X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from m12.lax.untd.com ([64.136.30.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with SMTP id 1149252 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:21:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.30.75; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from m12.lax.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m12.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABCJYW7HAX8BXM2 for (sender ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from alwick@juno.com) by m12.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id LSJSXW2E; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:19:34 PDT To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:17:23 -0700 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ignition Failure Message-ID: <20060610.161856.2780.3.alwick@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_056b.5d43.5846 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6,10-11,22-31,33-34,40-41,46-47,54-55,57-69,75-76,86-87,95-106,108-109,112-114,121-125,128,135-140,147-150,154-155,158-159,164-167,169-173,178-179,184-185,188-189,191-192,194-195,200-201,204-264,266-267,270-300,301-32767 From: al p wick X-ContentStamp: 6:3:1586690388 X-MAIL-INFO: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 c71e4e4fce17c71b9f9eeec727ce9b8efeb3 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkAgTeYS8gaHkG8hSYdhGDwb/PoyCnJbKeg== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m12.lax.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_056b.5d43.5846 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The purpose for mentioning how most cars handle this was to stimulate discussion about solutions. Most people are not aware of this characteristic. In particular the logic of using toothed wheel with pulse gaps. Yes, 3 of the four crank sensor failures I know about had wiring as direct cause. I was hoping readers could consider the OTHER causes....like, yeah, it would be lower risk if the ECU handled fault better. John would hear one burp, then ECU would say "Hey, lost crank signal". I want to encourage smarter ECU's that help out when there is no crank signal. It's not that difficult to accomplish. I used to program robots and automated systems. It made huge difference in failure rate if I just made them a little smarter. Even though the failures were directly caused by a wiring problem. Do you see what I mean? It's about looking at other causes that contribute to the problem, that make the failure more severe. -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:11:32 -0400 "Ed Anderson" writes: Yes, automobile CPUs do have a much greater capability to do self diagnostics which can be helpful, but at the cost of added complexity (and you very well know what complexity in software can do {>). Now, if you have the staff to properly do software on that scale then that's a different story. I think we will see a limited diagnostic capability appear in the future - but I certainly couldn't say when. It still boils down to most of the incidents are not in the units themselves but in the area (like wiring/ plumbing/ etc) hooking these things together where most happen. So long as we "roll" our own then that is going to be an area that will offer the most potential for incidents. I don't think taking issue with a posting -if it contains inaccuracies, or appears out of context, or is intentionally misconstrued is necessarily defensive - just a matter of setting the record straight so that others will have a clear and accurate picture of what happened. Also, lets face it, e mails are certainly lacking as a communication medium, just too many way to read something - drawing incorrect inferences that were unintended. In any case, lets all agree to keep posting our incidents - it may save someone's bacon. Best Regards Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: al p wick To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 10:50 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ignition Failure I understand that it's totally natural to feel defensive in this situation. I know you may find this hard to believe, but the goal of the post is to help others reduce risk. It's not a personal attack. There's no rotary reference in it anywhere. As far as the readers know it's a piston engine. But I hope there's at least one person on this list that sees value of looking at the other causes. The essence of the post is accurate. Doesn't matter if you are near home base or not. Ignition failure is very high risk item. An ECU that was better at self diagnoses would have greatly reduced your risk. On your car, it would be recognized immediately. Ecu would say "Hey, my cam sensor just went thru it's normal 50 pulses per revolution with the normal 5 and 8 ms. gaps. But I didn't get the normal 20 pulses and signal gaps from the crank sensor. Turn on warning lamp and crank code. Use cam sensor for timing info." You don't see value in discussing stuff like this? If you guys just used toothed wheel with pulse gaps, then the ECU could easily self diagnose. You know what was cool on the other list? Guys came back with "confessions" of how this parallels a problem they encountered. 2 guys said, "yeah, I had partial failure, thought it was x, took off only to find it was y". Then other guys described changes they made to system that totally eliminated the risk. Some really creative stuff. Then we discussed just how risky crank sensor really is...we see one ever 1 1/2 to 2 years. Etc. Etc. Very positive experience that may save someone's life. That's the goal. -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:30:00 -0400 John Slade writes: Hi Tim, Isn't it wonderful how stories get twisted around as they fly from list to list. Obviously this particular twisted story relates to my recent experience, so let's dilute the fun a little by adding some truth. So he was flying along when his engine started crapping out. Actually I was in the pattern at my home field flight testing some minor modifications. The engine began to run rough above about 4600rpm. Below 4600, which is more than enough to maintain level flight, it ran perfectly. I circled the field for a few minutes to try to diagnose the problem by switching redundant coils, injectors, ECUs, fuel pumps and batteries, checking fuel pressures and adjusting mixture. Nothing changed so I made a normal landing (at my home field). I have the details correct You don't he fired his plane up after cool down. It sounded ok, so he proceeded to depart. Fortunately he lucked out again. His engine crapped out on takeoff run. He finally had to push it off the runway. Yes, I waited for the engine to cool down, then (after returning from a business trip a few days later) tried another runup with no intention of taking off. The runup was normal, so I did I high speed taxi run on the runway to try to replicate the problem. I was successful. The problem worsened as I pulled off the runway. This time max rpm was around 1100. Not enough to propel the plane so, yes. I pushed the plane 100' back to my hangar. 2) Making assumptions when diagnosing fault. No doubt this failure could be difficult to diagnose. But we all have tendency to jump to conclusions, hope for the best, etc. We are all influenced the most recent discussions. We are at strange airport and want to get back home. No assumptions were made. It was considered a possibility that the coils might be the problem since similar symptoms had been experienced by another flyer. Unlike other possible causes, coils take a while to obtain, so a spare set was ordered while I was out of town IN CASE they were at issue. This way they would be at hand if needed. As it happens, they weren't. The decision to order new coils was simply one of logistics. 4) Using marginal components. If he wasn't using known marginal coils, he would not have jumped to that false conclusion. The LS1 coils have an excellent reputation, with only one reported failure on an aircraft of which I'm aware. I have 2 coils per rotor with switching to defeat each set in turn during runup. The engine runs well with either set switched off. While we're speaking of assumptions, making them in third hand reports of a fault and subsequent fix, while entertaining, is totally counterproductive with respect to learning from others mistakes. The truth is that the rotary has two crank angle sensors, and ran smoothly with what may have been an intermittent fault on one sensor. The RTV was, in fact, used to seal the end of the connector and was well away from the soldered connection. I suspect either a bad solder joint or insufficient strain relief as the probable causes. John Slade PS Feel free to post "The rest of the story" back to wherever the rumor mongers lurk Timothy Peters wrote: All, I'm going to risk the wrath of the anti-cross posters and post here what I read on one of the Fly Subaru lists. I was hoping someone else here might have caught it and raised the issue with the group, but I haven't seen anything yet. (Although I do run perpetually 2 days behind.) It was weighing too heavily on my mind to let it pass. It may help to know that I have not made a final decision about what type of engine I am going to use, so I monitor several different mailing lists... John Slade has told me I don't even need to worry about an engine until I get an airframe built... or even decide which airframe to build. ;-) I'm primarily looking at the Cozy IV and the design changes I'm considering involve engine type. I will be deciding on an engine before building. So far I'm thinking Bruce T. built 13B turbo-equalized with RWS redrive and EC2. (I'm also kicking around a H6 turbo Subie engine). But this raises a question about fault tolerance, specifically how non-OEM engine controllers handle such things as a failed crank sensor. I did get irritated with the rounds of self congratulatory rhetoric and Darwin jokes that passed back and forth after this post. One following post even boasted that, unlike this silly bloke, he used bullet proof GM coils. To his credit, the original poster did return that the suspected failed coils were GM coils. Well, time to separate the facts from the hot air... where do we stand with sensor faults and how do they affect the RWS controller verses an OEM controller? Couple weeks ago one of the guys had ignition failure on his conversion. There were so many contributing causes, so much to be learned by his experience. Fortunately he and his plane survived, although we should all pretend it didn't turn out so well. I've been harping a few years now on the need for the custom ignition systems to handle sensor faults better. This failure would have been lower risk if he had such a system. So he was flying along when his engine started crapping out. Wisely he took precautionary landing. Recently there were newsgroup discussions about a certain brand of coil giving out from heat. So he assumed that was what he was experiencing. If I have the details correct, he fired his plane up after cool down. It sounded ok, so he proceeded to depart. Fortunately he lucked out again. His engine crapped out on takeoff run. He finally had to push it off the runway. The direct cause? He lost his crank sensor. The wire connector was corroded. Reportedly he adapted OEM plug to the sensor and used RTV as a strain relief. I never knew this but I'm told RTV cures using a chemical that can corrode electrical contacts. Coupled with the fact that he flies in corrosive part of country (humid Florida). So here are all the causes. I attach significance to them all. Many of them we are all vulnerable to. 1) Custom wiring of critical component using unproven method (RTV). He had good intentions, but inadvertently caused a problem. This is very common failure scenario. All custom work is high risk. 2) Making assumptions when diagnosing fault. No doubt this failure could be difficult to diagnose. But we all have tendency to jump to conclusions, hope for the best, etc. We are all influenced the most recent discussions. We are at strange airport and want to get back home. 3) Use of unintelligent custom ignition system. Your car in this scenario would have immediately turned on the check engine light and the code for "bad crank sensor" would be sent. This ignition system boasts dual computer and all that, yet is vulnerable to crank sensor. I sure want to encourage these suppliers to improve fault handling. 4) Using marginal components. If he wasn't using known marginal coils, he would not have jumped to that false conclusion. 5) No discussion of contributing causes. We don't learn from these situations if we don't pursue the other causes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Duffy To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Shoe Goo Research, Was Re: Protecting splices DAMHIKT. > > OK, I give up. What does it mean? :) Don't Ask Me How I Know This Pretty soon, "acronym" will be an official language, without any words :-) BTW, a belated congrats to Jason on his first flight, Joe on his continued testing, and a big thanks to John for getting the hell out of my state :-) Cheers, Rusty (Kolb on Ebay as I type) -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html ----__JNP_000_056b.5d43.5846 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The purpose for mentioning how most cars handle this was to stimulate= =20 discussion about solutions. Most people are not aware of this = characteristic. In=20 particular the logic of using toothed wheel with pulse gaps.
 
Yes, 3 of the four crank sensor failures I know about had wiring as = direct=20 cause. I was hoping readers could consider the OTHER causes....like, yeah, = it=20 would be lower risk if the ECU handled fault better. John would hear one = burp,=20 then ECU would say "Hey, lost crank signal". I want to encourage smarter = ECU's=20 that help out when there is no crank signal. It's not that difficult to=20 accomplish. I used to program robots and automated systems. It made huge=20 difference in failure rate if I just made them a little smarter. Even = though the=20 failures were directly caused by a wiring problem. Do you see what I mean? = It's=20 about looking at other causes that contribute to the problem, that make the= =20 failure more severe.
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by= =20 stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland,=20 Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel = design=20 info:
http:= //www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:11:32 -0400 "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>= =20 writes:
 
Yes, automobile CPUs do have a much greater = capability=20 to do self diagnostics which can be helpful, but at the cost of added=20 complexity (and you very well know what complexity in software can do&= nbsp;=20 {>).  Now, if you have the staff to properly do software on that = scale=20 then that's a different story.  I think we will see a limited = diagnostic=20 capability appear in the future - but I certainly couldn't say=20 when.
 
It still boils down to most of the incidents are = not in=20 the units themselves but in the area (like wiring/ plumbing/ etc) hooking= =20 these things together where most happen.  So long as we "roll" our = own=20 then that is going to be an area that will offer the most potential for=20 incidents.
 
I don't think taking issue with a posting -if it= =20 contains inaccuracies, or appears out of context, or is intentionally=20 misconstrued is necessarily defensive - just a matter of setting the= =20 record straight so that others will have a clear and accurate picture of = what=20 happened.  Also, lets face it, e mails are certainly lacking as a=20 communication medium, just too many way to read something - drawing = incorrect=20 inferences that were unintended.
 
In any case, lets all agree to keep posting our=20 incidents - it may save someone's bacon.
 
Best Regards
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
= From:=20 al p wick
To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 10= :50=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Ignition=20 Failure

I understand that it's totally natural to feel defensive in this=20 situation. I know you may find this hard to believe, but the goal of = the=20 post is to help others reduce risk. It's not a personal attack. There's= no=20 rotary reference in it anywhere. As far as the readers know it's a = piston=20 engine.  But I hope there's at least one person on this list that= =20 sees value of looking at the other causes.
 
The essence of the post is accurate. Doesn't matter if you are = near=20 home base or not. Ignition failure is very high risk item. An ECU that = was=20 better at self diagnoses would have greatly reduced your risk. On your = car,=20 it would be recognized immediately. Ecu would say "Hey, my cam sensor = just=20 went thru it's normal 50 pulses per revolution with the normal 5 and 8 = ms.=20 gaps. But I didn't get the normal 20 pulses and signal gaps from = the=20 crank sensor. Turn on warning lamp and crank code. Use cam sensor for = timing=20 info." You don't see value in discussing stuff like this? If you guys = just=20 used toothed wheel with pulse gaps, then the ECU could easily self = diagnose.=20
 
You know what was cool on the other list? Guys came back with=20 "confessions" of how this parallels a problem they encountered. 2 = guys=20 said, "yeah, I had partial failure, thought it was x, took off only to = find=20 it was y". Then other guys described changes they made to system that=20 totally eliminated the risk. Some really creative stuff. Then we = discussed=20 just how risky crank sensor really is...we see one ever 1 1/2 to 2 = years.=20 Etc. Etc. Very positive experience that may save someone's life. That's= the=20 goal.
 
 
 
 
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:30:00 -0400 John Slade <sladerj@bellsouth.net>=20 writes:
Hi Tim,
Isn't it wonderful how stories get twisted around as = they=20 fly from list to list. Obviously this particular twisted story = relates to=20 my recent experience, so let's dilute the fun a little by adding some= =20 truth.

So he was flying along when = his=20 engine started crapping out.
Actually I was= in the=20 pattern at my home field flight testing some minor modifications. The= =20 engine began to run rough above about 4600rpm. Below 4600, which is = more=20 than enough to maintain level flight, it ran perfectly. I circled the= =20 field for a few minutes to try to diagnose the problem by switching=20 redundant coils, injectors, ECUs, fuel pumps and batteries, checking = fuel=20 pressures and adjusting mixture. Nothing changed so I made a normal=20 landing (at my home field).

I have the details correct
You=20 don't

he fired his plane up after cool down. It sounded= ok,=20 so he proceeded to depart. Fortunately he lucked out again. His = engine=20 crapped out on takeoff run. He finally had to push it off the=20 runway.
Yes, I waited for the engine to cool down, = then=20 (after returning from a business trip a few days later) tried another= =20 runup with no intention of taking off. The runup was normal, so I did= I=20 high speed taxi run on the runway to try to replicate the problem. I = was=20 successful. The problem worsened as I pulled off the runway. This = time max=20 rpm was around 1100. Not enough to propel the plane so, yes. I pushed= the=20 plane 100' back to my hangar.

2) = Making=20 assumptions when diagnosing fault. No doubt this failure could
be= =20 difficult to diagnose. But we all have tendency to jump to
= conclusions,=20 hope for the best, etc. We are all influenced the most
recent=20 discussions. We are at strange airport and want to get back=20 home.
No assumptions were made. It was considered a=20 possibility that the coils might be the problem since similar = symptoms had=20 been experienced by another flyer. Unlike other possible causes, = coils=20 take a while to obtain, so a spare set was ordered while I was out of= town=20 IN CASE they were at issue. This way they would be at hand if needed.= As=20 it happens, they weren't. The decision to order new coils was simply = one=20 of logistics.

4) Using marginal = components.=20 If he wasn't using known marginal coils, he
would not have jumped = to=20 that false conclusion.
The LS1 coils have an excellent= =20 reputation, with only one reported failure on an aircraft of which I'= m=20 aware. I have 2 coils per rotor with switching to defeat each set in = turn=20 during runup. The engine runs well with either set  switched=20 off.

While we're speaking of assumptions, making them in third= hand=20 reports of a fault and subsequent fix, while entertaining,  is=20 totally counterproductive with respect to learning from others=20 mistakes.

The truth is that the rotary has two crank angle = sensors,=20 and ran smoothly with what may have been an intermittent fault on one= =20 sensor. The RTV was, in fact, used to seal the end of the connector = and=20 was well away from the soldered connection. I suspect either a bad = solder=20 joint or insufficient strain relief as the probable causes.

= John=20 Slade

PS Feel free to post "The rest of the story" back to = wherever=20 the rumor mongers lurk

Timothy Peters wrote:
All,
 
I'm going to risk the wrath of the= =20 anti-cross posters and post here what I read on one = of=20 the Fly Subaru lists.  I was hoping someone else here might = have=20 caught it and raised the issue with the group, but I haven't seen=20 anything yet. (Although I do run perpetually 2 days behind.)  = It=20 was weighing too heavily on my mind to let it pass.
 
It may help to know that I have = not made a=20 final decision about what type of engine I am going to use, so I = monitor=20 several different mailing lists...  John Slade has told me I = don't=20 even need to worry about an engine until I get an = airframe=20 built... or even decide which airframe to build. ;-)
 
I'm primarily looking at the Cozy= =20 IV and the design changes I'm considering involve engine= =20 type.  I will be deciding on an engine before building. = =20
 
So far I'm thinking Bruce T. built= =20 13B turbo-equalized with RWS redrive and EC2.  (I'm = also=20 kicking around a H6 turbo Subie engine).
 
But this raises a question about = fault=20 tolerance, specifically how non-OEM engine controllers handle such= =20 things as a failed crank sensor. 
 
I did get irritated with the = rounds of self=20 congratulatory rhetoric and Darwin jokes that passed back and forth= =20 after this post.  One following post even boasted that, unlike= this=20 silly bloke, he used bullet proof GM coils.  To his credit, = the=20 original poster did return that the suspected failed coils = were GM=20 coils.
 
Well, time to separate the facts = from the=20 hot air...  where do we stand with sensor faults and how do = they=20 affect the RWS controller verses an OEM controller?
 
Couple weeks ago one of the=20 guys had ignition failure on his conversion.
There= were=20 so many contributing causes, so much to be learned by his
= experience.=20 Fortunately he and his plane survived, although we should all
= pretend=20 it didn't turn out so well.

I've been harping a few years = now on=20 the need for the custom ignition
systems to handle sensor faults= =20 better. This failure would have been
lower risk if he had such a= =20 system. So he was flying along when his
engine started crapping = out.=20 Wisely he took precautionary landing.
Recently there were = newsgroup=20 discussions about a certain brand of coil
giving out from heat. = So he=20 assumed that was what he was experiencing. If
I have the details= =20 correct, he fired his plane up after cool down. It
sounded ok, = so he=20 proceeded to depart. Fortunately he lucked out again.
His engine= =20 crapped out on takeoff run. He finally had to push it off=20 the
runway.

The direct cause? He lost his crank sensor. = The=20 wire connector was
corroded. Reportedly he adapted OEM plug to = the=20 sensor and used RTV as a
strain relief. I never knew this but I'= m=20 told RTV cures using a chemical
that can corrode electrical = contacts.=20 Coupled with the fact that he flies
in corrosive part of country= =20 (humid Florida).

So here are all the causes. I attach=20 significance to them all. Many of
them we are all vulnerable=20 to.

1) Custom wiring of critical component using unproven = method=20 (RTV). He
had good intentions, but inadvertently caused a = problem.=20 This is very
common failure scenario. All custom work is high=20 risk.

2) Making assumptions when diagnosing fault. No doubt = this=20 failure could
be difficult to diagnose. But we all have tendency= to=20 jump to
conclusions, hope for the best, etc. We are all = influenced=20 the most
recent discussions. We are at strange airport and want = to=20 get back home.

3) Use of unintelligent custom ignition = system.=20 Your car in this scenario
would have immediately turned on the = check=20 engine light and the code for
"bad crank sensor" would be sent. = This=20 ignition system boasts dual
computer and all that, yet is = vulnerable=20 to crank sensor. I sure want to
encourage these suppliers to = improve=20 fault handling.

4) Using marginal components. If he wasn't = using=20 known marginal coils, he
would not have jumped to that false=20 conclusion.

5) No discussion of contributing causes. We don'= t=20 learn from these
situations if we don't pursue the other=20 causes.
-----=20 Original Message ----- From:=20 Russell Duffy To:=20 Rotary motors in=20 aircraft Sent:=20 Monday, June 05, 2006 9:22 PM Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Shoe Goo Research, Was Re: Protecting splices

 DAMHIKT.
>
>
OK, I give up= . =20 What does it mean? :)

= Don't Ask Me=20 How I Know This
 
= Pretty soon,=20 "acronym" will be an official language, without any words=20 :-)
 
= BTW, a belated=20 congrats to Jason on his first flight, Joe on his continued = testing,=20 and a big thanks to John for getting the hell out of my state=20 :-)
 
Cheers,
= Rusty (Kolb on=20 Ebay as I type)





--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence= in=20 cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on=20 engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install= ,=20 Risk assessment, Glass panel design=20 info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html<= BR>
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in= =20 cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on=20 engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, = Risk=20 assessment, Glass panel design=20 info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
----__JNP_000_056b.5d43.5846--