crash ....

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486







--


skovbjerg
 

Would love to see those plans…..
:-)
Jay

On Jul 22, 2021, at 18:06, Bob Holliston <bob.holliston@...> wrote:


Actually, I think Burt designed Mike's roll over. Canopy gone? Burt also designed stronger latches to prevent that. I have the plans.... somewhere. I think very few have been built, and I only know of one person that's done it, but I don't get out much. 

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:
On 7/22/2021 12:40 PM, Bob Holliston wrote:
> I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be
> pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over
> structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh
> 1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of
> glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and
> glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front
> and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think?

What do I think?

Wow, you like to leave things wide open, huh?

While I've thought about this topic quite a bit, I have no experience to
relate, nor engineering data.  However ...

I think that Mike's solution is better than a roll bar.  Remember, I
could be very wrong.  If there is some type of a crash, and inverted
aircraft, I'd guess that normally the aircraft would still be in motion,
sliding on the ground, or such.  If the canopy is gone, a roll bar could
"dig in" and that might be a bad thing.  Of course, with Mike's
solution, if the canopy is gone, probably so is any protection.

What I'd prefer would be to scrap the plans canopy design, and go to
something like the Berkut canopies.  The "hoop" that supports both the
front and read canopies is probably a rather strong structure, at least
it should be, and would give the best of either, Mikes solution or a
roll bar.  On top of that, the Berkut canopies just look so "kool".
Maybe easier to seal against leakage also.

Best plan, don't crash ....

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486







--


Don B
 

Lew Miller did it on his Longez.  


On Jul 22, 2021, at 6:04 PM, Bob Holliston <bob.holliston@...> wrote:


Actually, I think Burt designed Mike's roll over. Canopy gone? Burt also designed stronger latches to prevent that. I have the plans.... somewhere. I think very few have been built, and I only know of one person that's done it, but I don't get out much. 

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:
On 7/22/2021 12:40 PM, Bob Holliston wrote:
> I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be
> pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over
> structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh
> 1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of
> glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and
> glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front
> and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think?

What do I think?

Wow, you like to leave things wide open, huh?

While I've thought about this topic quite a bit, I have no experience to
relate, nor engineering data.  However ...

I think that Mike's solution is better than a roll bar.  Remember, I
could be very wrong.  If there is some type of a crash, and inverted
aircraft, I'd guess that normally the aircraft would still be in motion,
sliding on the ground, or such.  If the canopy is gone, a roll bar could
"dig in" and that might be a bad thing.  Of course, with Mike's
solution, if the canopy is gone, probably so is any protection.

What I'd prefer would be to scrap the plans canopy design, and go to
something like the Berkut canopies.  The "hoop" that supports both the
front and read canopies is probably a rather strong structure, at least
it should be, and would give the best of either, Mikes solution or a
roll bar.  On top of that, the Berkut canopies just look so "kool".
Maybe easier to seal against leakage also.

Best plan, don't crash ....

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486







--


Don B
 

It makes for a very heavy canopy!


On Jul 22, 2021, at 7:15 PM, Don B via groups.io <donberlin475@...> wrote:


Lew Miller did it on his Longez.  


On Jul 22, 2021, at 6:04 PM, Bob Holliston <bob.holliston@...> wrote:


Actually, I think Burt designed Mike's roll over. Canopy gone? Burt also designed stronger latches to prevent that. I have the plans.... somewhere. I think very few have been built, and I only know of one person that's done it, but I don't get out much. 

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:
On 7/22/2021 12:40 PM, Bob Holliston wrote:
> I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be
> pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over
> structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh
> 1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of
> glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and
> glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front
> and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think?

What do I think?

Wow, you like to leave things wide open, huh?

While I've thought about this topic quite a bit, I have no experience to
relate, nor engineering data.  However ...

I think that Mike's solution is better than a roll bar.  Remember, I
could be very wrong.  If there is some type of a crash, and inverted
aircraft, I'd guess that normally the aircraft would still be in motion,
sliding on the ground, or such.  If the canopy is gone, a roll bar could
"dig in" and that might be a bad thing.  Of course, with Mike's
solution, if the canopy is gone, probably so is any protection.

What I'd prefer would be to scrap the plans canopy design, and go to
something like the Berkut canopies.  The "hoop" that supports both the
front and read canopies is probably a rather strong structure, at least
it should be, and would give the best of either, Mikes solution or a
roll bar.  On top of that, the Berkut canopies just look so "kool".
Maybe easier to seal against leakage also.

Best plan, don't crash ....

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486







--


Izzy
 

The top of the front seatback is nowhere near strong enough to be of much use. 

The metal roll bar that was bolted to the top of the seatback in the case of the Cozy 4 crash N795DB likely directly killed pilot Roland Bremer (according to the autopsy report). 

The combination of weight of the pilot and passenger yanking forward on the seatbelt shoulder straps coupled with the battery smashing into the back of the metal roll bar along with a side hinge canopy twisting clockwise on the hinges and the height and weight of the metal bar itself seemed to have all combined to rip the entire assembly free of the seatback (and subsequently into the back of Rolland's skull).

Tying any rollover protection into the longerons seems to be pretty important. 


 Inline image

Inline image
 


Izzy
(603)410-7277


On Thursday, July 22, 2021, 12:41:15 PM EDT, Bob Holliston <bob.holliston@...> wrote:


I have a dedicated roll bar in my LE but have always thought it would be pretty easy to reinforce the plans headrest to make it a roll over structure. I've sawed a couple of the stock headrests off and they weigh 1/2 pound. My roll bar weighs six pounds. If one used several pounds of glass (E glass, carbon, kevlar - take your pick or a combination) and glassed the headrest bringing the glass down onto the seatback, front and rear and the fuselage sides might well do the trick. What do you think? 

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:29 PM skovbjerg <skovbjerg@...> wrote:
So, are there any vendors out there for the LEZ roll over structure?.
Jay

On Jul 21, 2021, at 19:12, David A Froble <davef@...> wrote:



On 7/21/2021 5:32 PM, Walter Gee via groups.io wrote:
> Bill
>
>   Thanks for the endorsement but the design belongs to Peter Cozzolino.
> He has built a lot of cars in his race shop and he used the same
> principles as when he was building ASA stock cars. I haven’t had to use
> it yet but if I do I will give you a full report!

Ah, how can I put this delicately.  If you do use it, we all hope it worked successfully, so that you can give a full report.

:-)

--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486













--