"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