Ed Anderson wrote:

Paul,

    Regarding your request for inputs on the alternate engine juding
criteria: Here is some thoughts I put together on the topic.  I don't

know

if there is anything here useful to you or not, but feel free to use it

as

you see fit.

Ed  Anderson

Alternate Aircraft Engines and Evaluation Criteria (Draft)

Purpose of Award(s): To recognize and encourage safe and well

thought-out

alternate engine (non-aircraft) experiments in keeping with the

educational

and recreational charter of amateur build aircraft.  The primary focus

is on

the FWF portion of the installation.  However, unique or innovative

engine

instruments, exhaust systems, or control or auxiliary systems which are
essential for safe engine operation are included in the FWF definition

even

if not actually forward of the firewall.  The idea is to promote the
development of less expensive and safer power plants for amateur built
aircraft.

Eligibility for Category

1. The aircraft must be currently certified under the experimental

amateur

build category (to preclude deep pocket commercial ventures from winning

the

award with their engine developments)

2. The engine installation was not purchased as an engineered package or
part of a commercially available kit.

3. The engine installation must primarily be a result of efforts of the
aircraft builder or a partner who participated in construction of

aircraft.

4. The aircraft powerplant was not originally designed or offered as an
aircraft powerplant

5. The aircraft must be currently in flyable status and at least 100

hours

of engine flight time has been accumulated.

Judging Criteria (Candidate factors)

1. Installation and airframe must be considered to safe in accordance

with

normal aircraft installation and maintenance practices.  Specific areas

that

should be considered for evaluation are:
a. Engine Mount  (Engine securely fastened to mount and mount to

airframe)

b. Fuel System (Fuel pumps, lines, etc connected and protected IAW

aircraft

practices)
c. Exhaust System (Vulnerable subsystems protected form heat)
d. Control System (Fail safe design, i.e. butterfly plate in throttle
body/carburetor opens in case of cable/control failure, redundant CPUs,

etc

if EFI)
e. Cooling System (Safely secured to airframe and coolant lines

protected)

f. Propeller Speed Reduction Unit (if not direct drive)
g. Engine Instruments suitable for installation (example: if water

cooled

then coolant temp and coolant pressure gauge, fuel pressure gauges,

etc.)

h. Propeller (If  non commercial variable pitch or of unique design)

2. Given experimental nature of Alternative Engine Installations,
special/additional credit should be considered for:
a. Evidence of special attention to "Fail Safe" or "Graceful

Degradation"

features of design such as Dual/Redundant System components so that

failure

or malfunction of one would still permit safe flight.  This could

include

dual batteries, ignition system components, fuel pumps, etc.
b. Presentation and availability of Technical Data regarding the engine

and

subsystem installations.  Idea is to encourage dissemination of

information

regarding the installation to others that may wish to adopt it.

c. Unique solutions to typical alternate engine conversion such as

propeller

speed reduction approaches.  These units are normally composed of belt

or

geared components.  Other approaches (such as automatic transmission
concepts (liquid coupling of power to prop), variable pulley

arrangements,

etc as examples).

3. Performance Considerations
(Given the difficulty and cost of collecting, analyzing and interpreting
empirical performance data this is one area that is probably the most
subjective and difficult to objectively judge.  While it would be useful

to

be able to evaluate this area, I think at this time it would be too
subjective to merit consideration as a judging criterion at this time. )

4. Other Considerations
Judges may want to consider inputs from alternative engine participants.
Consideration may be to have such invdividuals who have NOT requested

their

aircraft to be judged advise the judging team.

Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

Thanks Ed - a lot of good thoughts. I printed out a copy for my file - Vance

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.