WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:34:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's
safer
than a 172?

That's what we're talking about.

Bertie

Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they
are.
Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the
air.

Would they?

Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying
( that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous.
There are a few other contraptions flying around that have some
serious issues structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one
particular type which is quite popular in my local group that
fortunately never seems to get finished. The accident reports are
littered with these things and I'm terrified that one of the members
is going to ask me to test fly theirs for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt,
is safe?

Safer than a BD5, that's for sure.

Look the RVs could easily be certified. If Dick vangruven wants thenm to
be he should go ahead and do it. It's not like he couldn[t get backing
for such an endeaver.

Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly
what?A higher possibility of a safe aircraft?


That's it exactly.