Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:27:54 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1802031@logan.com>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
References: <list-1801849@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto Coversion Judging
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:37 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto Coversion Judging


> Hi Ed,
> > However, if you did build you own
> > PSRU you would probably garner more points.
> That's the sort of attitude that sets my teeth on edge. What is the point
of
> an automotive engine powered airplane? Smarty points, or moving together
> towards a viable alternative to a 40 year old price gouging monopoly?
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm sorry, but my comments won't be much help. While I will always welcome
> constructive critisism from anyone, my plane will NOT be available for
> judging.
>
> > they indicated that they are considering requiring
> > "Technical Data" and perhaps "Drawings".
> I'll happily write an article for a magazine like Contact, and will
publish
> details of my installation on my web site, but I find this this whole
> concept of a bunch of self professed experts setting criteria and making
> judgements a little distasteful.
>
> My 2c.
> Regards,
> John Slade


Ok, John, understand your viewpoint and appreciate your input.  May turn out
there are sufficient folks that feel the same way you do that we won't need
any judging criteria.  Certainly most folks doing auto conversions are
focused on more fundamental things than a paint job..

Ed Anderson

>