|
"RapidRonnie" <rapidronnie@cbgb.net> wrote in message
news:1179787325.984003.127060@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 8:12 am, "Wayne Paul" <w...@soaridaho.com> wrote:
>>
>> My guess is that the "spinal injuries" occured on impact. The BD-5's
>> cockpit design offers little to no pilot protection.
>
> Jim Bede openly felt that was unnecessary because most BD-5s would
> never fly or if they did would either only fly a few hours and be
> junked when the owner died or would crash so badly it would make
> little difference how he built it.
>
> I do not think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
> effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
> though.
>
It wasn't my attempt to imply the crashworthiness of the BD-5 is less then
other homebuilts. It was simply to affirm the primary spinal injury was
caused by the impact. I'm sure my HP-14 sailplane is not much better. I
too, for all practical purposes, am sitting directly on the belly skin.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg)
(http://tinyurl.com/2esvov)
I'm sure a gear-up hard landing would not be good for my previousely
injured spine.
Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/
|
|
Re: BD-5 crash in Australia
