From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
To: lml
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:24:39 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1110417@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <004801c6757a$eb34e510$6501a8c0@Rienklaptop1>
References: <004801c6757a$eb34e510$6501a8c0@Rienklaptop1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Rienk Ayers" <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>:

  A safer Lancair "record"?
  I would think that - by now - it would be obvious that what is needed is a
  safer "Lancair." We all know that Lancairs are neat planes, but they are
  also very hot to fly, with virtually no allowable margin for error.
  One only has to look at the statistics and the independent research to know
  it is an issue with the plane. In fairness, this is not unique to
  Lancairs... My very first plane (which I still have) is a Piper Comanche
  that is very difficult to insure because it doesn't have a good record (with
  cause)... And there are many others, both certified and experimental. It all
  comes down to static and dynamic stability and controllability designed into
  the plane during engineering - something that the Lancair series (and most
  experimentals) have never done. Probably the same reason that the Columbia
  was so difficult to certify.
  When all is said and done, design stability (verified by proper flight
  testing) is the only way to make a plane safe with great performance... It
  is difficult, but not magic.
  An incredible example of that (if it ever gets built) is the Phoenix by
FlightSciences.net (of which I am not a part of).
  Again, the Lancairs are a neat plane, and though maybe not "un-safe", they
  are definitely "not-safe", a reality that everyone that buys or builds one
  should recognize and be comfortable with.
  
Fly fast, but fly safe,
  RA