"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?

Peter

And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
statistically significant.

Peter