Bob..... That "article" he was probably referring to was "Inflight Airframe Failures" that appeared in the April 1, 1979 issue of Aviation Consumer. It may have been quoted elsewhere. It was done by Aircraft Safety Consultants of Sunnyside, CA.
The study covered 1964-1976. The Coupe was the worst and the chart was off the page. It showed the Coupe as being 38 times worse than the Cessna 150. They commented that "perhaps age was a factor". It left a view in the unedicated persons mind of "broken planes falling out the sky" The Report had Coupers up in arms over it at the time. However, it was on a per ten million flight hrs basis and included 6 fatalities for the 150 and 9 for the Coupe. It was probably heavily weighted with weather-related accidents. An earlier, and I think more meaningful, study covering 1964 showed Coupe fatalities about the same as the 150 and overall accidents comparable except for the "hard landings" of the "drive it on and drive it off" gang. This is not to play down the 9 accidents, which was almost one per year, but to put it in perspctive. On spins. I had 1/2 hrs training in an Aerobat(150) and then took it up and spun it for an hour. Most of the time was spent climbing back up to spin altitude. It was flying FUN. I'd recommend it to most anyone. But no comments on compulsory. To Coupers, especially those that regularly fly at 1500#, stay within the rear CG limits and forget the tricks and keep flying a long, long time. Cliff.....
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
