OK, Luke, Here's More Numbers for You

[jls]

" jls" wrote:
> Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record,
!?!
Enviable by whom - Evel Knievel?
> Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
Indeed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Check this out, Danny:

http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/KillYourself/KillYourself.html
Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours or in a
different or unique airplane, and they don't have the experience in the type
chosen for the purpose. I knew a doctor who killed himself in a Monnett Moni
because he didn't have any time in it; the flight was the aircraft's (and
his) first and last.

Check out the graph here too:

http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
Experimentals are here to stay. Their safety record, just as the safety
record of GA aircraft, always needs improving, but your comment is
irresponsible.
If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Hope this helps.

[Dan Luke]

" jls" wrote:
> http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/KillYourself/KillYourself.html

From the article:
"Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly
different from production aircraft."

The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?

> Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours

That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.

[snip]

> Check out the graph here too:
>
> http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm

What part of the graph has anything to say about the safety numbers of
homebuilts?

> Experimentals are here to stay.

Really? Gosh!

[snip]

> If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
report:

"Comparison with Factory Aircraft:
In 2002, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 196 accidents. Of these,
60 fatal accidents resulted in 79 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes
in 2002 were involved in 1,276 accidents, of which 252 were fatal with
439 fatalities. Just over 30 percent of homebuilt aircraft accidents
resulted in fatalities, and 19.7 percent of the accidents in
factory-built airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that
there is a significantly higher risk of fatality in the event of an
accident in a homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built machine.
Although fatal homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased dramatically in
2000, they increased to 19.2 percent in 2002. Historically, homebuilt
aircraft are involved in approximately 17 percent of all fatal
accidents."

> Hope this helps.

Ditto.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[jls]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> " jls" wrote:
> > http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/KillYourself/KillYourself.html
>
> From the article:
> "Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly
> different from production aircraft."
>
> The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?
>
> > Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours
>
> That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Check out the graph here too:
> >
> > http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
>
> What part of the graph has anything to say about the safety numbers of
> homebuilts?
>
> > Experimentals are here to stay.
>
> Really? Gosh!
>
> [snip]
>
> > If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.
>
> Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
> Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
> report:
>
> "Comparison with Factory Aircraft:
> In 2002, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 196 accidents. Of these,
> 60 fatal accidents resulted in 79 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes
> in 2002 were involved in 1,276 accidents, of which 252 were fatal with
> 439 fatalities. Just over 30 percent of homebuilt aircraft accidents
> resulted in fatalities, and 19.7 percent of the accidents in
> factory-built airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that
> there is a significantly higher risk of fatality in the event of an
> accident in a homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built machine.
> Although fatal homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased dramatically in
> 2000, they increased to 19.2 percent in 2002. Historically, homebuilt
> aircraft are involved in approximately 17 percent of all fatal
> accidents."
>
> > Hope this helps.
>
> Ditto.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Dan Luke" > said:
>> If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.
>
>Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
>Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
>report:

The biggest weakness with the Nall report, and one which they admit in the
report itself, is that they don't have "per flight hour" figures. If home
builders are more likely to get out and fly their aircraft rather than let
them sit mouldering with weeds growing through the landing gear, than the
higher proportion of accidents means nothing. On the other hand, if the
non-experimentals get flown on long distance night IFR while the
experimentals get flown for local $100 hamburger runs, those figures might
be covering up a much worse accident rate.

We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody makes a
long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of flying versus
accidents across the whole fleet.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Microsoft - Where quality is job 1.0.1

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:25:27 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Dan Luke" > said:
>>> If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.
>>
>>Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
>>Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
>>report:
>
>The biggest weakness with the Nall report, and one which they admit in the
>report itself, is that they don't have "per flight hour" figures. If home
>builders are more likely to get out and fly their aircraft rather than let
>them sit mouldering with weeds growing through the landing gear, than the
>higher proportion of accidents means nothing. On the other hand, if the
>non-experimentals get flown on long distance night IFR while the
>experimentals get flown for local $100 hamburger runs, those figures might
>be covering up a much worse accident rate.
>
>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody makes a
>long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of flying versus
>accidents across the whole fleet.

Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.

Ron "self-plugging" Wanttaja

[Jim Rosinski]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
>>makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
>>flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.
>
> Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.

How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
Jim Rosinski

[Jim Rosinski]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
>>makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
>>flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.
>
> Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.

How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
Jim Rosinski

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>
>>>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
>>>makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
>>>flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.
>>
>>Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.
>
>
> How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
> wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
> about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
> Jim Rosinski
>

The brief summary is that amateur built experimental airplanes are more
dangerous than their spam can counterparts.


Matt

[[email protected]]

Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

I'm asking because I'm looking to buy one.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> " jls" wrote:
>> http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/KillYourself/KillYourself.html
>
> From the article:
> "Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly different
> from production aircraft."
>
> The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?
>
>> Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours
>
> That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Check out the graph here too:
>>
>> http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
>
> What part of the graph has anything to say about the safety numbers of
> homebuilts?
>
>> Experimentals are here to stay.
>
> Really? Gosh!
>
> [snip]
>
>> If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.
>
> Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF Nall
> report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the report:
>
> "Comparison with Factory Aircraft:
> In 2002, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 196 accidents. Of these, 60
> fatal accidents resulted in 79 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes in
> 2002 were involved in 1,276 accidents, of which 252 were fatal with 439
> fatalities. Just over 30 percent of homebuilt aircraft accidents resulted
> in fatalities, and 19.7 percent of the accidents in factory-built
> airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that there is a
> significantly higher risk of fatality in the event of an accident in a
> homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built machine. Although fatal
> homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased dramatically in 2000, they
> increased to 19.2 percent in 2002. Historically, homebuilt aircraft are
> involved in approximately 17 percent of all fatal accidents."
>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> Ditto.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

" wrote:
>
> Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
> thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

According to Clarke's book, cruise for a 172RG at 75% power is 161 mph.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Dan Luke]

" wrote:

> Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH?
> I thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

It will actually do a bit more, just like the one I used to rent. It's
not modified.

> I'm asking because I'm looking to buy one.

I'm about to put mine up for sale -- it's a great airplane but I need
more room. I'll be looking for a C-210.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

I used to flight plan 140-145 knots when my flying club had one.
With two on board and the gear up, they have a tremendous glide!

wrote:
> Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
> thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 31 Dec 2004 11:38:32 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
>>>makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
>>>flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.
>>
>> Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.
>
>How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
>wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
>about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.

A brief summary is tough, when we're talking a 3000+ word article with a bunch
of graphs (I was the author of the article).

The biggest problem with a summary is that it's tough to include all the
cautions and caveats about the input data used. I can't guarantee the results
the article show are accurate, except within the framework of the data and
assumptions used. I've had several email exchanges with folks who didn't agree
with some of the assumptions I used. That's fine...*that's* why I explained my
processes in the article.

But on a summary... it's tough to make it clear where errors could have been
introduced. Given a couple of days, I can probably get the entire article
online. But let me give what summary I can, now.

The study was based on homebuilt aircraft accidents from 1998 to 2000,
inclusive. I downloaded the full NTSB accident summaries for each of those
years. For each accident involving a homebuilt, I studied the narrative and
made my *own* assessment of the cause of the accident. I did the same for
Cessna 172 and 210 accidents (to provide a baseline of comparison of causes). I
referred to these as "Accident Initiators," leaving the phase "Probable Cause"
to the NTSB.

In addition, I already possessed the FAA Registration databases for July 1997
and January 2001. I determined the average "fleet size" for homebuilts and for
the total US registered aircraft for the 1998-2000 time period.

This leads to one problem with the input data. Each registry entry includes a
field for an Airworthiness Classification code. This code will be "1" for a
Standard Category aircraft, "2" for Limited category, "3" for restricted, "4"
for Experimental, and so forth.

Supposedly, this code is assigned when the airplane receives an airworthiness
certificate. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen with homebuilts...I've
found a number of operational aircraft that have a blank in this field. I've
also found a number of aircraft still under construction that *do* have an
entry.

A while back, I did a step-by-step analysis of the FAA registration database,
and found about 4000 aircraft with "homebuilt-like" names, that have
airworthiness column blank. How many of these airplanes are currently flying?
No one knows. But the FAA and EAA *only* count aircraft that are positively
indicated as Experimental, and have the appropriate code in another column that
indicates that they are Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. These are also the
only planes *I* counted in my analysis...basically because there was no reliable
way to tally the unmarked aircraft.

With that said: My analysis showed an average annual fleet accident rate of
1.05% for homebuilt aircraft, and 0.68% for all US-registered aircraft. The
Cessna-alone rate was probably more indicative of the GA rate, that was 0.72%.

If homebuilt aircraft during their first 40 hours of flight are eliminated from
the homebuilt accidents, the overall homebuilt rate drops to 0.85%.

Of more interest was determining the accident rate on a per-hour basis. There
are no real figures available. I attempted to approximate this, using the NTSB
accident reports. They include the model year of the accident aircraft, the
date of the accident, and the total time at the time of the accident. I used
these figures to determine the average hourly rate for various types of
aircraft.

Of importance was not, so much, the actual magnitude of the figures, but the
*relative* magnitude, between the two types of aircraft.

But this method had problems as well. It's easy to figure what "1972" in the
model year column means for a Cessna 150...but what does it mean for a
homebuilt? Was it the first year it was registered (which might be ten years
before the first flight), or the predicted completion date, or the actual date
the airplane made its first flight?

But I ran the figures. I came up with an average annual utilization rate for
homebuilts of around 55 hours. For single-engine, fixed-wing, non-agricultural
aircraft, the rate was about 155 hours per year. It results in homebuilts having
a accident rate per 100,000 flight hours about five times higher than the GA
average.

I'm personally skeptical of this figure. I think if one could extract the
*equivalent* operations from the production-aircraft accidents...e.g, only
aircraft that were personally owned and operated (homebuilt can't be rented,
etc.), I think the comparative figures would be closer to the fleet rate.

I'm skeptical of the five times higher rate... but that's the way my numbers
came out, that's what I put in the article, and that's what KITPLANES magazine
printed.

I'll probably do some work and get the whole article online in a bit.

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2004 11:38:32 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
>>>>makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
>>>>flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.
>>>
>>>Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.
>>
>>How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
>>wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
>>about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
>
>
> A brief summary is tough, when we're talking a 3000+ word article with a bunch
> of graphs (I was the author of the article).

Uh, Ron, I think your summary was longer than the original article... :-)


Matt

[jls]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> " jls" wrote:
> > http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/KillYourself/KillYourself.html
>
> From the article:
> "Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly
> different from production aircraft."
>
> The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?
>
> > Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours
>
> That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.

Still slow, Danny Boy, for all the fuel you're burnin'. Somebody in FAST
GLASS taxi by you smirking? Fast glass drivers laugh up their sleeves
while climbing out by your spamcan hanging there in a sort of a hover,
humiliating you, Danny?
>

Now you got all the numbers you need. Winnow them for yourself, or be
considered lazy like that 172.

[Dan Luke]

" jls" wrote:
> Now you got all the numbers you need. Winnow them for yourself, or be
> considered lazy like that 172.

Being called lazy by someone who failed to answer the original question,
or who failed to respond to any of the numbers he asked for doesn't
carry much sting.

....and BTW, the idea you've got that I don't like homebuilts is
something you made up in your head.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[jls]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> " jls" wrote:
> > Now you got all the numbers you need. Winnow them for yourself, or be
> > considered lazy like that 172.
>
> Being called lazy by someone who failed to answer the original question,
> or who failed to respond to any of the numbers he asked for doesn't
> carry much sting.
>
> ...and BTW, the idea you've got that I don't like homebuilts is
> something you made up in your head.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

Ah, no, Danny, I figured maybe you're just an envious wannabe owner of an
experimental when you associated experimentals with wacko Evel Knievel.

The point you ignore is the numbers are there, if you will but glean them.
And you (well, not YOU, but someone capable of *thinking* about it) should
consider that many experimental aircraft accidents are attributable, as the
writer who explained the solution to so many Grumman Cheetah accidents, to
lack of experience in the aircraft --- not the aircraft itself.

The predecessors of New Gasair can furnish anecdotal details: Until
somebody had a brilliant idea that pilots of 4-place Gasairs should get
instruction from an experienced pilot before flying them for the first time,
they were regularly dropping out of the sky.

Same for all the other experimental aircraft with performance which humbles
that 172 of yours. Same for ANY experimental aircraft which because of its
uniqueness klunky-footed 172 drivers are not usually equipped to handle it.

Bye, now.

[Jim Rosinski]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> A brief summary is tough, when we're talking a 3000+ word article
with a bunch
> of graphs (I was the author of the article).

Thanks very much for the detailed summary! That would be great if you
can get the entire article on-line. I realize there may be legal issues
involved with putting a magazine article on the web that anyone can
read for free.

Have to say that since the bottom line from your summary was that
homebuilts are involved in *more* accidents than their factory-built
counterparts, the credibility of the analysis goes up a few notches in
my book. And the reasoning you presented for many of the necessary
assumptions was sound, I think.

Jim Rosinski

[Dan Luke]

" jls" wrote:
> The point you ignore is the numbers are there, if you will but glean
them.

By "gleaning" I presume you mean "ignoring the ones jls can't face."
The fact remains that experimentals are 10.4% of the fleet and have 17%
of the fatal accidents, a statistic you have tried to weasel out of
confronting.

In case you have forgotten, you said experimentals have an "enviable"
safety record; I asked you by whom. Ever going to get around to
answering that question?

> And you (well, not YOU, but someone capable of *thinking* about it)
> should
> consider that many experimental aircraft accidents are attributable,
> as the
> writer who explained the solution to so many Grumman Cheetah
> accidents, to
> lack of experience in the aircraft --- not the aircraft itself.

Same thing goes for certified aircraft.

> The predecessors of New Gasair can furnish anecdotal details: Until
> somebody had a brilliant idea that pilots of 4-place Gasairs should
> get
> instruction from an experienced pilot before flying them for the first
> time,
> they were regularly dropping out of the sky.

Same thing goes for Cirrus Designs. So what?

> Same for all the other experimental aircraft with performance which
> humbles
> that 172 of yours. Same for ANY experimental aircraft which because
> of its
> uniqueness klunky-footed 172 drivers are not usually equipped to
> handle it.

You know as little about me as you do about examining accident
statistics; that is to say, virtually nothing.

> Bye, now.

AMF

[Jim Rosinski]

jls wrote:

> Still slow, Danny Boy, for all the fuel you're burnin'. Somebody in
> FAST GLASS taxi by you smirking? Fast glass drivers laugh up their
> sleeves while climbing out by your spamcan hanging there in a sort of
> a hover, humiliating you, Danny?

I'd say "Danny Boy" has pretty well humiliated *you* in the ongoing war
of words between you two in this thread, hotshot. Evidently you need to
compensate--for something.

Jim Rosinski

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
[Actually, I (Paul Tomblin) wrote this part:]
>>>>We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
>>>>makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
>>>>flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.

>I'm personally skeptical of this figure. I think if one could extract the
>*equivalent* operations from the production-aircraft accidents...e.g, only
>aircraft that were personally owned and operated (homebuilt can't be rented,
>etc.), I think the comparative figures would be closer to the fleet rate.

That's what I was getting at when I said somebody needs to make a study of
"hours flown and types of flying". Is it more dangerous or less dangerous
to be doing $100 hamburger runs in homebuilts versus production aircraft?
How about IFR? How about night winter IFR?

You've done a good job with the information available, but the information
that could help somebody make an informed decision as to whether the type
of flying that they do is more or less dangerous in home-builts just isn't
there.

Personally, I am inclined to believe for normal droning along to a
destination flying, they're going to end up the same. Except for that
horrible spike in accident rates within the first 30 hours of flying a
homebuilt - it's that (and the fact that I can't stand for hours at a
time in the workshop like I did when I made my canoes) that keeps me away
from homebuilts.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Why are we hiding from the police, mommy?"
"Because we use vi, dear, and they use emacs."

[jls]

"Jim Rosinski" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> jls wrote:
>
> > Still slow, Danny Boy, for all the fuel you're burnin'. Somebody in
> > FAST GLASS taxi by you smirking? Fast glass drivers laugh up their
> > sleeves while climbing out by your spamcan hanging there in a sort of
> > a hover, humiliating you, Danny?
>
> I'd say "Danny Boy" has pretty well humiliated *you* in the ongoing war
> of words between you two in this thread, hotshot. Evidently you need to
> compensate--for something.
>
> Jim Rosinski
>

Ah, another embarrassed and disgruntled 172 driver. Well, I gotta admit, I
have a 172 too, but mine hasn't been banged up as badly as yours. And I
drain the sump before I fly.

Let me repeat, experimental aircraft enjoy an enviable record. You get
from this what you will, but what I get from it, though it shows need for
improvement (and that experimentals are getting it) is good:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/ARG0302.pdf

I am not flying an experimental at the moment. I have flown several which
were squirrelly and had demanding envelopes. Some are as docile as cubs.
I know people who buy and resell them and love them. I know people who
build and fly their own aircraft and are safe, respectable pilots with
beautiful airplanes. As the above article suggests comparing experimentals
to production aircraft may not be a valid exercise. If you and Danny want
to, have at it, but be fair. Safety records can always be improved, and the
record of experimentals is indeed improving. The FAA's DAR program and
other programs are making some progress:
http://www.airworthy.org/AWDAR.htm

Best luck to you and N3825Q.
(signed) Unhumbled Experimental Fan

[[email protected]]

I sorry George, Clarke who?


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " wrote:
>>
>> Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
>> thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?
>
> According to Clarke's book, cruise for a 172RG at 75% power is 161 mph.
>
> George Patterson
> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Jim Rosinski]

jls wrote:

> Ah, another embarrassed and disgruntled 172 driver. Well, I gotta
admit, I
> have a 172 too, but mine hasn't been banged up as badly as yours.

So you own a 172? Anyone else in this ng I wouldn't think of asking for
verification of such a simple claim. But since it's you, considering
your various insane rantings and the fact that you're hiding behind
initials, I find myself saying: Prove it.

Jim Rosinski

[G.R. Patterson III]

" wrote:
>
> I sorry George, Clarke who?

_The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes_ - Bill Clarke.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 1 Jan 2005 15:46:19 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" > wrote:

>jls wrote:
>
>> Ah, another embarrassed and disgruntled 172 driver. Well, I gotta
>admit, I
>> have a 172 too, but mine hasn't been banged up as badly as yours.
>
>So you own a 172? Anyone else in this ng I wouldn't think of asking for
>verification of such a simple claim. But since it's you, considering
>your various insane rantings and the fact that you're hiding behind
>initials, I find myself saying: Prove it.

Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial number
36034.

Is there a prize for this? :-)

Ron "Database Boy" Wanttaja

[Jim Rosinski]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial
number
> 36034.
>
> Is there a prize for this? :-)

Nah, no prize. I was just encouraging the 3-initial flame-meister to
stop hiding behind anonymity and tell us who he is. Folks who sign
their name tend to be less vitriolic, and in this case maybe stop
making stuff up about who likes what kind of airplane.

Jim Rosinski

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 1 Jan 2005 20:28:20 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial
>number
>> 36034.
>>
>> Is there a prize for this? :-)
>
>Nah, no prize. I was just encouraging the 3-initial flame-meister to
>stop hiding behind anonymity and tell us who he is. Folks who sign
>their name tend to be less vitriolic, and in this case maybe stop
>making stuff up about who likes what kind of airplane.

Well, I cheated, 'cause I know his name from another newsgroup. Don't know for
sure if the above S/N 172 is his, but the registered owner A) has the same last
name, B) Has the same "JLS" initials, C) Has a middle name the same as JLS has
used as a first name on that other group, and D) is from the same state that I
recall JLS is from.

Ron Wanttaja

[jls]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Jan 2005 20:28:20 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" > wrote:
>
> >Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial
> >number
> >> 36034.
> >>
> >> Is there a prize for this? :-)
> >
> >Nah, no prize. I was just encouraging the 3-initial flame-meister to
> >stop hiding behind anonymity and tell us who he is. Folks who sign
> >their name tend to be less vitriolic, and in this case maybe stop
> >making stuff up about who likes what kind of airplane.
>
> Well, I cheated, 'cause I know his name from another newsgroup. Don't
know for
> sure if the above S/N 172 is his, but the registered owner A) has the same
last
> name, B) Has the same "JLS" initials, C) Has a middle name the same as JLS
has
> used as a first name on that other group, and D) is from the same state
that I
> recall JLS is from.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

Well, thanks, Ron, hint taken. No use in throwing gasoline on a fire to
quench it. If this group has no more crickets than one or two, then it's
healthy and vibrant and should be cultivated. Your gentlemanly demeanor, as
well as your eloquent ability to post helpful information, is appreciated.

We had a couple of 65-degree sunny days lately, suitable for open cockpits
and Fly Babies. So many airplanes, so little time.