From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental Safety and Insurability
To: lml
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:26:59 -0500
Message-ID: <web-845742@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <21f.3aefdbd.30b7578c@aol.com>
References: <21f.3aefdbd.30b7578c@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for Sky2high@aol.com:

  Maybe this can help Lancairians understand some high insurance  premiums.  I
  noticed a Kitplane's article "The Safe Homebuilt",  available on their
  website.  You may find that it  makes interesting reading.
  
  http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/pdfs/1004-3335.pdf
  
  I have extracted the following text from the article:
  
  ……….
  As the vice president in charge  of homebuilt insurance at Avemco, Jim
  Lauerman cites two primary gauges for  homebuilt safety.  The first is wing
  loading. Wing loading is calculated by taking the maximum gross weight of 
the
  
  airplane and dividing that number by the number of square feet of wing area.
For
  homebuilt airplanes, wing loadings can vary from 10 pounds per square foot
for a
  Kitfox, to 15 pounds per square foot for an RV-7, to 33 pounds per square
  foot  for a Lancair IV-P. Wing loading is often used in preliminary design
  calculations to predict landing speeds. In Lauerman’s experience, wing
  loading is
  directly proportional to severity of loss.
  The second criterion Lauerman  uses is how well tested a design is. For
  example, the Van’s Aircraft RV-6 is a  well known and well tested design. If
a new
  design comes from a manufacturer  with a good track record, such as Van’s 
new
  RV-10, that manufacturer’s track  record counts, too.
  Beyond those two primary  criteria, there are issues of low-speed handling
  qualities and longitudinal  stability. It also helps if the plane was
designed
  by real engineers.  Lauerman says that you can look at the distance from the
  c.g. to the tail and  the size of the tail, and just from that you’ll be 
able
to
  tell something about  the aircraft’s handling. Also important as a predictor
  of safety is how well the  plane conforms to the manufacturer’s original
  design, especially for critical  items like the fuel system.
  Drifting more into insurability  than safety, Lauerman considers a three
  legged stool of aircraft, pilot and  operating environment, which includes
runway
  length and the availability of  crosswind runways. If one is marginal, the
  other two had better be solid.  Avemco provides discounts to customers  who
have
  taken the King Schools video on risk management, but Lauerman observes  that
  external pressures are seldom a factor in homebuilt accidents. Of more
  significance is whether, when selecting the aircraft, the pilot understands
what
  they have gotten themselves into.
  ……..
  Added Notes:
  (1) Lancair 320/360 at 1800  pounds is about 26 lbs per sq ft (70 sq ft wing
  area). The Quad City's  Challenger II that I built was 5.4#/sq-ft.  The
  Skymaster that I once  owned was 22#/sq-ft.
  (2) Underlining was added for  emphasis.
  
  Scott Krueger  AKA Grayhawk
  Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
  Aurora, IL  (KARR)