Zenith, KR2S, or Sonerai: Safety Record Comparison

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by JayKoit, Sep 9, 2013.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 17, 2014 #81

    SVSUSteve

    SVSUSteve

    SVSUSteve

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,890
    Likes Received:
    940
    Location:
    Evansville, Indiana
    There really needs to be two, preferably three roll bars in a tandem aircraft. One in front of the pilot, one between the pilot and passenger and one behind the passenger. The middle one is not as theoretically essential as the other two but you want as much width of roll bar as possible to allow the weight of the aircraft to be spread and to avoid it simply bending (or snapping off its attachments) during an overturn. Especially on soft soil, a thin roll bar offers very little protection because the weight of the aircraft and the momentum will simply cause it to dig in and you end up having much the same effect as no roll bar at all. I have in my research files, a case from the late 1980s where the pilot was found in his aircraft with a lot of injuries- none of which would have been rapidly fatal- but his mouth and nose were packed full of soft mud from the field he had overturned in. The death was still listed as due to multiple injuries but a contributing factor was asphyxiation.

    Also the roll bars should ideally be continuous down to the floor of the aircraft so as to minimize the chance of them being leveraged off during a crash and also help to reinforce the cockpit to give some added protection to the rest of the occupants' bodies.
     
  2. Feb 17, 2014 #82

    Holden

    Holden

    Holden

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    140
    Location:
    USA
    One of the main reason I use a high wing is because you need the structure above and below the occupant. A roll bar needs to be secured even MORE than a wing due to the pointed nature of the bar vs a smooth wing that won't catch. If the airplane flips over and there is a bump in the ground between the front bar and rear bar, the occupant will be crushed. There needs to be a roof over the occupant to protect them from all manner of debris during a crash. I don't see how a canopy can be made safe without a very extensive frame and limited opening, which in the end voids most of the visual value of the canopy.

    Holden
     
  3. Feb 17, 2014 #83

    N8053H

    N8053H

    N8053H

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    Right here in front of my computer
    If something like this happens I could care less if anyone has any of this.

    Tony
     
  4. Feb 17, 2014 #84

    N8053H

    N8053H

    N8053H

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    Right here in front of my computer
  5. Feb 17, 2014 #85

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,915
    Likes Received:
    1,818
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    Another thread that need a reality check. The designer of an airplane decides what kind of rollover protection he needs. Most rollover structures are just that, protection for a low energy rollover. If I'm considering building/buying a plane and don't feel the designer did enough in the rollover protection dept., then I'll pass and move on to another design.

    Not many airplanes have a "3 bar" 20g rollover structure because it's simply not practical. We don't consider those planes dangerous. There is always risk involved with flying a plane. That doesn't mean it can't be safe.

    Tony, if you have minimal rollover protection, my advice would be don't crash.
     
    N8053H likes this.
  6. Feb 17, 2014 #86

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    There are better solutions than committing suicide when in an emergency. If the engine quits and you are worried about rough terrain landing, deploy the ballistic rescue chute. If your engine is on fire, activate the deoxygenizing foam into the firewall forward compartment and the fire will suffocate.

    All of the airplanes in the title of this thread could have both a ballistic chute and an anti fire foam tank installed. It does require an effort to install them but once you have them most worries become obsolete. It's just an idea what might be better than a gun to the head these days, all these systems are available and saved quite a few lives.
     
    Holden likes this.
  7. Feb 17, 2014 #87

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    666
    Location:
    Norway
  8. Feb 17, 2014 #88

    N8053H

    N8053H

    N8053H

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    Right here in front of my computer
    Has anyone ever installed a fire deoxygenation system on board a 500lbs or less Homebuilt airplane?

    The way you make it sound here is...My engine quit...time to take out the gun and go Bang... but if you are upside down and burning a live then its time to go...Bang.

    Tony
     
  9. Feb 17, 2014 #89

    N8053H

    N8053H

    N8053H

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    Right here in front of my computer
    This could happen to any airplane not just the ones listed. Like another person said in a earlier post. If you are really worried about this...Do Not Fly.

    The safest way to stay safe. Stay on the ground, but I refuse to let my fears rule me. So I manage them.


    Tony
     
  10. Feb 17, 2014 #90

    N8053H

    N8053H

    N8053H

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    Right here in front of my computer
     
  11. Feb 18, 2014 #91

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Yes, quite a few of the wooden/composite homebuilts in my area used the same systems for small boats, they are cheap, moisture/pressure resistant, light and reliable. Just close the air inlets on the firewall forward (you'll do that anyway to prevent smoke coming in), get the safety pin out and squeeze the handle to get the foam expanding through a tube only into the firewall forward compartment (none in the cabin). This is a different foam than the toxic one for fire extinguishers, it does not irritate the eyes and breathing system. The smaller ones are 1.5kg light (the tube is some 200g to 300g) and the bigger ones are around 3kg heavy, but since the smaller one has enough foam to fill a few cubic meters it could definitely be ok for any homebuilt.
     
  12. Feb 18, 2014 #92

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,825
    Likes Received:
    2,482
    Location:
    World traveler
    I would love a link to these systems so I can understand how what we are discussing is different from ordinary fire extinguishers as used in race cars and some homebuilt aircraft.
     
  13. Feb 18, 2014 #93

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    I doubt it would be any different, it is an ordinary fire extinguisher as used in boats, race cars and homebuilt aircraft. It just depends on what you would fill the tank with.

    The ones I've seen look like this but smaller:
    avfext-cargo-large.jpg

    More like these small ones with the pressure indicator:
    img00495.jpg 520012BE.jpg
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2014
  14. Mar 9, 2014 #94

    Little Scrapper

    Little Scrapper

    Little Scrapper

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,397
    Likes Received:
    3,318
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Safety is an interesting topic but have you considered a high wing tube and fabric airplane? Tube and fabric airplanes have pretty decent track records in crashes. High wings offer great visibility and are a pleasure to fly. One airplane that never gets much publicity but quite a few people are building is the Wag Aero version of the Pipe Vagabond. It's known as the "Wagabond", and it's pretty much a direct clone.

    The Vagabond / Wagabond has a big enough wing to feel comfortable in an engine out, seats two, easy to build, plenty fast, qualifies for Sport Pilot, and is pretty snappy! The fuselage is somewhat short, as are the wings so building this can be accomplished in a garage. Many engines have been used on this airplane and it can be done affordably. If you stick to the plans you can also buy all the steel fittings from Wag Aero to help speed up the process. You can also buy complete parts for the wings and tail etc.

    Anyhow, the Sonerai is a neat airplane and Sonerai owners are very passionate to that design and they love them. Few home builts have they long term following the Sonerai has. The Zenith line of aircraft are excellent as well, very well designed airplanes.

    Good luck


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  15. Apr 13, 2016 #95

    buzzypeterson

    buzzypeterson

    buzzypeterson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    Wausau, WI USA
    You would have to try to kill yourself in a zenith 750, as the prior production test pilot for aghre (zenith china) I can tell you those things are as safe as a kit plane gets, just don't try to go anywhere or you will hurt your butt from having to sit so long. I remember ferrying one 400 miles and it took 10 flight hours thanks to a headwind. image.jpg
     
    dcstrng likes this.
  16. Aug 13, 2016 #96

    Doran

    Doran

    Doran

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    United States
    I have owned..test flown and flew reguarly a Sonerai 2. I now have a KR2 project that should be ready by early June 2017.
    I have experience in many types of aircraft from Champs to larger complex so please indulge me a moment.
    All airplanes require transition time. Some are more stable than others ( factory vs homebuilts) but that doesn't make the bird dangerous. More attention? Yes but not dangerous per say.
    Treat the airplane with the respect the design deserves. Build with attention and now your limitations and fly accordingly.
    Exploring the characteristics of ANY aircraft is best done with caution. Factory or homebuilts.
    Doran
     
    Tiger Tim likes this.
  17. Aug 21, 2016 #97

    Doran

    Doran

    Doran

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    United States
    I have finished and flown a Sonerai 2 and am now finishing aKR2 that I intend to fly. Flying the Sonerai 2 may give me some insight to pitch sensitive aircraft but the bottom line when transitioning to any aircraft even of the class is preperation. Read. Fly the same class or type with an experienced instructor or pilot capable of clearly passing on their knowledge. Prepare mentally. Fly the new bird with extra caution and do a basic test flight. Don't clutter your mind with stats. You can find any stat you want that says anything you want. Common sense and a clear head go a long way in EVERY AIRPLANE. Certified or homebuilt.
     
  18. Aug 21, 2016 #98

    N8053H

    N8053H

    N8053H

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    Right here in front of my computer
    I am not sure what you mean by pitch sensitive. For my Sonerai flew just as nice as my Fisher airplane. I could not tell the difference from one to the other when flying. They both flew the same. The soneria is one easy airplane to fly. I stepped from the fisher into the sonerai without any transition training. No one around to give that so one must do what one must do. But the Sonerai is a baby both on the ground and in the air. I loved mine and miss it.
     

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white