Sport Pilot Talk

Remember that this is a 10 year data set. Evektor was the first approved SLSA, and has been in flight school use since early 2005. Cessna didn't even enter the market until December 2009 (that first one was delivered to Jack Pelton's wife), and by the end of 2010 only 30 had been delivered. I can't speak for Flight Design, but in those early years Evektor dominated both the training market and (sadly) the training incidents.

Nomore767 wrote: The only plane I can think of that never crashed is the Spruce Goose..of course it only flew once, barely.

Thanks for the hot tip. That would be a great low and slow plane. I just looked for the Spruce Goose on Trade a Plane. Apparently somebody scooped it up before me.

Evektor may have been first, but Flight design received approval in the same ceremony minutes later.

http://generalaviationnews.com/2005/05/ ... certified/

Cluemeister wrote:

Nomore767 wrote: The only plane I can think of that never crashed is the Spruce Goose..of course it only flew once, barely.

Thanks for the hot tip. That would be a great low and slow plane. I just looked for the Spruce Goose on Trade a Plane. Apparently somebody scooped it up before me.

Jim Bede designed a plane that was fairly safe. I think the designation was BD 1, but I couldn't find any pictures. It was to heavy to fly.

The BD1 morphed into the Grumman Trainer, progenitor of a long line of safe and agile GA aircraft (about which Jack Tyler can speak authoritatively, as a two time owner).

3Dreaming wrote:Evektor may have been first, but Flight design received approval in the same ceremony minutes later.

True, and there are quite a few FD'S now in the training fleet. But for some reason, they were slower to catch on (at least in the early years) than the SportStar. My guess is that flight schools with experience in metal airplanes initially shied away from composites. Now that plastic technology is more mature and accepted, that ratio has reversed.

The Bede airplane I was remembering was a demoiselle looking type thing.

3Dreaming wrote:The Bede airplane I was remembering was a demoiselle looking type thing.

Ah, I believe that would be the BD-9.

Cluemeister wrote:

Nomore767 wrote: The only plane I can think of that never crashed is the Spruce Goose..of course it only flew once, barely.

Thanks for the hot tip. That would be a great low and slow plane. I just looked for the Spruce Goose on Trade a Plane. Apparently somebody scooped it up before me.

I'll be visiting her in McMinnville OR in April. No chance for a right seat, tho.

drseti wrote:

3Dreaming wrote:The Bede airplane I was remembering was a demoiselle looking type thing.

Ah, I believe that would be the BD-9.

Not the BD-9. It may be that my mind is all fuzzy today. My searches for what I was looking for did not turn up anything.

I think the Evektor is a beautiful plane. Loved the Harmony we saw at the Expo. But over 50% of Evektor planes had an accident in a 10 year cycle. I would be hard pressed to just assume that this is due to student training, especially compared to all the other data in the report.

Cluemeister wrote:I think the Evektor is a beautiful plane. Loved the Harmony we saw at the Expo. But over 50% of Evektor planes had an accident in a 10 year cycle. I would be hard pressed to just assume that this is due to student training, especially compared to all the other data in the report.

You can't draw that conclusion from the data shown.

First, one chart indicates a fleet size of 97. Another chart shows a total of 48 accidents/incidents 45 non fatal/3 fatal. 48x2=96 most days, so your "over half" comment is suspect.

Secondly, as Paul stated, much of the fleet are used for training. It's not unreasonable for a training aircraft to be involved in multiple "incidents". The data does not specify a one incident per aircraft ratio.

Keep in mind that an "incident" can be a very minor event. I seem to recall I found one of the Tomahawks I flew in the database a few times. The logs detailed thorough repairs and I was satisfied.

If half the fleet Of any model were, in fact, failing that badly, there most certainly would be a bright spotlight shining on the model/manufacturer.

Bruce, you are correct. My over 50% should have said 50% or about 50%.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I love the look of low wing planes, and it may be what I buy. But I want my eyes wide open, and I think the data is too clear not to pay attention.

I always knew there was something fishy about low wing pilots.