It's an interesting paradox that an aeroplane so often described as a "deathtrap" seems to actually kill or injure less of it's pilots than many of the more "socially acceptable" aeroplanes.
When evaluating the safety record of this type it is only fair to take into account the fact that it is likely to be operated by the sort of low hours, impecunious pilots, who despite those disadvantages, still have the affrontery to try and join in this rich mans sport. Add to the previous factors the neccesity that the novice VP pilot has to fly right from the start unsupervised, and of course the aeroplane will generate more incidents than your average club aeroplane.
But that isn't the fault of the design.
In the rather sad story above, our man dropped it from 150 feet, and still survived!
I felt after qualifying as a PPL, that all I'd really achieved was a licence to continue learning, but without supervision. Since funds were tight, and I didn't feel it fair to join a group until I had obtained a level of competence that I was happy with, I chose to go the sole owner operator route in a small aeroplane. Of all the affordable aeroplanes I could find, the VP stood out head and shoulders as the most survivable, if I should make a gross flying error intose first few hundred hours which we all know, are the most risky..
I can't really see how Daifly's little story in anyway indicates a flaw in the aeroplane, it seems as with the events described in my posting, the pilot simply messed up the flying. I will admit I did take the time to get a tail wheel endorsement, join the VP group, and learn from others before I strapped on my little aeroplane. And it flew really nicely within it's limitations. Not scary at all. But there again, I knew that as soon as one gets a bit of air betwixt VP and runway, to lower the nose slightly and pick up a bit of margin with the speed before soaring away into the wide blue yonder. I also knew that since this was a very different proposition to the aeroplanes I'd been training in, I ought to go get some decent altitude, before exploring the flight envelope.
Sure, if I had more money, I'd have bought myself a T67 or a Bulldog, but at the price point, I couldn't find anything safer. Still haven't.
Finally, as for the "designed by a three year old" comments, I'd like to educate the reader a little. This aeroplane was designed by an professional commercial aeronautical engineer, and the boxy shape is the result of him trying to make the construction as easy as possible for the amateur homebuilder, rather than incorporating those lovely compound curves which look so nice but require more time and skill to produce. The clue is in the given name; "volksplane"..
Here's a link for those who would like to know a little more.
Evans VP-1 Volksplane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When I meet someone with a negative opinion of the aeroplane, so far it always turns out to be someone who hasn't actually flown one.. It's been my experience that when a VP owner sells his or her VP, it's because they want the extra seat, and/or the comfort of an enclosed cockpit, I have yet to hear an ex-owner say that it felt dangerous, or was unpleasant to fly.
To finish on a helpful note, for some reason which I don't profess to understand, the VW engine seems much more likely to ice up if the carb is mounted on top of the motor with the short inlet pipes rather than if, like mine, it is mounted underneath the engine with the long inlet pipes. My aeroplane's engine configuration requires careful priming, but definitely is less prone to freezing up than either of the other 2 VP's that I have been involved with.
Safe flying,
Steve C.