Re: carbon

Mike Perry

Hello All:

I have a question for the group, and a few comments on the interesting posts by Sam, Lynn and Jimmy.

The question: How do we get people to move this kind of discussion to Q-Performance? I actually think Bob's idea (a mold built, carbon fiber, spar construction, tandem wing canard) is very interesting. However, it belongs on Q-Performance.

Lynn: Bob wasn't going to get it. You had to "hit him over the head with a 2 by 4" (18000 ft without oxygen?!?) before he reacted.

Sam: I don't agree with you about Bob. To me he is just a guy who doesn't do his homework (I think I documented 7 errors) and I don't trust his "quotes" from Burt Rutan. He may be very experienced, but he is not an engineer and he is proposing things that need testing or don't make sense (or else he is not writing clearly). People scare me when they write the airplane is "so over-built that you can make lots of changes with relative impunity."

Jimmie: I'm glad to see your philosophy hasn't changed. Regarding the T-18 crash at Oshkosh, I've read that an experimental with 100 hours on it is as safe as a certified aircraft. I've also read that the accident rate remains very slightly greater than certified aircraft. I don't have any data, but I suspect the later statement is more accurate and for the reason's you suggest: Experimentals get modified, or are not built according to the plans.

Sam ended with "stay friendly." OK, I'll try, but don't forget "stay safe".

Mike Perry

Join to automatically receive all group messages.