Frank Olson wrote in
news:aWzZj.289324$pM4.202964@pd7urf1no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Frank Olson wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou
it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild
them
from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie

Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee
are
much better. :-)


Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in
control.


Bertie


Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of
the
aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and
some
altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing
or
your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is
KYAG
(Kiss Your Ass Goodbye).


Yeah, true.

I saw stats for this years ago. I think it might have been in Tony
Bengelis's books or maybe sprot aviation, but steel tube airplanes are
much safer in a crash than anything else. Tin is next but trails well
behind, with composite and wood bringing up the rear.


Bertie