"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
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? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
--
I would also add that certification also implies a degree of
mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly
wide range of applications.

Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and
I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being
certified.

Peter
(Who's own doodles usually trade away one or more of those standards)