Posted on 09/18/2008 1:55:37 PM PDT by pabianice
Federal investigators are on their way to Douglass, Kansas to investigate the crash of a Cessna Skycatcher LSA prototype Thursday. The pilot of the test aircraft was able to parachute to safety and was reportedly taken to hospital with minor injuries.
Cessna media relations personnel were unable to immediately respond to AVweb's request for more detailed information, but KAKE Television is reporting the aircraft crashed into a treeline near the boundary of Butler and Cowley Counties. The television station is quoting witnesses as saying they heard a loud pop and then saw sparks and the plane spiraling down. The pilot landed in a field about 400 yards from the aircraft. The TV station quoted a Cessna spokesman as saying the crash aircraft had about 150 hours on it.
The prototype first flew on March 8, and Cessna is planning on delivering the first customer aircraft in the first half of 2009. What the crash does to that schedule is unclear. There are close to 1,000 orders for the aircraft, which will be built in China and reassembled in three plants in the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at avweb.com ...
Nevermind. Re-read all the words in the article. It says the pilot landed 400 yards from the crash site, meaning he jumped. Oops.
After the jello wrestling mail order bride you got with the last 14K, I'm afraid to ask.
Out of nowhere....thanks you own me a fresh can of soda
Talk to Cougar, he’s the one with the cash.
I didn’t know that she came with accessories, but they cost extra.
I’m sure Cessna has made a fine plane here but making it cheaper doesn’t seem to be the best idea.
How about making it as well as it can be made?
This has got to set back Cessnas efforts to enter the L.S.A. market.
You can speculate. I could say it most likely was an engine failure. I’ve heard that one in three new engines fail in the first year in aviation.
Private pilot here living on a private airport.
Based on the report he landed 400 yards from the aircraft, so it implies he had his own chute.
Lycoming, Continental, Rotax, I can go on here but they all have problems and it doesn’t make sense. I mean how can Ford screw up a pick up truck? They’ve only make how many millions?
You’d think they’d get it right by now.
Same for engine manufacturers.
After your first few words, I was expecting a joke about Eaker...
That is the big problem with fuel injected engines, it complicates fuel management without a header tank. So that is why I eliminated the header tank in my Subaru powered GlaStar. I simply put in a cooled, pressurized loop that vents the vapor bubbles that are formed by the pressure regulator and the heat of the engine.
Just reissue the Aeronca C-3. Cheap and there is nothing to break.
|
I’ve flown Cessna Cardinal’s and the new 172 SP (that sucker has five, 5,!!! tank sumps per wing) - all fuel injected ....
Subaru engines are coveted by a lot of experimental guys ... great engine .....
I’ve flown Cessna Cardinal’s and the new 172 SP (that sucker has five, 5,!!! tank sumps per wing) - all fuel injected ....
Subaru engines are coveted by a lot of experimental guys ... great engine .....
Do you have to manually switch tanks? Tell me that they have an automated system.
I have 5 sumps too : ( One for each wing tank, two under the fuselage (it could have been one) and one at the engine. I typically just check the two under the fuselage and engine sump because the engine sump can catch a cup of water or so.
Yep - left, right and both ... on the other a/c you have five for each wing, and lower sump ....
Yep - left, right and both ... on the other a/c you have five for each wing, and lower sump ....
Wuss...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
