X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:11:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1126757 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:45:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.35; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.5.) id q.386.3b4b530 (39330) for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:44:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <386.3b4b530.31a649d4@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:44:20 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1148514260" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5300 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1148514260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/24/2006 6:04:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, RicArgente@cs.com writes: Rick Durden writes: ...The Cessna Skymaster and Engineering Research Ercoupe were designed to be very safe airplanes. One has incredibly docile single-engine handling; the other cannot be stalled if rigged correctly. Yet each has a lousy accident record. There is good reason to believe they tended to attract pilots who knew their skills and judgment were suspect and purposely selected a "safe" airplane. The poor judgment and skill of those pilots overcame the inherent safe design of the airplanes. One cannot help but wonder whether Cirrus Design may be discovering that a manufacturer can't make airplanes foolproof because fools are so inventive -- they'll find a way to do something way more bizarre than the engineers could anticipate. The problem is that engineers suffer from being rational; fools don't. ... Rick, With 1136 hours in a 1973 337G Skymaster (flown whilst building the 320), it is hard to imagine what kind of "fool" it would take to undue all the good things about this airplane. Horizontal stab the last to ice up because of rear engine heat, rear prop did not need anti-ice boots, elevator trim linked to flaps, left (with an "F") meant front, right (with an "R") meant rear, no need to switch fuel tanks, 2 of everything (including rudders), center line thrust, identical engines except for the length of the oil filler tube, the stability of a truck, excellent visibility (wing located back from the windscreen), upright chair seating, no separate heater (front engine muff), clam shell door opened under the wing so you could stay dry in the rain, lose an engine - go slower, etc............. Want to see one fly real nice, see the movie "BAT 21." There were some drawbacks - ARC radios, ancient auto pilot, seat rail locks, possibility of being squished betwixt two engines, 21 gph, 165 Knots, interesting landing gear operation, etc. It was still a non-trivial twin........ I used to fly the Skymaster 80 miles to a wee grass strip where I had my tube and fabric Challenger II hangared so I could enjoy a few hours of rudder training..... I was nuts.... Grayhawk -------------------------------1148514260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 5/24/2006 6:04:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 RicArgente@cs.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Rick=20 Durden writes:

...The Cessna Skymaster and Engineering Research=20 Ercoupe were designed to be very safe airplanes. One has incredibly docile= =20 single-engine handling; the other cannot be stalled if rigged correctly. Y= et=20 each has a lousy accident record. There is good reason to believe they ten= ded=20 to attract pilots who knew their skills and judgment were suspect and=20 purposely selected a "safe" airplane. The poor judgment and skill of those= =20 pilots overcame the inherent safe design of the airplanes. One cannot help= but=20 wonder whether Cirrus Design may be discovering that a manufacturer can't=20= make=20 airplanes foolproof because fools are so inventive -- they'll find a way t= o do=20 something way more bizarre than the engineers could anticipate. The proble= m is=20 that engineers suffer from being rational; fools don't.=20 ...
Rick,
 
With 1136 hours in a 1973 337G Skymaster (flown whilst building th= e=20 320), it is hard to imagine what kind of "fool" it would take to undue all t= he=20 good things about this airplane.  Horizontal stab the last to ice up=20 because of rear engine heat, rear prop did not need anti-ice boots, elevator= =20 trim linked to flaps, left (with an "F") meant front, right (with an "R") me= ant=20 rear, no need to switch fuel tanks, 2 of everything (including rudders), cen= ter=20 line thrust, identical engines except for the length of the oil filler tube,= the=20 stability of a truck, excellent visibility (wing located back from the=20 windscreen), upright chair seating, no separate heater (front engine muff),=20= clam=20 shell door opened under the wing so you could stay dry in the rain, lose an=20 engine - go slower,  etc............. Want to see one fly real nic= e,=20 see the movie "BAT 21."
 
There were some drawbacks - ARC radios, ancient auto pilot, seat rail=20 locks, possibility of being squished betwixt two engines, 21 gph, 165=20 Knots, interesting landing gear operation, etc.
 
It was still a non-trivial twin........ 
 
I used to fly the Skymaster 80 miles to a wee grass strip where I=20= had=20 my tube and fabric Challenger II hangared so I could enjoy a few hours of ru= dder=20 training..... I was nuts....
 
Grayhawk
-------------------------------1148514260--