Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Heater on December 08, 2006, 06:57:57 AM
-
Anyone know anybody building one?
Looking at building one.
http://www.titanaircraft.com/
Cheers
Oops just relaized I was in the genreal form, Skuzzy move this to the O'Club if you want
-
I knew someone who built one of these. He's dead. He was a local engine builder. He built an all aluminum Chevy V-8 for it. He ground looped on landing. These things are dangerous. They are 3/4 scale which makes them even more touchy than a full scale mustang. I believe they are catagorized as an experimental which means they are very easy to get certified for which means the least qualified pilots will probably be the ones flying them.
This would be an awesome plane to build, but unless you are a highly skilled pilot, I wouldn't fly it.
edit> After reading more about this aircraft, it's either a different kit the person I knew didn't have a V-8 in his.
-
pretty plane. I think someone posted something about these a few months ago because I've recall seeing that before. It looks about the same size as an RV-8 but the wings sure do seem abit small to me.
-
Sluggish, could you clarify your assertion that "experimental planes = bad pilots"?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sluggish, could you clarify your assertion that "experimental planes = bad pilots"?
Could you point out where I said anything about bad pilots?
-
Sluggish another company (Thunder Mustang) makes a kit that is 3/4 scale built for a V-12 Falconer engine. There are a few of these racing at Reno and the performance in climb either meets or exceeds that of the real mustang.
It'd been a while since I read anything about them but waay back when Papa 51 Ltd. was making something similar however were in financial trouble and Thunder Mustang wanted to buy them.
The Titan airplane kit is built in Ohio and I'd seen one. Compared to the Titan its a lawnmower and doesn't look just like a P-51 like the Thunder/Papa51.
-
AAhh... I see. When I was reading the specs on this one it didn't jibe with me. Thanx golfer.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Could you point out where I said anything about bad pilots?
Perhaps I misread the following:I believe they are catagorized as an experimental which means they are very easy to get certified for which means the least qualified pilots will probably be the ones flying them.
I'm not sure what this means.
1. Experimental planes aren't certified as a matter of rule, unless it's part of an R&D effort where a certified plane passes through the experimental category. Most homebuilts are registered as experimental at the end of the build cycle and not certified.
2. If you're referring to the DAR's final inspection, "very easy" isn't usually the description of the procedure, but you have to meet requirements for testing it with ranges defined for where you can fly, usually a 40 hours of flight period w/o any passengers, etc etc.
3. Most builders will either get what's called 'transition training' with a completed example of the plane or (if it's a one seater) the community will identify a two seater that has similar behavior that they can train in.
4. The test regime involves extensive taxi training, including high speed taxis on the runway, working up to flight and understanding what every system is doing at every step of the way.
In a lot of ways, a home builder ends up being the most qualified person to fly a plane. No Cessna pilot will know as much about the mechanics of the plane as they do, and there's no special magic wand of competence that flyers of certified planes are given that I'm aware of. PP-ASEL=PP-ASEL, everything else is training.
Are there exceptions? Sure. For that matter, have certified aircraft ever been involved in accidents because a pilot made an error or wasn't qualified for a situation they got themselves into? I'll let you answer that.
-
Being an experimental enthusiast also qualifies you to fly aircraft types and configurations that you have no business being in without training as well.
I am a certified aircraft enthusiast. As such the first time I hopped in a tailwheel aircraft it was with someone qualified and competent to teach others how to operate it. This is because I was not certified to be an enthusiast of this type of airplane without training. Because Chairboy's an experimental enthusiast he was qualified to simply hop in a kite with a tailwheel and give it the old college try or "experiement."
If it's legal it must be safe, right? (http://www.clear-and-a-million.com/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
have certified aircraft ever been involved in accidents because a pilot made an error or wasn't qualified for a situation they got themselves into? I'll let you answer that.
I must be sick to get such a laugh out of this comment. You've been so considerate to answer this question first hand for us months ago.
-
Golfer, I know you're perfect, and I guess my only mistake was being honest about a screwup I made. If grinding your heel into me makes you feel good, then you're entitled to it. I'm not sure if that makes you a better person, but I guess it doesn't stop you from being a great pilot.
-
Oh no I could fill a book with mistakes I've made. Your deal was above and beyond. Remember it when you lecture others because it's incidents like yours that give the experimental community the reputation it has.
I know a few people who have died in "regular airplane" accidents. I know a few more than that who've died in experimental airplanes. I know even more who've balled up the airplane and are lucky to be around today.
If you learn from your mistakes like they from theirs you've come a long way already.
Many people don't, many people view experimental airplanes as a more lax way of flight though in some ways it is and others it isnt. It's not your job to judge someone for thinking that. It's your job to contribute for helping correct that what you feel is a misconception. That's through actions rather than words.
-
people make mistakes .. the pilots that I have met try harder than most not to.
I don't think any one of us here would strap into anything unless the CFI had cleared us to do so :)
I know for a fact I can build a purty straight airplane, but that first flight is always an adventure ..in trim, climb, cruise, stall, and landing ..and that's just R/C ..if I ever manage to build a real one, you can bet I will have an eagle eye on every single thing that is goin on when the prop turns over until it stops.
(I still have the Cozy MK4 and the Jurca FW-190 plans ..-sigh- .. be awhile before I have a place to build em tho .. still)
-GE
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Being an experimental enthusiast also qualifies you to fly aircraft types and configurations that you have no business being in without training as well.[/IMG]
Being an experimental enthusiast qualifies you for nothing. Remarkable that someone who considers themselves "certified" is so uninformed.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Many people don't, many people view experimental airplanes as a more lax way of flight though in some ways it is and others it isnt. It's not your job to judge someone for thinking that. It's your job to contribute for helping correct that what you feel is a misconception. That's through actions rather than words.
Anyone who views experimental aviation as anything 'lax' is an idiot. Airplanes kill careless pilots, it doesn't matter if they're a 747 or an ultralight (what I flew, btw, not an AB classified airplane, what's referred to as 'Experimental'. Your error, but you've shown a remarkable dedication to not allowing facts to get in the way of your narrative).
Regarding it not being my place to judge, I think that perhaps you should take a look into a mirror. You've sent me PMs making accusations and implications that I'm some sort of daredevil pilot and made veiled references to other people here sharing their "concerns" about me as a pilot, it's a strange campaign you're on.
You're entitled to your opinion, you can preach all you want, but you do yourself a disservice if you keep misrepresenting the facts.
You post above that you've made mistakes in aviation. Does that mean that you're entitled to a lifetime of people judging you as a dangerous pilot because of it? If so, then lay 'em out here so people can respond with them in every time you talk about flying. If not, then what kindness have I performed that entitles me to such special attention?
I flew a tail dragger ultralight that exceeded my capabilities, learned a lesson, and used that as a learning opportunity. Didn't damage myself, didn't damage the plane, just made a real crummy landing but got a nice big reality check. I can only guess that you, Golfer, feel that just isn't quite enough. I'm not sure what benefit you see from grinding me into the dirt every chance you can, whether it's the judgemental stalking PMs you send me occasionally or these gifts you leave in the public forums, but I'm sure you have a goal.
I've been civil, I've been humble, but I guess there's just some other quality that I haven't exhibited enough of for you. You can save a lot of time if you just let me know what that is.
-
Originally posted by smash
Being an experimental enthusiast qualifies you for nothing. Remarkable that someone who considers themselves "certified" is so uninformed.
Wow...learn somethin' new every day! Thanks!:aok
Now that you've had your swing...do a search. Chairboy as the poster. Tailwheel as the subject and look at the second page of "Airplane Update" as the thread subject.
Original reference to a grossly neglegent mistake Chairboy made and has sense learned from...I hope.
In the meantime I'll petition HTC for a tongue-in-cheek smiley so you don't get so worked up over nothing when you think you've got a shot at slamming me :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I've been civil, I've been humble, but I guess there's just some other quality that I haven't exhibited enough of for you. You can save a lot of time if you just let me know what that is.
Idiots they may be but it's your job as an experimental enthusiast to make yourself better than the next guy. I've given you credit where you deserve...learning from your mistake. At the same token it's a mistake that shouldn't have been made in the first place and it's very likely the next one wil get you killed.
I've sent you one PM saying that nothing I speak up is meant as a personal attack on you. It's meant to keep you alive. I'm not finding sick pleasure in it and there are many many ways I'd be able to better spend my time than worrying about someone I've never met.
Things you've said and done don't just worry me. They worry others and I don't feel good about when I see someone or log into the game getting a pat on the back because I spoke up about situations you find yourself in.
I assure you I'm on your side and want nothing more than for you to be safe.
We agree on more things than I believe you think. That too was in the PM and if you'd like I'd be happy to post it for everyone to read. I wanted to save you the trouble and what I thought you'd take as a libelous cheap shot if posted in public and send it to you privately.
I'm not out to get you. I'm not your mother. I can't make you do anything. I can speak up and if saying anything I've said about what you've done has made you angry, frusturated and annoyed with me...I did my job. If getting you so jacked at your mistakes keeps you from making them again...I've done my job.
I'm not the only one who's been concerned for your well being. I'd just say I'm the most vocal.
_________________
Second note.
On the "idiots" you comment on. The idiots that we (all pilots, aviation enthusiasts, mechanics, line guys, desk girls, hangar sweepers and people who just look at airplane sin the sky) have to convince that we are safe and secure are lawmakers. We can keep getting rules and regulations, new taxes and encroachments on our privilege to fly for only so long. It's not the vast minority of people that are educated on the subject of aviation we have to convince. It's the overwhelming majority of "idiots" who simply aren't educated on why or why not certain things are safe. I've seen guys fly what I consider a lawnchair with duct taped wings and call it safe. It's all about perception and if the majority of idiots out there perceve you as unsafe, reckless or dangerous...we're all screwed.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Wow...learn somethin' new every day! Thanks!:aok
Snip
You still fail to address the so called "enthusiast certification" you claim to have.
You are sloppy. And you sound foolish. If you are a pilot thats a lousy combination.
-
lol see the price tag on that beauty? $49,900.00, Puts a nice dent in the wallet but it is a nice aircraft replica. lol and that doesnt include the $25,000 Engine!
-
It's not that I'm angry, just a little puzzled. If you're looking for groveling, well, I guess I just don't get it. I made a mistake, fessed up, and I guess I just don't see any indication that the fact that I admitted the mistake and learned from it is enough for you. What else do you want? Is there a reason you stalk any post I make about aviation and use my error as more evidence why experimental aviation is dangerous?
Your PM implied that a group of people think I am an inherently dangerous pilot, and I guess I'm looking for the reason behind that perception.
I don't think you deserve a pat on the back, particularly. I think you should take a moment to examine your motivations and maybe re-evaluate. I really can't fall on my sword any more than I have, do you want me to film myself crying for forgiveness and post it to youtube? Maybe you feel I should turn in my certificate and leave aviation to The Professionals like you?
Just tell me what else I can do that I didn't already do in my very first post where I described my mistake and how I learned from it. YOU tell me what failure condition continues to exist, because if there isn't one, then you're out of line.
-
Originally posted by smash
You still fail to address the so called "enthusiast certification" you claim to have.
You are sloppy. And you sound foolish. If you are a pilot thats a lousy combination.
Smash,
That was a tongue in cheek comment to chairboy about an incident he had in a tailwheel airplane the first time he'd ever sat in a tailwheel airplane with no training. I direct you to do the search because it wont do anyone any service to post it here again.
Read the comment again. It's written in black and...uhh...gray the phrase at the end:
"that you have no business being in"
It wasn't and isn't a serious comment.
Chairboy's come a long way from that day which is why it's now tongue in cheek...not (as) serious.
-
For what it is worth I don't Chairboy did anything that was incredibly stupid.
He is a private pilot who has taken a hell of a lot more instruction than you need to fly an ultralight.
Ultralights land slow. I know I own one.
Taildraggers are tricky to land in crosswinds.
If Chairboy had flown on a calm day he probably would have had a fine flight. He was not sure of the wind that day and the wind gave him all his grief.
The guy selling the plane should have given him more of a briefing and known the winds that day would make flying the thing difficult.
All I can say is that when I land my ultralight in a cross wind it looks a lot more scary than it is if you have done it 100 times before. I am sure Chairboys landing was no where near as out of control as he thought it was. A small light plane moves a lot more than a Cessna. If you are in one for the first time you think it is going out of control due to all the movement but really it is not. As long as the nose is pointed at the spot on the runway you want to land on and as long as you flair and let the speed bleed off it will land fine. You just have to ignore all the bumps and drops on the way down.
Its like driving your Dads car for the first time on the highway in traffic. In your mind you are sure you are going to hit the guardrail or the car next to you or that the speed is way out of control but the reality is everything is normal. You are just not used to it.
-
(http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r164/_strawmary/Emoticons/ththtwitch.gif)
-
Habu,
Its good to read your post. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the air has had their moments. Humility keeps you alive.
Somewhere I have a picture of my wife going up in a Titan. Its pink, of course :) Not ours. I've thought about them but its just a little too "Wright Brothers" for me.
The P51 look is really nice, but if I was going to build it would be an RV8 or something along those lines. Too bad the RVs aren't retracts.
Chairboy... you are not the first to get bit by a taildragger. Not by a long shot. There's a lot of memorials outside Wright Patterson to some great, great pilots who pronged a few.
Stay sharp and enjoy.
-
Don't want to hijack, but just check:
http://www.supermarineaircraft.com
for a somilar scale and weight...Spitfire ;)
Anyway, I liked the specs for this aircraft. Compare it to a Cessna 150/152 or even a piper...or a skyhawk...
It has the same power ballpark, lower stall, similar better ROC, and much higher cruise and VNE. Well it's a taildragger, and that's different takeoff and landing (harder), but the stll is much much lower, the ground roll is also.
With a competent pilot, this looks like an awesomely nice private aircraft, - just like the spit26 ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
1. Experimental planes aren't certified as a matter of rule, unless it's part of an R&D effort where a certified plane passes through the experimental category. Most homebuilts are registered as experimental at the end of the build cycle and not certified.
2. If you're referring to the DAR's final inspection, "very easy" isn't usually the description of the procedure, but you have to meet requirements for testing it with ranges defined for where you can fly, usually a 40 hours of flight period w/o any passengers, etc etc.
3. Most builders will either get what's called 'transition training' with a completed example of the plane or (if it's a one seater) the community will identify a two seater that has similar behavior that they can train in.
4. The test regime involves extensive taxi training, including high speed taxis on the runway, working up to flight and understanding what every system is doing at every step of the way.
In a lot of ways, a home builder ends up being the most qualified person to fly a plane. No Cessna pilot will know as much about the mechanics of the plane as they do, and there's no special magic wand of competence that flyers of certified planes are given that I'm aware of. PP-ASEL=PP-ASEL, everything else is training.
Are there exceptions? Sure. For that matter, have certified aircraft ever been involved in accidents because a pilot made an error or wasn't qualified for a situation they got themselves into? I'll let you answer that.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. I've actually found a post by Chairboy that I almost completely agree with. The one small part I don't necessarily agree with is the statement that a home builder ends up being the most qualified person to fly a plane. The problem is that home builders sometimes spend much more of their free time building rather than flying. Some get to the point where they've completely stopped flying during the years it takes to build their plane so are very, very far from being current. Not true in all cases but it does happen. Overall, the experiemental community has done a really outstanding job of making the process, and the resulting aircraft, very safe. As far as Chairboy's near mishap with the ultralight is concerned....well let's just say I don't know a single pilot who hasn't done something stupid that provided a similar "learning" experience.
Mace
-
Originally posted by Angus
Don't want to hijack, but just check:
http://www.supermarineaircraft.com
for a somilar scale and weight...Spitfire ;)
Anyway, I liked the specs for this aircraft. Compare it to a Cessna 150/152 or even a piper...or a skyhawk...
It has the same power ballpark, lower stall, similar better ROC, and much higher cruise and VNE. Well it's a taildragger, and that's different takeoff and landing (harder), but the stll is much much lower, the ground roll is also.
With a competent pilot, this looks like an awesomely nice private aircraft, - just like the spit26 ;)
That is a cool kit isn't it. Only problem I see is you're flying along and some Cessna guy calls you a spitdweeb.
-
I have seen the Sptifires and the only problem is I am trying to keep the total build cost under $100,000 and most that I have seen end up at around $140 -$150
as for the other comments I am well aware of what it takes to build an experimental aircraft, as this would be the 3rd, one and it's even harder to get the Airworthiness Certificates here in the Netherlands.
-
Look up on the net how much a Piper or a Cessna costs!
-
they're legal for use in commercial operations
-
Originally posted by Angus
Look up on the net how much a Piper or a Cessna costs!
Yea I know...but I do not want one of them....Hell even the wife said the same thing "why not just buy one allready built"....I guess she will never understand.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
The problem is that home builders sometimes spend much more of their free time building rather than flying.
Mace
Great point, Mace, you're absolutely right. In the community I'm part of, the importance of being fresh (current, lots of transition training, emergency practice) when it comes time to fly the homebuilt for the first time is really strong. There's a network of Canard owners that will fly out to your airport to give you transition training for the cost of gas. The safer we are, the healthier the community is, and I'm sure the RV folks and other groups have similar volunteers.
I read through the various builder logs for pilots and each one has a section about the LongEZ or Cozy pilot that flew a few hundred miles to hang out with them for a few days learning the type, or people volunteering their planes to builders who were ready to test fly and wanted some practice. It's a great thing, and I know that it saves lives.
For some people, the right decision is having someone else do the test flight for them, and the experimental community has a group of high time, test experienced folks that bring their own parachute and years of first flights along so that the plane can be given a basic shakedown by someone who's A: experienced at dealing with an in-flight emergency or B: Failing that, is equipped to jump.
Part of the decision making process is figuring out which approach is best for you, and I'm sure it's a nail biter.
-
Heater, just curious but if you want something like a fighter have you checked out the F-1 Rocket? Link here (http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/) Doesn't have the look of a P51 but it's one of the sharpest and best performing experimentals out there. Cruise at 75% is 240mph with over a 1k range. The quick build kit is 50 grand which is the same as the Titan. You could do a rebuilt IO540 for less than the turbocharged Rotax and get much better performance plus it's a tandum two seater. Overall, you should be able to build it for the same price.
Mace
-
Thunder Mustang flyby.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBslOEg44e8&mode=related&search=)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Thunder Mustang flyby.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBslOEg44e8&mode=related&search=)
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing that was NICE. Not the same tone but very nice indeed.
-
Sure isn't a lawnmower engine bolted to that sucker!
I think I'll add one to my to-do list.
-
golfer,
In theory you're mostly right, but you do realize that by your reasoning, the wright brothers would never have progressed past the kite flying stage and many many other pioneering pilots (including the rocket boys out at X-cor and Scaled composites) would still be waiting for someone qualified to do their dirty work...
Personally, I'm in favor of trying new things sometimes. Yea I think Chairboy made a fairly classic mistake and the risk was mostly likely unnecessary, but you're taking your rule a little far when you say stuff like people have no business flying xxx aircraft. Well, sometimes that just can't be helped and in those situations, we get to decide if we're men or sheep. Sheep generally get eaten or ****ed, so I don't want to be counted among the sheep :)
If I ever build a kitplane, I plan on making the first flight myself. After that, if I still don't have any formal flight test training, I'll turn it over to a professional test pilot for a thorough checkout and flight envelope validation. But I still want that first flight to myself. You can bet I'll minimize the risks and stay well within the heart of the flight envelope, but like chairboy says, I agree that the builder is very likely to be the person most qualified to fly his own plane. Note that I said "fly", not "test" or "determine the boundaries of the flight envelope"... There are plenty of dead "qualified" pilots who tried to play junior test pilot. I don't plan on being one of them.
-
Heater,
Is this going to be your first kit built aircraft?
-
Heater,
If I tried to build one of those, I'd just screw it up by doubling the engine power and trying to turn it into something it isn't intended to be.
I want 200hp and at least 200 kts cruise, plus fully acro. I wouldn't require inverted fuel/oil and don't even demand constant speed prop, but those would be nice. That pretty much drives me towards something like the plane HT owns.
Still, a little P-51 lookalike would be neat. I just want more performance than that titan kit offers, that's all.
-
nothing tastes as good as a thousand dollar hamburger or at least thats what i've heard...
-
My Dad and I used to go get $40 bags of grapefruit and $20 bags of dates... Can't forget the $50 buffalo burgers out at Catalina either. We kept average costs "down" by either taking a 152 or filling all 4 seats in a 172.
-
Widewing, what mustang was that? The Stewart?
-
Rules and regulations in aviation are proportional to safety and inversely proportional to fun and excitement.
Theres a few different ways to look at Chairboys taildragger flight. Daring, a bit dangerous, a throwback to the Golden Age of aviation.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Heater,
Is this going to be your first kit built aircraft?
Nope
RV6 (late 89-91) <- still flying but now in France
Kitfox #1 98 <- Still flying here in the Netherlands
Kitfox #2 2003 <- Crashed last year young pilot showing off cliped a tree with the gear.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Heater,
If I tried to build one of those, I'd just screw it up by doubling the engine power and trying to turn it into something it isn't intended to be.
I want 200hp and at least 200 kts cruise, plus fully acro. I wouldn't require inverted fuel/oil and don't even demand constant speed prop, but those would be nice. That pretty much drives me towards something like the plane HT owns.
Still, a little P-51 lookalike would be neat. I just want more performance than that titan kit offers, that's all.
Believe me...I have thought about it a lot.... engine choice will play a big roll in the total build, if I do it.
-
Originally posted by Heater
Nope
RV6 (late 89-91) <- still flying but now in France
Kitfox #1 98 <- Still flying here in the Netherlands
Kitfox #2 2003 <- Crashed last year young pilot showing off cliped a tree with the gear.
Ok that's why I wanted to ask you that. My recomendation was going to be for the RV, either an 8 or a 9 if you figure on taking it like a multi passenger situation.
The biggest thing I was looking at is that an aluminum skin plane means riveting and the RV's would be a better choice for a first timer there IMO. Since you've already built an RV6 you have that set of skills already. I was looking at the performance of the TF51 and figured an RV8 would have had it beat in just about everything and would do so with, again IMO, a far better power plant like a Lycoming IO360 and a constant speed prop. Rotax is ok but not to the same standards as the Lyc situation.
I'm also not that big of a fan for retracts, even though I owned one for more than 10 years. The RV's do nicely with fixed gear and a far simpler system.
-
The RV-8 is really a sweet plane for aerobatics, value, and long legs for metal planes from what I hear. The RV-10 looks like a great family plane too, RV-8+ performance but no aerobatics in exchange for two extra seats. I know some folks who are putting 20B rotary engines into their RV-10s, so they'll have fast and smooooth rides.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The RV-8 is really a sweet plane for aerobatics, value, and long legs for metal planes from what I hear. The RV-10 looks like a great family plane too, RV-8+ performance but no aerobatics in exchange for two extra seats. I know some folks who are putting 20B rotary engines into their RV-10s, so they'll have fast and smooooth rides.
Performance with the rotary depends a lot on how it's built and there's quite a bit of variation on these lines but it does seem to have a good power to weight ratio. Biggest downside to them though is the sound. They are incredibly loud and raspy. I'd guess they could be pretty fatiging over time.
-
<--- Flew a go-kart with a fan and a hang glider wing in 2005 out of Griswold in Connecticut. Needless to say, I will never fly one of those death traps again. Got downwind, cut power, and starting sinking like a rock. Put full power back in, and didn't cut to idle until the main gear touched down. Never again.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErgpJzcAS6s
nuff said.
-
I fly a trike all the time in the summer.
100HP 4 stroke engine. Hang Glider type wing but rated for 500 kg.
Hardly a death trap but it does take skill to fly it.
I would say if you don't have the skill don't even attempt it.
If you went full power on mine you would have a hard time keeping the climp below 1500 fpm. It is impossible to go down with full power on. The wing has too much lift and the engine too much thrust.
-
Not sure what it was that I was flying. Flew into the airport that day with my old CFI to grab lunch, and ran into some of his buddies who fly ultralights...Guess the experience is different for each individual person, but it's definately not for me
-
Did it look like this?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/972_1151265806_trike1.jpg)
6500 feet up and 100 kph airspeed. Not a toy
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/972_1151266202_trike8.jpg)
-
Those are some nice shoes.
-
Dunno, I think I might develop a fear of heights in one those:eek: . But like any aircraft they are only as safe as the pilot who flies them. Even in that crash video, the guy's downfall wasn't so much his engine failure as his height over the trees. He hit the treetops about six seconds after the engine stopped. He was too low over the trees, yet there was a nice straight road just below him. It might as well have been on Mars for all the chance he had to land there.
Good airmanship means thinking about stuff like that. It doesn't mean taking the fun out of flying but it does reduce the risks. I don't care whether you fly a powered lawn chair or a space shuttle. You have to think about avoiding situations that will get you killed. Quite often it will be as simple as the one illustrated above. Don't fly close to the trees while climbing.
It's all common sense but I don't take much credit for it. My instructors beat it into me. I learned from others mistakes.