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/Kil...lYourself.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