Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <443D225E.2000606@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:53:02 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Best Non-Certified Engine???
References: <list-1066273@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1066273@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:

> Greetings,
>  
> I just noticed that this year's winner of the best non-certified 
> engine is a Europa, with what looks like a 912S/912ULS. 
>  
> What's up with this?  While the 912ULS is not certified, I understand 
> that it's the same as the 912S, which is certified.  The only 
> difference I'm aware of is the price and paperwork.  This also appears 
> to be the standard engine for the Europa.  Hard to believe this should 
> win over people who use truly alternate engines, and roll their own 
> FWF installation.

But it's all clean and shiny.  We all know that is what makes an engine 
safe, reliable, light, powerful and cheap.  Besides, how else would you 
define "best"?

>  
> This gives me an idea.  My RV-8 has an AeroSport O-360 that just 
> arrived.  Since this is an "experimental only" engine, I should be 
> able to enter the "best non-certified engine" judging next year :-)
>  


Have all the aluminum parts anodize shiny red, make straight hose runs 
(even if that means laying them against the muffler), and leave off 
anything that might create clutter under the cowl (like airfilters or 
proper ducting) and you'll win for sure.   Shucks, you can just attach 
rubber hoses with spring clamps and no one will blink an eye, as long as 
they're painted nicely.

I've always thought the big show awards were a farce.  The winning 
requirements all seem to boil down to 'glitz'.  No consideration seems 
to be given to how the glitz got there, who did it, or whether it was 
useful.  No consideration is given for advancing the state of the art 
(reducing cost, increasing safety, reducing complexity / pilot workload, 
reducing drag, increasing speed, etc.)  It's all "Oooh!  Shiny things.  
Purdy. Me like."

-- 
         ,|"|"|,               Ernest Christley     |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----     Dyke Delta Builder    |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |