3 ms·

> losing all systems plus the motor at the same time would seriously jeopardize the safety of this aircraft The 2-seater is VFR only, assuming with conventiona

> losing all systems plus the motor at the same time would seriously jeopardize the safety of this aircraft The 2-seater is VFR only, assuming with conventional mechanical control surface linkages. So if you lose thrust, you're basically a glider at that point, needing only backup steam airspeed and altitude, and maybe a yaw string, to land safely. The electronics don't buy you much at that point.

Alupis 8y ago
VFR is the most dangerous situation to lose all systems in your aircraft. You're low to the ground, and relatively slow... and may or may-not have radar following or even be near a controlled airport. You'll have a pretty short maximum glide distance, and won't be able to communicate your emergency nor intentions. Engine-out's happen in GA, sure, but a total loss is pretty rare. Bye and his company will have to prove beyond doubt his design is at least as good as existing decade's old, super-proven designs.
- phillc73 8y ago
  > VFR is the most dangerous situation to lose all systems in your aircraft. You're low to the ground, and relatively slow... I disagree. You don't have to be low to the ground to fly VFR. You could be at 10,000 feet. You don't have to be slow to fly VFR. You could be flying VFR in a turboprop twin and pushing 250 knots. If I was going to lose all systems, I'd also prefer to be flying in VFR conditions where I can see the ground and have a chance of choosing somewhere to make an emergency landing, rather than, for example, over mountainous terrain in cloud. Every GA pilot is taught and needs to practice engine out emergency landings in order to pass their bi-annual flight tests.
- Tuxer 8y ago
  I would WAY rather lose my engine and instruments in VFR conditions (where I can see the ground and see where I'm going) compared to IFR, where I can't see where I'm going and I'm relying on my instruments to navigate. This is why IFR certification (more dangerous and skilled) is an addon that takes dozens of hours to complete initial training for, and then requires Instrument Proficiency Checks every 6 months to keep current on.
- thrill 8y ago
  VFR has got nothing to do with altitude. You can fly VFR in the US in most places at any altitude below 18,000 feet. Its premise is to remain clear of clouds. Radar following has very little in general to do with safely landing if you have an emergency. While they can advise you of nearby runways, a significant part of the pilot's job is maintaining situational awareness, which includes knowing the nearby points to land at. Being near a controlled airport has got nothing to do with safely landing an aircraft, even during an engine out emergency. I don't understand why you conflate the loss of the engine to loss of radio. You have no idea how the aircraft is configured electrically.

Alupis 8y ago

VFR is the most dangerous situation to lose all systems in your aircraft. You're low to the ground, and relatively slow... and may or may-not have radar following or even be near a controlled airport. You'll have a pretty short maximum glide distance, and won't be able to communicate your emergency nor intentions. Engine-out's happen in GA, sure, but a total loss is pretty rare. Bye and his company will have to prove beyond doubt his design is at least as good as existing decade's old, super-proven designs.

phillc73 8y ago
> VFR is the most dangerous situation to lose all systems in your aircraft. You're low to the ground, and relatively slow... I disagree. You don't have to be low to the ground to fly VFR. You could be at 10,000 feet. You don't have to be slow to fly VFR. You could be flying VFR in a turboprop twin and pushing 250 knots. If I was going to lose all systems, I'd also prefer to be flying in VFR conditions where I can see the ground and have a chance of choosing somewhere to make an emergency landing, rather than, for example, over mountainous terrain in cloud. Every GA pilot is taught and needs to practice engine out emergency landings in order to pass their bi-annual flight tests.
Tuxer 8y ago
I would WAY rather lose my engine and instruments in VFR conditions (where I can see the ground and see where I'm going) compared to IFR, where I can't see where I'm going and I'm relying on my instruments to navigate. This is why IFR certification (more dangerous and skilled) is an addon that takes dozens of hours to complete initial training for, and then requires Instrument Proficiency Checks every 6 months to keep current on.
thrill 8y ago
VFR has got nothing to do with altitude. You can fly VFR in the US in most places at any altitude below 18,000 feet. Its premise is to remain clear of clouds. Radar following has very little in general to do with safely landing if you have an emergency. While they can advise you of nearby runways, a significant part of the pilot's job is maintaining situational awareness, which includes knowing the nearby points to land at. Being near a controlled airport has got nothing to do with safely landing an aircraft, even during an engine out emergency. I don't understand why you conflate the loss of the engine to loss of radio. You have no idea how the aircraft is configured electrically.