Hi William,
I think that part of Steve's post to you was still referring back to Neal's original statement, not to your reply. I'm sure Steve saw your statement as both informative and hopeful. :-)
It was sad to hear about Bob's plane. I hope the failed part was sent to John Brodak for analysis. Green on metal is not usually a good thing! John has been very dedicated to getting these new ARF/ARCs as failsafe as possible. (this applies to all his ARC/ARFs, not just the latest ones). His manufacturer is very motivated to do the same and has worked closely with John to make any improvements that are needed. I am sure John will make it right with Bob.
Your correct about the percentages. Even NASA, as safe as they are, is not perfect. Our CL ARF/ARCs are amazingly reliable with relatively few catastrophic failures. There are well over 10,000 CL ARC/ARFs out there. So the % of failure is very, very low. This fact does not lessen the sadness of losing that rare plane, but at least it can help put our minds at ease about flying the other 99.9%. John, Steve, Randy and Brad have stepped right up to make sure any potential problem is taken care of ASAP. Their goal is to get as close to 100% reliability as they possibly can.
I am in the middle of doing more research on our CL ARF/ARCs. So far it looks like they are as reliable and as accurate, or maybe even more so, than the average CL kit built by the average CL builder. So far it looks like all the ARF/ARCs being sold now have reliable HW and lead-outs. They will continue to improve, but they now seem very reliable in their stock form. ....... I will post my results when all the facts are in. ;-)
I'm glad you were a witness and posted your info. here. This always helps when trying to find out exactly what happened.
Regards,