On Sun, 30 May 2004 18:44:20 +0000, Richard Lamb wrote:

Ok, enough abstract thinking.
Let's see what you guys can dream up for a specific airframe.

With your weight budget I guess it's useless to try to design a plane that
you can nosedive in at Vne and walk away from... Probably better to
concentrate on the low-hanging fruit (assuming there is some).

My guess is that the best place to look for this, would be in injuries
that are neither fatal nor insignificant - though I guess there may also
be fatalities that have been prevented just as easily.

I don't trust my intuitions on the subject - does anyone know of any
sources that say what the most common non-fatal injuries are in GA
accidents? My guess is that they'd need to be pretty specific - 'back
injury' would not be much help; 'lower back injury due to high descent
rate at landing' would be.

I'm happy to browse a database if someone can point me in the right
direction - I just don't know where to look.

This is a proposed single seat all metal low wing sportster.

Power is intended to be 2180 VW or Rotax 912.

Figure 550 empty weight, 900 gross?
I've got 33 pounds budgeted for payload.

The hang-glider pilot in me says that's enough for a camera, some
lunch and a flask with plenty to spare. The long-distance cyclist within
me says that's not even enough for a tent, lunch, a stove, a toolkit, a
coat and a bicycle pump.

How much of that do you guys thing should be spent on
crash protection?

I guess the question is, 'how much of that can we persuade you to spend on
crash protection?'

And is there anything else you'd rather put in than 'structural
protection'? - e.g. a ballistic 'chute (if you believe in them).

http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/l-one.htm


The CAD drawings look sweet...

AC