Important Disclaimer

This tool presents statistical analysis of NTSB accident data for experimental amateur-built aircraft. The data is provided for informational and educational purposes only.

This data should not be the sole basis for any aircraft purchase, build, or flight decision. Aviation safety depends on many factors not captured here, including pilot training, recency, weather decision-making, maintenance practices, and individual judgment.

Key limitations of this data:

  • Accident rates are fleet-level statistics — your personal risk depends heavily on how you fly, not just what you fly.
  • Small sample sizes for some aircraft types make their statistics unreliable. A single accident can change a type's fatal percentage significantly.
  • No per-type flight hour data exists for homebuilt aircraft, so true exposure-adjusted rates cannot be calculated.
  • Accident narratives are classified by an AI model, not by professional accident investigators. Classifications are approximate.

The analysis follows Ron Wanttaja's "initiator" methodology, which reframes NTSB probable cause data to identify the first event in the accident chain. This is an analytical framework, not an official NTSB classification.

If you are considering building or purchasing an experimental aircraft, consult experienced builders, flight instructors with type-specific experience, and your local EAA chapter. No website can substitute for hands-on guidance.

We believe safety data should be free and accessible to everyone in the experimental aircraft community. This tool is free to use and always will be. If you find it valuable, consider supporting the project.

Experimental Aircraft Safety

Safest Experimental Aircraft to Build in 2026: A Data-Driven Ranking

We analyzed 8,817 NTSB accident records spanning 1982-2026 to answer the question every prospective builder asks: which kit plane is safest?

How We Measured Safety

The primary metric is fatal accident percentage — when an accident occurs in this aircraft type, how often does someone die? A low fatal percentage means the aircraft is more survivable when things go wrong. This matters more than raw accident count because a popular type with a large fleet will naturally have more accidents.

We only ranked types with 15 or more accidents to ensure statistical significance. Types with fewer accidents can have wildly misleading percentages — one fatal accident out of three total shows 33% fatal, but that tells you almost nothing.

A key factor in survivability is stall speed. Slow aircraft hit the ground with less energy. Energy scales with the square of velocity — a 40 mph impact has roughly 1/25th the energy of a 200 mph impact. This is why STOL aircraft dominate the “safest” list and fast cross-country machines dominate the “most dangerous.”

The Safest: Under 15% Fatal Rate

When these aircraft have accidents, the pilot almost always walks away. Low stall speeds, forgiving handling, and STOL capability mean forced landings are survivable.

RankAircraftFatal %AccidentsFleet
1Zenith CH 7503.6%55406
2Just Aircraft SuperSTOL4.5%22117
3Pietenpol Air Camper7.7%52259
4Just Aircraft Highlander9.1%22160
5Rotorway Exec9.7%134140
6Bearhawk9.7%31155
7Titan T-51 Mustang10.0%2021
8RANS S-712.5%24222
9Zenith CH 70113.1%84354
10Kitfox13.2%235946
11Zenith CH 80113.3%15
12CubCrafters (E-AB)15.0%2014

Why Slow Planes Are Safer

The top 10 safest experimental aircraft are almost all slow, high-wing STOL designs. The Zenith CH 750 tops the list at just 3.6% fatal — meaning 96.4% of pilots who have an accident in a CH 750 survive. The Just Aircraft SuperSTOL, Pietenpol Air Camper, and Kitfox all follow the same pattern: slow approach speeds, short landing distances, and docile handling.

When your engine quits at 2,000 feet, you need somewhere to land. A Kitfox can put down in a 200-foot clearing at 35 knots. A Lancair IV needs 2,000+ feet and arrives at 80+ knots. Same emergency, vastly different outcomes.

Moderate Risk: 15-30% Fatal Rate

These types include many popular all-metal kit aircraft. Higher cruise speeds increase impact energy, but well-designed airframes and larger fleets provide more data confidence.

AircraftFatal %AccidentsFleet
Murphy Rebel/Moose15.2%3365
Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey15.5%71242
GlaStar15.5%58274
Fisher Flying Products16.1%3172
Lightning16.7%24
Rutan Long-EZ17.5%63371
Zenith CH 601/65018.3%109378
AutoGyro (Cavalon/Calidus)19.0%21
Avid Flyer19.5%82756
Acro Sport21.4%28102
Steen Skybolt21.8%110453
Bushby Mustang II22.2%4591
Velocity22.5%71236
Van's RV-923.9%46256
RANS S-624.4%45193
Van's RV-1025.6%39225
Van's RV-826.0%127505
Rutan VariEze26.3%38211
Cozy/Cozy Mk IV26.7%30172
Quad City Challenger27.7%83423
KR-228.6%49108
Van's RV-628.9%284537
Pitts Special29.1%110528
Harmon Rocket29.4%17
Sonex/Waiex/Onex30.0%70479

Highest Risk: Over 30% Fatal Rate

These aircraft have fatal rates well above the fleet average. High cruise speeds, composite construction, and IMC capability temptation are common factors. When these aircraft crash, the pilot dies more often than not in several cases.

AircraftFatal %AccidentsFleet
Glasair (I/II/III)30.2%126491
Thorp T-1830.8%52242
Van's RV-431.3%131228
Kolb31.3%64149
Van's RV-1231.3%1631
Lockwood AirCam31.3%16
Wittman Tailwind32.4%37127
Van's RV-333.3%1832
Comp Air33.3%1514
Safari Helicopter33.3%15
Quicksilver34.9%4372
Titan Tornado35.5%3170
Van's RV-735.9%92584
Lancair 235/320/36037.2%94266
RANS S-1241.2%5186
Bowers Fly Baby41.2%17124
Bede BD-series42.9%28114
Lancair IV/IV-P45.5%66202
Lancair Legacy65.4%26120
Wheeler Express70.0%2043

The Lancair Problem

The Lancair family dominates the dangerous list — the Wheeler Express (70% fatal), Lancair Legacy (65.4%), and Lancair IV/IV-P (45.5%) are the three deadliest experimental aircraft by fatal percentage. These are fast, composite, retractable-gear aircraft that cruise at 200+ knots. When something goes wrong at those speeds, the outcome is almost always fatal.

The temptation of IFR capability also plays a role. Lancair pilots are more likely to fly in marginal weather because the aircraft is capable of it — but VFR-into-IMC remains the deadliest single mistake in our dataset at 84.9% fatal.

Are Kit Planes Safe? The Bottom Line

It depends entirely on which kit plane and how you fly it. A Zenith CH 750 flown conservatively by a current pilot is one of the safest ways to fly. A Lancair IV pushed into weather by an overconfident pilot is one of the most dangerous.

The data shows that the aircraft you choose matters, but the decisions you make matter more. The most common fatal accident causes — stall/spin (49% fatal), VFR into IMC (85% fatal), and showing off at low altitude (74% fatal) — are all pilot choices, not aircraft failures.

If you are considering building or buying an experimental aircraft, compare types side-by-side, estimate your personal risk, and explore detailed safety profiles for every type in our database.

Important Caveats

  • Fatal percentage measures survivability, not how often accidents happen. A type can have a low fatal rate but a high accident rate (or vice versa).
  • Types with fewer than 20 accidents have unreliable statistics. A single accident can swing the percentage dramatically.
  • Your personal risk depends on training, currency, maintenance, and decision-making — not just aircraft type.
  • This data should not be the sole basis for any aircraft purchase or build decision. Consult experienced builders and instructors.

Data: 8,817 NTSB accident records, 1982-2026. Classification follows Ron Wanttaja's “initiator” methodology. Updated March 2026.
Full methodology | All aircraft types | Risk calculator