Jump to content
grindio

Morgan Sierra safety

Recommended Posts

Hi I'm planning on buying a lsa aircraft and I was falling in love with the morgan sierra 200 until I read this:

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-470339.html

 

"With reference to the images provided, what brain dead moron:

 

1. Allowed a plastic automotive fuel filter to be used, let alone located forward of the firewall?

 

2. Used plastic cable ties in lieu of metal hose clips to secure a fuel line to a fuel filter and pump?

 

3. Tied electrical wiring to fuel lines?

 

4. Misdrilled, Ovalised and rewelded holes in what appears to be a control column? The visibly bent threaded rod end bearing I will charitably attribute to crash damage.

 

5. Failed to provide chafe protection for a brake line exiting the fuselage?

 

6. Failed to meet any form of edge distance limit on fitting a fibreglass fairing?"

 

I have read all over the forums that Gary Morgan is a nice and honest person, but what about the quality of his planes? Seems that CASA doesn't think they are safe.

 

I really like that plane, it's like a vans rv12 (removable wings) but faster, stronger, you can use a variety of engines and it seems that it can handle a mtow of 1500 lbs. I don't have much experience on aviation. Can someone tell me about the quality build of the sierra 200 (factory built)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also looking at building one of these in future. Or an RV-12. Keeping an eye on this discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The detailed items above are all to do with the person who built the plane's personal "fit and finish" standards and nothing to do with the basic structure itself which is pretty darn robust.

 

Do not forget that those items critiqued above were from an accident that both Pilot and Pax walked away from, there seems to be little effort to mention that all important fact.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wasnt the aircraft involved was supposedly a factory built aircraft. it was 24 rego.

 

None of those criticised items listed contributed to the crash.

 

Obviously the fit and finish of that particular plane was sub standard, with the public pizzling the company took over it, I would be surprised if lessons weren't learnt from it and that they haven't seriously upped their game ever since.

 

Doesn't change that the basic plane is of a very sound and robust structure.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Morgan where no longer selling #24 aircraft after they failed their ATSM certification. A kit aircraft is only as good as the engineer that builds it.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont see why they cant resell factory built aircraft if they meet the minimum standards required, and hopefully learnt from that incident

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paper element filter?

 

Paper filtration is completely normal for any type of fuel filter also for air and oil .

 

 

This is unbelievable, I just saw the pictures

 

 

Yes, the plane was built over 5 years ago, the crash was 4.5 years ago and the company took a lot of heat over it, ancient history.

  • Agree 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Winner 1
  • Caution 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paper filtration is completely normal for any type of fuel filter also for air and oil .

 

Cable ties which perish are not.

 

A Nyloc nut on a primary safety item, instead of positive castellated nut/cotter pin mechanical lock?

 

A bent (partially failed) rod end?

 

Who is supervising this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to assemble a plane buy an RV12. If the kit doesn't go together you have done it wrong as they have drilled all the holes and made all the bits. If you want to build a plane buy the Morgan. Its a lot of work but you get the added satisfaction you have built the plane not just assembled a kit. Quality control is up to you to do it well. If you want a ready made plane I would look elsewhere as it costs a lot to have someone assemble/build one for you and its also not the purpose of these homebuilt kits.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to assemble a plane buy an RV12. If the kit doesn't go together you have done it wrong as they have drilled all the holes and made all the bits. If you want to build a plane buy the Morgan. Its a lot of work but you get the added satisfaction you have built the plane not just assembled a kit. Quality control is up to you to do it well. If you want a ready made plane I would look elsewhere as it costs a lot to have someone assemble/build one for you and its also not the purpose of these homebuilt kits.

I agree 100%. The Morgan Kit includes quality components, all AN bolts & aircraft fittings plus aircraft grade alloy extrusions and sheet. Nothing is pre-drilled bent or formed other than the bell crank and bearings for the elevator spar, the steel sub frame, chromolly front U/C leg, engine mount, & control column box. There are also a number of fibreglass mouldings which have to be filled and finished etc & a full bubble for the canopy that needs careful cutting & shaping to mount on the builder made frame.. I have almost finished my project which has, and still is, one of the most enlightening and satisfying experiences of my life to date. The strength of this airframe surpasses most others in the category and those flying have a performance envelope surpassing most of the plastic fantastics and other factory built aircraft that cost up to twice as much. My build is coming up to 4 years as I began it at Garry's factory in Taree on 24 May 2011 and total time almost 1000 hours over 460 days & 600 build photos so far. Garry is a self taught gifted aeronautical engineer who has been designing and building gliders and aircraft since the early 1980s and a simple phone call can resolve many hours of pondering and head scratching problems during the build process as I can attest. This is all part of the back up service you may find hard to get from imports even when everything is pre-drilled etc

 

There were certainly some build quality issues on the one that hit the ferris wheel but none attributed to that incident. The fact that both pilot & passenger walked away without a scratch is evident of the strength and impact absorpsion qualities of the aircraft.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cable ties which perish are not.

 

A bent (partially failed) rod end?

 

Who is supervising this?

This is history, 1 Oct 2011. These photos are all post crash so the bent rod end is quite understandable. Morgan Aeroworks do not produce factory built aircraft any more.

ATSB got involved only because of the very "public" incident. In a way this incident contributed to the now much improved RA-Aus as the 4 failed audits along with the high turnover of Tech Managers & GM/CEOs began from failed procedures prior to this which is probably the most famous (if I can use that word) of all RA-Aus crashes to date.

 

Allowed a plastic automotive fuel filter to be used, let alone located forward of the firewall?

 

This is not forward of the firewall.

 

Used plastic cable ties in lieu of metal hose clips to secure a fuel line to a fuel filter and pump?

 

Not good but this used to be common practice with a number of microlight/Ultralight builds.

  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest asmol

Quote: Garry is a self taught gifted aeronautical engineer who has been designing and building gliders etc

 

Sorry but an "aeronautical engineer" looking at the website for the University of Sydney is a 5 year course, so without completion of the course and receiving the degree you are not an aeronautical engineer! Just like a barber is not a brain surgeon!

 

My final Rant for today is about all of these comments about aircraft crashes that result in people walking away/being driven away in an ambulance.

 

Just because the person was not killed does not mean that a particular aircraft has specialised strength or impact absorption qualities.

 

I am an engineer, I am not an aeronautical engineer so i wont comment specifically about aviation but some of the waffle you guys go on about because somebody survives a crash is just utter rubbish.

 

Survivability in most light aircraft crashes is to do with a combination of slow arrival speeds and good luck, if you arrive hard enough or hit something hard to stop your deceleration you will get killed be it in a Morgan, a Jabiru or a Boeing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote: Garry is a self taught gifted aeronautical engineer who has been designing and building gliders etc

 

Sorry but an "aeronautical engineer" looking at the website for the University of Sydney is a 5 year course, so without completion of the course and receiving the degree you are not an aeronautical engineer! Just like a barber is not a brain surgeon!

 

I am an engineer, I am not an aeronautical engineer so i wont comment specifically about aviation but some of the waffle you guys go on about because somebody survives a crash is just utter rubbish.

 

The piece of paper that you and I have but Garry does not have means we have completed a prescribed series of studies and demonstrated competence by passing examinations. It does not mean we are good at what we are supposed to be qualified for. I have used the term engineer in this instance not to pronounce qualifications but to demonstrate his capabilities as indicated by the word "self taught gifted".

 

There are plenty of qualified engineers, accountants, lawyers etc who are not good at what they do.

  • Agree 9
  • Caution 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is you can't practice law or be an accountant without the piece of paper. Just sayin...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is you can't practice law or be an accountant without the piece of paper. Just sayin...

True but that seems to be literally what they do, just practice they just haven't been able to get it right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is you can't practice law or be an accountant without the piece of paper. Just sayin...

and yet, its an 8 day course to become a financial advisor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but a financial advisor is more of a salesman for financial products, nothing more.. you will find degree qualified economists and the like designing said products...

 

 

Now this worries me...

 

Not good but this used to be common practice with a number of microlight/Ultralight builds.

 

really? used to be common practice to use Zip ties instead of proper hose clamps? i have never seen a zip ties as a hose clamp, ever, anywhere. not even in a goKart.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to assemble a plane buy an RV12. If the kit doesn't go together you have done it wrong as they have drilled all the holes and made all the bits. If you want to build a plane buy the Morgan. Its a lot of work .

 

A RV12 takes between 1000 to 2000 hours to "assemble", a Morgan takes between 400 to 800 hours to "build" using no more than standard shed tools. The Morgan is quite easy and reasonably satisfying to build (could be a lot better also).

 

 

The difference is you can't practice law or be an accountant without the piece of paper. Just sayin...

 

Your point is solid but its fact there are thousands of homebuilt aircraft flying designed and built by amateurs - yes, thanks to a lot of work by previous engineers over a long period of time making it possible and of course NASA.

 

There's also some 20(?) Morgans flying and for some time and veritably do what they were designed to do, sometimes facts over-rule any theory.

 

 

 

Just because the person was not killed does not mean that a particular aircraft has specialised strength or impact absorption qualities.

 

I am an engineer, I am not an aeronautical engineer so i wont comment specifically about aviation but some of the waffle you guys go on about because somebody survives a crash is just utter rubbish.

 

I have built 2 Morgans over personally and I have done a full structural engineering and FEA analysis - They are sound and robust and even somewhat overbuilt for the purpose. If I were to be in that terrible situation, I tell you I wouldn't mind being in a Morgan relative to some others I have analysed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×