Icon A5 Update - No Deliveries!?!

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,430
Location
Seattle, WA
All the people that get attracted by Icon's marketing videos and then find they can't afford an Icon, but realize a Searey is just as much fun...
Well... from what I understand, the Icon folks are marketing to Lamborgini-driving, Gray-Poupon swilling, diamond-stickpin wearing folks like Topaz. :) That kind of person probably views the Searey as rather crude and primitive.

Ron Wanttaja
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,114
Location
CT, USA
Well... from what I understand, the Icon folks are marketing to Lamborgini-driving, Gray-Poupon swilling, diamond-stickpin wearing folks like Topaz. :) That kind of person probably views the Searey as rather crude and primitive.

Ron Wanttaja
Yeah, but when one of us ordinary guys stumbles on an Icon video already knowing it's way over our budget, Searey might be attractive...

Maybe Topaz can do some graphic design for Searey, make it more snazzy and expensive looking... :cool:
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
276
I like the look of a pusher
but there is a plac at my airport
lady got killed in her sea ray
engine failure, she got it down in a big pond,that or the spruce
and the engine came loose
there are two or three more around here but I give em the stink eye
 

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
2,572
Location
Western US
...Not sure what exactly is meant by higher quality. Is it perfect curves and paint or is it long lasting, light weight, easy maintenance, affordable, simple?...
I know what he means. I've toured the facility and seen the aircraft under construction. The build quality is very high, and the design and engineering are very good. We're talking supercar territory. They drastically overshot the market, and the company is in the hands of folks who appear to hate airplanes, but their product is top-notch.
 

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,963
Location
Port Townsend WA
I still don't get it. Yes, I carefully looked at the flawless (to the eye) Icon at Airventure. But the climb rate wasn't impressive like a super cars performance. I see the same overweight but flawless finish result with the Raptor.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
5,990
Location
Australian
lady got killed in her sea ray

and the engine came loose
That old myth ... if you've hit something hard enough for the engine to come through the cabin, you were already dead. Your only valid argument is for closed or open coffin.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
276
That old myth ... if you've hit something hard enough for the engine to come through the cabin, you were already dead. Your only valid argument is for closed or open coffin.
There are a number of accident investigators on
here and everywhere else who are quite clear in
stating that there is a pronounced higher mortality
in pusher aircraft.Just happens that the sea ray is a particularly flimsy example.
And the icon appears to be tough as nails.
Just how it is.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,980
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
I like the look of a pusher
but there is a plac at my airport
lady got killed in her sea ray
engine failure, she got it down in a big pond,that or the spruce
and the engine came loose
there are two or three more around here but I give em the stink eye
Sorry, I do not understand. If she got it down in a "big pond", why did the engine come loose? Was big pond not big enough?
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
276
Sorry, I do not understand. If she got it down in a "big pond", why did the engine come loose? Was big pond not big enough?
yes sorry, localism,we have a lot of lakes around
here,and it was a tradgedy,respected pilot went missing,search,recovery,investigation,cause of death was head injury struck from behind,that little bitty parasol engine support folded like wet ***** cheese.
there are two more local sea rays that I know the pilots,one is a very recent heavy jet retiree,and the other has an aviation buisiness,I respect both of these people and there choices.And anybody else
who puts there money down.
There are though a number of graphic desriptions
here of finding hair and brain tissue as proof of structural failure in "otherwise survivable incedents"
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,430
Location
Seattle, WA
There are a number of accident investigators on
here and everywhere else who are quite clear in
stating that there is a pronounced higher mortality
in pusher aircraft.Just happens that the sea ray is a particularly flimsy example.
While I quite happily listen to accident investigators, that doesn't necessarily mean they're knowledgeable on overall statistics.

In my own studies, I've looked at the fatality rate for a number of homebuilt aircraft. By "fatality rate", I'm referring to the percentage of reported accidents that involved at least one death.

The fatality rate is affected by a number of factors... high wing vs. low wing, amount of rollover protection, and especially the speed capability of a the aircraft (a Lancair IV flies three times faster than an Avid, and the energy involved is the square of the speed).

With THAT said...I'm not seeing a lot of data that indicates that pusher-type aircraft have higher fatality rates. Here's my results for 1998-2017:
fatality rates.JPG
The average for homebuilt aircraft is about 25% (e.g., a quarter of the accidents result in at least one death) and the Searey is below the average. It's about the same as the Zenair CH-601, a conventionally-configured homebuilt.

Like the learned Mr. Cheapracer says, if you hit hard enough that a pusher engine joins you in the cockpit, that's probably going to kill you in another aircraft type as well.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,804
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
There you go, Ron, once again presenting facts in an opinion-based discussion. Thanks.

BTW, any thoughts on the RV-7? It is docile, handles reasonably well, has a relatively low stall speed, yet it has a fatality rate that exceeds the Glasairs.

BJC
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,734
Location
US
Thanks, Ron.
I'm surprised by the RV-7 fatality rate, that it is so much higher than other similar RVs. There are enough out there that (I'd assume) the sample size would be large, so the differences might have statistical significance.

One artifact of the way "fatal accident" is defined: A type that actually gets flown frequently with more souls aboard gets a worse rating than one flown solo, even if the risk of the pilot being killed in an accident is the same.
Edited to add: Oops, i hadn't read BJCs post when I wrote this.

Mark
 
Last edited:

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,932
Location
Savannah, Georgia
More digging into the causes of the accidents might be illuminating. In particular, I wonder what the stats would look like if “low altitude maneuvering” was taken out of the picture. And as mentioned, perhaps the -7 tends to be flown two-up more than the other models?
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,430
Location
Seattle, WA
There you go, Ron, once again presenting facts in an opinion-based discussion. Thanks.

BTW, any thoughts on the RV-7? It is docile, handles reasonably well, has a relatively low stall speed, yet it has a fatality rate that exceeds the Glasairs.
My plot above used a slightly older data set (1998-2017). I've recently added 2018 to my database, and the RV-7 numbers came out a bit better...there were five RV-7 accidents in 2018, and none of them had fatalities!

Here's the updated results:
Aircraft
RV-7​
RV-8​
Glasair​
All HB​
Total Accidents
67​
88​
98​
4230​
Fatal Accidents
23​
22​
31​
1024​
Percentage Fatal
34.3%​
25.0%​
31.6%​
24.2%​

So the percentage does come down a bit.

The trouble is, the actual *number* of fatalities tends is so low that one has to be a bit cautious about drawing conclusions. For both the RV-7 and -8, each fatal accident is almost 5% of the total!

When I compare aircraft types, I generally require at least 50 accidents...and the RV-7, -8, and Glasair don't meet that threshold. But anyway, here's the breakout of fatal accidents:
Cause
RV-7​
RV-8​
Glasair​
All HB​
Pilot Miscontrol
34.8%​
13.6%​
32.3%​
30.4%​
Builder Error
0.0%​
0.0%​
0.0%​
4.5%​
Maintenance Error
4.3%​
0.0%​
0.0%​
4.1%​
Undetermined Loss of Power
8.7%​
4.5%​
6.5%​
8.6%​
Engine Mechanical
0.0%​
9.1%​
3.2%​
3.1%​
Engine Controller/Electronic Ignition
4.3%​
0.0%​
0.0%​
0.3%​
Fuel System
0.0%​
4.5%​
0.0%​
1.3%​
Other Mechanical
0.0%​
0.0%​
0.0%​
4.4%​
Fuel Exhaustion
0.0%​
9.1%​
3.2%​
3.1%​
VFR to IFR
17.4%​
13.6%​
12.9%​
3.9%​
Manuevering at low alt
4.3%​
13.6%​
29.0%​
11.9%​
Midair Collision
0.0%​
22.7%​
0.0%​
2.3%​
Loss of Control (Unknown)
17.4%​
4.5%​
3.2%​
4.8%​
Remember, the relative NUMBER of accidents here is pretty low....That 8.7% of RV-7 fatals involving undetermined loss of power is only two accidents.

And for those keeping score at home, the 22.7% of RV-8 fatals involving midair collisions were from five accidents. All five involved formation flying....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,430
Location
Seattle, WA
One artifact of the way "fatal accident" is defined: A type that actually gets flown frequently with more souls aboard gets a worse rating than one flown solo, even if the risk of the pilot being killed in an accident is the same.
My methodology counts each accident involving a fatality as one accident, irrespective of the number of persons killed.

Now...it's certainly true that if the plane has four persons aboard, it does give more chances for a fatality to occur. About 9.4% of the fatal accidents in my database included cases where at least one occupant survived. About 63% of fatal homebuilt accidents had only the pilot aboard.

Ron Wanttaja
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,734
Location
US
Thanks. Small numbers (which is GREAT) give relatively bumpy output.
I suppose it would be difficult to tease out any significant differences die to wing location (high wing vs low wing) due to the higher average stall speed of low wing types.
Again, thanks for the great info.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,804
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Thanks Ron.

Looks as if the Glasair crowd need to either get better an low altitude maneuvering or stop trying.


BJC

PS. At least two award winning Glasairs are in those fatals: one was VFR into IFR, another was maneuvering at low altitude.
 

dino

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
656
Location
florida
Others will see what works. Nothing speaks better than some flying examples. Cut here, reverse engineer there, assimilate, emulate and voila an affordable knock-off that will recycle the knowledge that was dearly paid for. They are sunk costs that will never be recovered by the investors but will benefit aviation by lessons learned.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
276
While I quite happily listen to accident investigators, that doesn't necessarily mean they're knowledgeable on overall statistics.

In my own studies, I've looked at the fatality rate for a number of homebuilt aircraft. By "fatality rate", I'm referring to the percentage of reported accidents that involved at least one death.

The fatality rate is affected by a number of factors... high wing vs. low wing, amount of rollover protection, and especially the speed capability of a the aircraft (a Lancair IV flies three times faster than an Avid, and the energy involved is the square of the speed).

With THAT said...I'm not seeing a lot of data that indicates that pusher-type aircraft have higher fatality rates. Here's my results for 1998-2017:
View attachment 94899
The average for homebuilt aircraft is about 25% (e.g., a quarter of the accidents result in at least one death) and the Searey is below the average. It's about the same as the Zenair CH-601, a conventionally-configured homebuilt.

Like the learned Mr. Cheapracer says, if you hit hard enough that a pusher engine joins you in the cockpit, that's probably going to kill you in another aircraft type as

Ron Wanttaja
Thanks Ron.
While your data is interesting it doesnt quite address my concern,which is admitedly
a personal quible is with a small subset that will
perhaps be difficult to separate out of the availible info, so I will ask for an opinion.
My concern is for accidents with fatalities that are caused by secondary failures of equipment, not the primary failure to maintain flight.
So things like getting hit on the head by motors,
post crash fires,inability to escape a broken airframe.
And while I have no data,the getting hit on the head by 1, a severly flexing fuesalage frame
and 2, getting hit in the back of the head by a high
mounted pusher engine are both persistant anecdotes.
And again thank you for a demonstration of the power of statistics.
Dog
 
2
Top