Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:20:30 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1802682@logan.com>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
References: <list-1802027@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto Coversion Judging
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:27 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto Coversion Judging


> Ed Anderson wrote:
>
> >One thing of interest, they indicated that they are considering requiring
> >"Technical Data" and perhaps "Drawings".  While I think this could be
good,
> >it could turn into a paper mill, so any thoughts in this area would be
> >appreciated.
> >
> >
> Well, the judges usually judge a line of planes that are on display.
>  Call this  category "Presentation".  The criteria will be how well the
> installation is explained throught placards, tags, or even a seperate
> stand with a poster or notebook.  Extra points given for engineering
> data, sources of inspiration or further explanation, explanations of
> construction techniques, etc.  Basically, get past "Is the paint
> pretty", and onto "How cool is this plane".  To often in "experimental"
> aviation, the knowledge gained through an experiment is locked up and
> forgotten.  Why not make our hobby more like the scientific community
> where the reward only comes when the information is shared.
>
Good point, Earnest.  Sharing the data gained through auto conversions is
what most of us try to do.  Perhaps the "presentation" would convey that
information to the newcomer in a more standardized and useful format.  Any
suggestions about what should be presented as "Data"?

Ed Anderson