Thanks, Doug

    I agree with your assessment and I think many of us do.  Not to take
away from those who have the talent and dedication to produce a "Show
Plane", I for one admire what it takes.  With so many kit built planes

now a

days, cosmetic differentiation is about all you can expect in many

cases.

However, I believe most of us on the list feel that auto conversions

simply

needs a different criteria about what is important.  I certainly don't

hold

it against the judges who volunteer their time and have to go by the
criteria in the EAA Judging Handbook (for the most part).

    I almost immediately received a somewhat irate e mail from the SERFI
(apparently the EAA immediately sent it to them and I probably should

have

done the same) and we continue to disagree on some points (including the
cosmetic aspect of judging and whether experimentation is still a focus

of

the EAA).  However, the good news appears to be that the SERFI has

appointed

an Auto Conversion board with Dick Simpson as its head to work out a
meaningful criteria.  While much remains to be done on establishing a
criteria, it appears that the point has been make that the focus should

be

on the FWF aspects.  A couple of their initial thoughts on criteria was

not

that bad and if they maintain that focus, just might come up with a
meaningful set.

    For example, the judging would be limited to auto conversions done

by

individuals and no factory FWF kits would qualify .  One the other hand

you

won't have to build your own PSRU as that - and certain other components
(not defined as yet) could be purchased.  However, if you did build your

won

PSRU you would probably garner more points.  Aircraft appearance would

not

be completely done away with, but would probably be used more as a "tie
breaker" between auto conversions.

In any case, I have offered to pull together some criteria for input to

this

committee.  You know how it goes, if you complain then your' asked to

put up

or shut up {:>).  I would appreciate any suggestions as to approach and
criteria input.  I personally think that perhaps a FWF should be first
broken into areas such as:  Engine Mount.  PSRU.  Engine. Ignition. Fuel
System, etc.  Then perhaps a set of common criteria for each section

such as

1. Soundness of Design 2. Reliability 3.  Fail safe/graceful

considerations

or what ever makes sense and can be judged. Perhaps there should also be

an

"Innovation factor" for extra points?   No doubt subjective will still

be

there in the judging, but this would help.  So send me any suggestions

and

I'll try to organize and pull it all together and then present it to the
list for comments.

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.

Ed (Stir up the Pot) Anderson

DRAWINGS!!!???? !&@(**)@#*()!()!*~&* Should the installation not speak for
itself?
Are these people from ISO9000 or what? Technical data yes. Flight test data
yes.
But drawings No. Drawings are way behind the times anyway. Shall we submit a
CD with
3D design data? Can they read it? Do they know that a rotary is not a piston
engine etc, etc
etc.

I share your frustration. But as in the rest of life; If you are worried
what the filthy unwashed
think of your efforts, you will die bitter and unhappy. Most free opinions
are worth what they
cost.

Monty

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.