ET,
I don't remember any posts warning of the dangers of flying the BUFF, it's "poor" design, or commenting about the dangers of flying it.
Maybe there were some, just don't remember seeing any until after the crash, and certainly not in these numbers.
You, of course, are entitled to your opinion as am I about the project.
I don't think Gordon went into this project to be "innovative", just wanted to build his project as best he could, and he did just that.
The facts remain that it did not break apart in flight and no one was injured in the crash, so it couldn've been that poorly designed.
What might have happened or could have happened doesn't matter, it's what DID happen that matters.
Now, if he'd make his next project a B-58, THAT would be something to see.
BRG,
Jon

"and certainly not in these numbers. "
Well, THAT's true. But certainly me and a lot of other people were saying..."hmm...that's too much..." well before either crash. But that was an unpopular opinion that got shouted down...until, like you point out, after the crash. Things change, funny, huh? But I have the same opinion, before and after both crashes...that this model is too much, and if you ARE going to build something this big, you need to seriously re-think HOW it is being built.

"The facts remain that it did not break apart in flight and no one was injured in the crash, so it couldn've been that poorly designed.
What might have happened or could have happened doesn't matter, it's what DID happen that matters."

Now THAT I patently disagree with. I think failure was inevitable due to the structures and thinking used. I think 50 flights proves very little, and that sooner than later, there would have been some sort of structural failure.
So simple. Go take a coat hanger and bend it back and forth. Looks fine, right? Go bend it back and forth fifty times...now what do you have? A broken coat hanger. And when you are talking about a 300 pound model, you had better do some more serious testing and engineering, just adding more balsa, ply, and epoxy is not going to cut it.
I have nothing against the builder, and he did it under the auspices of the LMA...but have you noticed they would not approve a third one? What does that say to you?

ET,
"think 50 flights proves very little"
How many flights would it take?

"and that sooner than later, there would have been some sort of structural failure"
Gordon is criticized for not doing structural analysis, what type of data do you or others have to predict how many cycles, hours, flights, or the parameter of your choice, that will lead to failure? You may be right that it could've failed at some point, all we know for sure is the failure point is beyond 50 flights.

"but have you noticed they would not approve a third one? What does that say to you?"
Says nothing to me, I wouldn't have built the second one, but that's just me. I never build the same model twice; once I've done it it's time to move on to bigger and better things, but obviously many modelers feel otherwise. I know nothing about the legal system in the UK, maybe the LMA was covering their collective butts; I have no idea why they wouldn't sanction another one, or why Gordon would want to build a third one. You'd have to ask LMA on the first part and Gordon on the second part.
BRG,
Jon

Dear Guys

I am looking for guys practicing Airliners

It seems that Eddie has got a DC10, but as some people here are from UK, did you hear if some in your country build Airliners ?

I own a 1/16 scale A330-300

I will open a thread about Jet airliners

Will

Eddie sold both DC-10s. The first one (FedEx) was since destroyed. Not sure what happened to #2 (UPS).

In my experience, the difficult thing about analyzing these things is the estimation of the loads. I am a Stress analyst for Lockheed Martin on the Space Shuttle's External Tank, so the actual stress analysis is easy for me (gotta make some slightly conservative assumptions for wood strength). But what do you use for the loads? Typically what we have always done so far is guess at a max G level and go from there. But I think this is usually VERY conservative, thereby leading to way over-built structures.

Anyone know what they did for either B-52? Seems the British AMA would require some analysis demonstrating adequate margins.