Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: flyrotary Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:45:39 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [205.152.58.82] (HELO imf22bis.bellsouth.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b9) with ESMTP id 1802869 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:07:43 -0400 Received: from johns ([209.215.55.114]) by imf22bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20021011030712.UYCF7695.imf22bis.bellsouth.net@johns> for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:07:12 -0400 From: "John Slade" X-Original-To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto Coversion Judging X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:07:41 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Ed, Perhaps the judging of "Alternative Engines" could be a good thing... if it were done right. Let me try and add something constructive here. For example: Giving points for having a "home made" redrive rather than an "off the shelf" one bothers me because I believe it takes us in the wrong direction. Safety is issue number 1, and unless the judger is an engineer, and is going to strip the redrive down and examine the engineering and design in detail, the judgement must be based on outward appearance. So... what would be meaningful and constructive criterea? Look at fuel, cooling, oil, electrical. intake and exhaust systems for redundancy, safety and failure points. Disregard appearance entirely. Disregard quality of workmanship as it relates to aesthetics. Performance information and proven reliability would be valuable. Consider cost LAST. My 2c. John Slade