I attended the SERFI flyin along with Tracy Crook and Finn Lassen with
our Rotary powered RVs.  We were told that there was going to be an Auto
Conversion award, however, that did not turn out to be the case.  I fired
off a message to the EAA chief Judging Official complaining about rthe lack
of an Auto Conversion standard in the judging handbook (which most chapter
judges use).


    I almost immediately received a somewhat irate e mail from the SERFI
folks
(apparently the EAA immediately sent my message to them and in hindsight,  I
probably should have
done the same).  I have since replay and while 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 you  own
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


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