View Poll Results: Is A Rand Robinson KR-1 A Safe Airplane?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    5 71.43%
  • No

    2 28.57%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Rand Robinson KR-1 Crashable?

  1. #21
    cub builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Central AR
    Posts
    456
    That is an unfortunate accident, and I hate to see anyone perish in an aircraft. But gosh, the accident report reads like he thought he was invincible. Really? 55 hrs total pilot flight time spread over 30 years, then jump into a squirrelly handling amateur built aircraft with a virtually untested turboprop powerplant. Really? Do we see an accident chain building here? There is much that can be done to the aircraft to tame it down and make it a fast, sporty, and safe aircraft. I doubt any of those mods had been applied. The addition of the turbine would not be among those mods recommended to improve the aircraft. I am sorry about the loss of your friend, but I don't think you can blame the aircraft design for that.

    Unfortunately, many KR accidents read like this one. Pilot has virtually no experience. Scrimped pennies to build an aircraft. Many that saw it thought it was substandard. Alternate engine was used to save pennies. Pilot crashes on it's first flight. Rarely is the airframe itself at fault. Often times it's the engine, but the handling characteristics of the plane in it's stock form is a definite contributor when the stall/spin/loss of control following the engine failure or partial failure happens. The user group has done a lot to address those characteristics. Unfortunately, those modifications are not included in the plans, so joining the user group is an absolute must for anyone interested in building a KR.

    -Cub Builder

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    So hitting a structure while in flight would not be a 'crash'?
    Let's address this, because it's germane to the question of whether or not an airframe is more or less surviveable in a crash based on design.

    No aircraft is designed to be surviveable in the infamous spin-on-base-to-final with a nose down impact, nor with a head-on collision with an object such as a tree or building, or any katywhompus crash (inverted, one wing down, etc.). Loads is done to minimize the effects of things like that, but at the end of the day weight restrictions throw out roll cages and airbags.

    So in order to differentiate, we need a baseline "crash" that should be surviveable - the engine out landing on an unimproved surface. This was the criteria I used in selecting my own aircraft to build. In the case of tube-and-gusset Nieuport 11's, no fatalities or injuries above some scratches and bruises came from them - though they wind up turning turtle 90% of the time.

    The one fatality in type was a power on nose dive from 400 feet into pavement - not something that one would fault with the design.

    Now, then, if the KR-1 had a nasty habit of immediately catching fire or having bits of the airplane jump off and impale the juicy bits inside in those conditions it would be a red flag, or if the seats collapsed oddly and resulted in spinal injuries it would speak volumes.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    [QUOTE=Frank Giger; No aircraft is designed to be surviveable in the infamous spin-on-base-to-final with a nose down impact, nor with a head-on collision with an object such as a tree or building, or any katywhompus crash (inverted, one wing down, etc.). Loads is done to minimize the effects of things like that, but at the end of the day weight restrictions throw out roll cages and airbags.[/QUOTE]

    Not at all. I don't personally know about roll cages but I can vouch for airbags because I have them--on all 4 seats. They're called Amsafe and they've been certificated for certified GA since 2003. They come as standard equipment on most if not all new familiar OEM brands. They are now on literally thousands of GA type aircraft including STC's for retrofits on aircraft prior to 2003. Don't know if systems are available for E-AB but I'd be surprised if they weren't.

    The airbags are built into the lap portion of a shoulder/ lap belt inertia reel system.They're comfortable, weight almost nothing(don't even know it's there)and they give me a sense of positive security. Weather or not it saves my life or prevents serious injury, it's good to know it just might.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    I had forgotten about the in-the-strap airbags...but in cockpit airbags (built into the panel or on the airframe itself are still out). How much do they weigh? You mentioned they don't feel heavy to the pilot or passenger, but from a builder's point of view that isn't the right weight to take into account!

    Floats, you'll remember that I'm on the very light end of aircraft, and it skews my perception. Very light as in I left off the ELT on my bird due to weight!
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    The other day when out and about I drove past an airfield that is used by a Crop duster. Its the turbine powered units. As I drove by there sat the crop duster in a ball. The wings where smashed in to the fuselage that you could not make out that they where indeed wings. The engine was on the ground and the nose smashed in. The tail was gone. Nothing left of the tail Nothing. But the cockpit was intact.

    A buddy of mine did an NTSB search and found out what happened. The pilot reported he had made about nine flights that day. On this last flight he fueled and filled the airplane with whatever he was spraying. He gets 3/4 of the way down the field and she was not coming off the ground. He starts dumping everything. He gets her in the air right above the corn and still dumping. He comes to a tree line and had to bank and turn. He spun her in. He was bruised but not hurt. The only thing you could make of that airplane was the cockpit and that is about it. You could read the N number but it was a wrinkled mess.

    This happened one month ago.

    Tony

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    I had forgotten about the in-the-strap airbags...but in cockpit airbags (built into the panel or on the airframe itself are still out). How much do they weigh? You mentioned they don't feel heavy to the pilot or passenger, but from a builder's point of view that isn't the right weight to take into account!

    Floats, you'll remember that I'm on the very light end of aircraft, and it skews my perception. Very light as in I left off the ELT on my bird due to weight!
    Frank, I've looked on-line, mr. Google and in my POH and I can't find the weight for the system other than the words "lightweight". I'm a member of the Cessna Pilots Association, I'll contact the tech team there, they know everything. If I get the number I'll post it here.

    One other thing, I thought ELT's were mandatory, maybe not so in E-AB's??

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    ELT's are required in all aircraft that can carry a passenger.

    Mine is single seat, therefore not required. Shows who the FAA really cares about in aircraft!
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  8. #28
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    ELT's are required in all aircraft that can carry a passenger.

    Mine is single seat, therefore not required.
    14CFR 91.207(f)(9), to be exact.

    And, actually, to gently correct Frank, the exclusion is "Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person." Doesn't matter if that second seat holds required crew or a passenger.

    Ron Wanttaja

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    14CFR 91.207(f)(9), to be exact.

    And, actually, to gently correct Frank, the exclusion is "Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person." Doesn't matter if that second seat holds required crew or a passenger.

    Ron Wanttaja
    No matter what their role, I refer to anyone in the right or backseat of an aircraft I'm in as hostages.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  10. #30
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    No matter what their role, I refer to anyone in the right or backseat of an aircraft I'm in as hostages.
    When I die, I want to go quietly in my sleep like my Grandfather...not screaming in terror like his passengers. :-)

    Ron Wanttaja

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •