Safest GA Plane

[9GClub]

Just an observation, at 12 hours flight time I would refrain from giving a "guarantee" on stuff you have no idea about.

Jetdriven said that there's never been an inflight airframe failure on a 172 or a 182. He didn't operationally define "inflight airframe failure"-- but I've got some ideas, and I *guarantee you* there have been a few.

Show me some data to refute my guarantee and I'll issue a public apology like some of our pals have done recently........ har har.

 

[crash-proof]

Lance Neibauer, founder of Lancair, is still around & runs the certified division, and the kitplane side was sold. While numerous Lancair kitplanes have crashed over the years, the certified Lancair has an excellent safety history.

It seems to me, that the designer of the Questar Venture ( a fast tear drop/egg shaped kitplane) was killed a few years back.

The Questair Venture...yeah i remember the designer of this plane was killed in one about 10 years back. He was well known within the experimental community.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this thing at Sun n Fun back in 94. Ugly as h*ll but just as fast. But after looking at that tiny landing gear and short fuselage, Id rather own a Lancair or Glasair.

Here's a great pirep on the Questair (from 1990):
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepQuestairVenture.html

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

New Sig!!!!!

How about this one concerning airline rumors.....

Believe none of what you hear, half of what you see, and you will be half right half the time. (works for flightinfo.com as well!! )

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Jetdriven said that there's never been an inflight airframe failure on a 172 or a 182. He didn't operationally define "inflight airframe failure"-- but I've got some ideas, and I *guarantee you* there have been a few.

Show me some data to refute my guarantee and I'll issue a public apology like some of our pals have done recently........ har har.

I have no clue about the failure rates on 172's and 182's.

My post concerened your quickness to provide a guarantee on information that you post.

Last week or so you posted a guarantee about an airplane that I fly and it was clear that you didn't have the first clue about the subject of your guarantee.

Given your track record, It is a reasonable assumption that you put the same amount of research into this subject as you did the last one. While that may be the way big business in this country now operates, we here at flightinfo hold a higher standard! Meaning that we know we do not know squat and act accordingly!!

As always, this is just my opinion, and opinions are like.......ummmm......noses ......yeah thats it......everybody has one. (Well not everyone, I guess accident victims or birth defects or something like that would make my statement false. )

How about we leave it at a nice middle of the road "maybe?"

 

[flydoc1979]

According to FLYING about a year beck it is the C172...but I think its any plane that a doctor isn't flying

Hey, I resemble that remark!

 

[flydoc1979]

Oh, and by the way, I fly a 182 because, well, you know how those doctors fly. I would never fly a bonanza because of it's reputation as a doctor killer.

 

[rubberducky]

just writing the facts sir...

 

[TDTURBO]

Oh, and by the way, I fly a 182 because, well, you know how those doctors fly. I would never fly a bonanza because of it's reputation as a doctor killer.

That's probably because doctors are the only ones that can afford to fly so the proportion of accidents as it relates to profession are going to be skewed.

As far as the 2 in flight structural failures in 172's, these are widely publicized and easy to find but don't have time now, do a little search and you'll find them.