So... 114 of these crashed according to Wikipedia. That's quite a lot for an experimental type. It doesn't say how many were built but it's pretty severe.
I agree in this case it was a nonstandard modification that caused it but still this does not seem to be the safest type to fly.
One thing I also read was that the valve was very hard to turn in this case. Which is probably something that he shouldn't have taken off with in that state. Especially because this was not even a thing that came out of the blue, it was noticed during precheck and the owner even said he never turned it during flight because it was so difficult. Meaning in my opinion that it's wholly unsuitable as a control with critical importance to the flight process. Especially for an aircraft without a "both" setting.
It looks super cool though, I'll see if it exists for flight simulator.
PS the jail number was N555JD, sounds a bit like a movie.
> One of the eye-opening stats was that most accidents involving EAB aircraft happen very early in the airplane’s life, often on the very first flight, and early into that flight. Pilots who survived EAB crashes often said the engine quit or lost power, or that pitch control on takeoff or climbout was not what they anticipated.
In the US 51% or more of the construction must be done by the original owner/pilot and they must also complete the first flight and subsequent test flights themselves. These test flights must follow a plan submitted by the pilot and approved by the FAA, but that is a fairly routine/templated process when building from a known kit. If your build deviates from the standard kit you can expect the FAA to require a longer/more rigorous test flight plan.
The test plan is usually focused on verifying the engine and flight controls operate as expected and documenting the stall speed/characteristics for that specific airframe.
That's around 1 in 8 registered airframes. The derived designs were even worse, 6 of 31 berkuts have crashed.
Ultimately a big factor is they aren't usually built as kit planes but rather full scratch builds. Each builder is independently sourcing materials and composites are very unforgiving. Kit planes are generally not that bad as the number of ways you can fail in construction is relatively well bounded and there's a lot of feedback into the design side to mitigate these common errors. I'm working on an RV8 and the errata is really something to behold. It's an older 90s design but the factory is still changing parts out on me occasionally as they discover issues. This is much more in line with how certified aircraft work so it stands to reason that they would enjoy a better safety record.
I agree in this case it was a nonstandard modification that caused it but still this does not seem to be the safest type to fly.
One thing I also read was that the valve was very hard to turn in this case. Which is probably something that he shouldn't have taken off with in that state. Especially because this was not even a thing that came out of the blue, it was noticed during precheck and the owner even said he never turned it during flight because it was so difficult. Meaning in my opinion that it's wholly unsuitable as a control with critical importance to the flight process. Especially for an aircraft without a "both" setting.
It looks super cool though, I'll see if it exists for flight simulator.
PS the jail number was N555JD, sounds a bit like a movie.