Awaiting Natalie's "interpretation of what he meant

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
says?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.

No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
What they
have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
is no type certification of experimentals.

You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
that one,
Ron.


With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
21.191?

Non-sequitur.


JTarver

You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
groups. I that is saying something.

I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
wrong.

You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type certificate.
Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
the
same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built aircraft
are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.

The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
yourself, Giacona.