As much as I love canards, and I do, the statistics do not bear out your claim. VE's, LE's, Velocitys, COZYs, etc. do not have substantially different crash/fatal crash statistics than other homebuilt aircraft. While my aircraft has saved my ass a couple of times by not stalling on a base to final turn when I had a bit of ice on the canard/wings, the overall statistics don't show rates different enough, either higher or lower, to make statements about the overall safety record being better than other types of aircraft.The safest aero wise is a canard/tandem wing style that refuses to departure stall, or spin in on approach.
They typically have higher stall speeds than lower performance aircraft, but for equivalent performance (Glasairs, Lancairs, etc.) the stall speeds are fairly similar - within a few kts.... Canards also typically have higher stall speeds so increased energy at impact = lower survivability.
Agreed. Higher performance, higher wing loading means everyone needs to be on their game. Speed is fun, but there is no free lunch.They typically have higher stall speeds than lower performance aircraft, but for equivalent performance (Glasairs, Lancairs, etc.) the stall speeds are fairly similar - within a few kts.
Precisely why there will be only rigid, aero controlled wings mounted on any flying machine this author's arse will be sitting in.2. The amount of up lift required to keep you in the air versus the amount that could kill you seemed like too narrow a band for my liking.
I used to ride with my brother in law in his Apache. He would routinely run one tank dry before switching tanks, I guess, to have a known amount of fuel left. Of course, he never told his passengers that he was going to do this. Talk about making the hair on the back of your neck stand up when the engines quit! LOL.On my first flying job, my boss told me to fly on one fuel tank and check the time it took for the engine to quit. Then you know how long you can fly on the other tank before the engine quits for good. I told him, no thanks.
I'm exactly with you on these opinions. I agree that keeping the pilot task saturation low can lead to better situational awareness/pilot control. I think a little more coordination of controls in the design phase makes for a popular aircraft (thinking of the Ercoupe here). I'd be very interested in a modernized Ercoupe, with or without rudder pedals, designed for modern size occupants, with a single throttle control set up as you describe, with a flap/spoiler/ speedbreak interconnect. I think that would be a pretty safe, not neccessarily "sporty" airplane. If you didn't have rudder pedals, you could make the throttle a foot pedal on the right, and the spoiler/speedbrake a pedal on the left. How much easier to train a car driver with a system like that? NOW we'll see the flames!It's not a popular point of view, but I do believe that the aircraft with the least amount of demands on the pilot is, in fact, the safest. A plane with only two controls (up/down and left/right) could, in fact, be very safe if set up correctly:
It wouldn't be very maneuverable or terribly exciting but it would also not be subject to pilot error causing a loss of control in the usual stall/spin scenario. You'd need to test passive stall/spin recovery in the case of violent turbulence. I imagine a nice modern cockpit like a Tesla with dual yokes and a large central lever like an inverted U for throttle/air brakes.
- A single throttle lever which, when pulled back below the idle setting deploys spoilers/brakes/landing flaps for adjusting glide path even with the engine off.
- A wheel/yoke/stick for turning left and right using rudder only, ailerons only, or interconnected rudder ailerons, no pitch control.
- Rugged tricycle gear steerable from the same wheel or yoke, or differential hand or foot brakes.
OK, I've got my fireproof Underoos on, flame away!
Well, how much do airbags weigh? Seems like the shoulder harness airbag solution in cars really cut down on serious injury/fatalities in cars. What's wrong with wider adoption of chutes for planes? What's the fatality rate for planes with chutes? If a crumple zone up front would help, how much would some extra sheet aluminum and longer longerons weigh? Seems like this is a solvable problem that is being held up by the regs on how you certify aircraft.Suppose that adding 23 lbs. (10 kg) to the average airframe reduced the number of deaths by 1%. Great, but that might not be enough to make it worthwhile.