Debacle: Flight test of Diana-2

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:08:56 -0700, Eric Greenwell
wrote:

Actually, his written English is excellent - look at his postings and
web site. I think he asked the Kevlar question because he thought the
details about it's use would tell him (and the audience he appears to be
reaching for) important information. My point is it won't, unless you
are very knowledgeable about the details of glider structural design for
crashworthiness.

... which is actualy based on carbon fibre these days, not Kevlar.

Interesting topic, but unfortunately (but understandably) prejudiced
by his own personal experiences.


Bye
Andreas

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:00:33 UTC, Paul
wrote:


Ian Johnston wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
wrote:



Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?


200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?


..and so is your considered, insightful analysis.


I have deliberately avoided giving any conclusions. I just think the
statistics are interesting, and that's not in a particularly negative
way.

Ian


Well the conclusion is strongly implied. However if you did not mean to
suggest that the guy must be a poor pilot due to his low average flight
time, you have my unreserved apology.

That of course begs the question, what was the point of your post?

Kind regards

Paul