All too often, the aviation community sees folks who take off in clear weather, blunder into bad weather, do not extract themselves effectively, and get themselves killed, and more importantly, destroy a perfectly good aircraft.
interesting set of priorities...
Tongue in cheek is the way I took it to emphasize the point. But then maybe you are just playing along with that too
I agree with the point, but note that it happens with the much more intensive training and licensing requirements and instrument equipped light aircraft. What I mean is it's not so much the requirements or technology as the user. As always. Pilots making flights without charts (using old road maps) or checking weather. The same thing happens in boating too where you have people deciding to take an inland water craft across open ocean using a diner menu map. Oooh, the Bermuda Triangle claims another victim, what a mystery
The lack of instruments bothers me. I see an altimeter and an airspeed indicator. Nothing else. I would appreciate at least an artificial horizon, and a turn and bank. Heck, I would prefer the full six pack.
Agreed, I didn't look that closely to note how short it was on instruments.
How well is the folding actuator idiot proofed? Or more importantly, how is the idiot proofing accomplished? Limit switch on the landing gear? Sorry, its my submarine training, I like knowing how these kinds of things work.
No need to apologize, it was one of my questions too. You don't want to bump your knee against the fold switch in flight and have the wings swing back. I trust the designer a little more than that though.
It appears to be another attempt at designing a flying machine so simple that anyone can fly it safely. I love the sentiment, but I don't feel too confident that it work. All too often these attempts have ended up in idiots getting behind the stick, and killing themselves. The aircraft is assumed to be a bad design, but really it suffered from overconfidence of its pilots, brought on by misguided marketing.
Agreed again, but I'm eternally optimistic that someone will get it right. Is this it? Hard to say, and it would require more digging. Anyone who jumped into it without doing due diligence in researching it (not just watching the sales ad) would be setting themselves up for a live crash test. People who shouldn't fly still end up doing so even in good designs, and crashing because of it.
Flying is a whole other dimension from driving.
And water landings/takeoffs are an entirely different beastie from airstrips. I was a bit surprised when I saw that it was amphibious after reading the idea that it was an everyman aircraft. Without some really good instruction I can see anyone buying this sinking it the first time they attempt a water landing or takeoff if they left their luck behind. Even experienced small craft pilots who have no amphibious experience.
The parachute thing has been around for a while now, and somewhere on this board someone linked to a story (I think, it may have been elsewhere [darn my fritzing brain!]) where it has been used successfully in a real life situation.
I seem to recall a news item on one being used, don't recall seeing it posted here but it could have been.
Got to agree - people have enough problem in 2D driving. But still, it looks pretty and would be fun. I just see too many issues when you get too many essentially learners permits out there.
Agreed here too, however the price should limit the number of eager flyers, unlike the lower entry level prices on some ideas, like that $10,000 gyro. Still, while the media hit on ultra-light crashes for a couple years after they were introduced (probably inflating the perception of danger beyond the actual) it's been a while since I've heard of any. Either Darwin at work, bad press scaring off the less adventurous, bugs worked out, or more interesting news to bleed with.
