No subject

Sun Mar 9 12:52:58 CDT 2008

hours 
even IN his airplane, with the other hours (I heard he claimed an actual =
of 
about 78 hours on the airframe very near the time of the crash) being =
flown 
with a co-pilot....usually Jan Eggenfellner, who accompanied him on =
his 
first and many subsequent flights. When one other builder stated to =
him 
during the time period when he was flying down to <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place
 w:st=3D"on">Florida</st1:place></st1:State> after only a 
couple days since his his first flight, &quot;Dan, there's no way you =
could
have 
completed your flyoff yet.&quot; Dan's response was &quot;That's not =
what the 
logbooks say&quot;. It seems he didn't understand and appreciate quite =
how 
experimental his plane really was. There were at the time of the crash =
over 
110 other flying RV-10's with standard engines, and no fatalities. It's =
a 
fantastically smooth flying and stable airframe, that has no =
intrinsic 
negative flying qualities. The only thing it has that can get a pilot =
in 
trouble is a slick airframe, a constant speed prop for complexity, and =
a 
fast trim system at high speed. 
 
Please read the above and understand that it is not at all my intent =
to 
disparage Dan as a person. I think we're all mature enough to =
understand 
that a person can be a good person, but still have some negative traits. =
I 
just see this as a case of poor judgement leading to his own death. =
Also, 
in regards to being a Subaru equipped plane, I don't feel that a =
Subaru 
necessarily has to result in a lot of added risk in flying either. =
Even 
dead engines shouldn't make dead pilots in almost all circumstances. =
There 
is no reason why a choice of a Subaru should have to mean he was more =
likely 
 
to actually die in his plane. I do think though, that when you consider =
the 
above information, it doesn't speak well to the engine vendor in =
particular, 
 
regardless of if the engine was a factor in the crash. To release to =
a 
low-time pilot, an engine which less than 3 weeks prior had just had =
it's 
first flight with a turbocharger, and have it fail at that time too, =
really 
puts that pilot at risk. Add to the fact that the prop controller =
wasn't 
completed and the complexity it causes, and it's clear that the =
engine 
developer didn't always do things in the best interest of the =
customer. 
There are things that should be debugged by the builder, and things that =
are 
 
best left to the engine developer. Dan was not an engine builder. He 
bought an engine package, and thus he should be able to expect that =
the 
package wouldn't be given to him until some of the major things had =
been 
operational and tested. I'm sure knowing Dan that he insisted that he =
could 
handle flying it before it was tried and true, but a cautious and =
careful 
engine company would insist on safety first, and wouldn't have taken =
part in 
 
some of the highly risky activitiy. 
 
Hopefully this info can help put to rest some of the worries that many =
have 
been contacting me with. Your wives will benefit from the story too, 
because when you care enough to show them this info to ease their =
nerves, 
they will have a very good outside look at YOU as a builder and can help =
be 
your conscience as you move forward. Are you rushing things? Are you 
willing to take all the necessary safety steps? Are you going to be 
responsible enough to get transition training and be current before =
flying 
your airplane alone? Even the most non-aeronautical wife will quickly =
know 
if you match some of the negative traits described here. If so, take a =
good 
introspective look at yourself before you go too far. Remember, Dan is =
also 
the one who said that he felt he could set the gross weight anywhere =
he 
pleased, as long as he tested it. Are you really that cavalier about 
things? 
 
Build safe, fly safe, and maintain to high safety =
standards!<o:p></o:p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C883C2.8F429A60--