From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto Coversion Judging
To: flyrotary
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:51:02 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1802816@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <3DA61EE0.EC2312F0@netdoor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for Charlie and Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>:

Hi Ed, 

Maybe the first thing to do is stop calling it an 'auto conversion' award & 
call
it something like 'alternative engine' award. Isn't the real point finding an
alternative to archaic a/c engines? I would consider the Jabiru's alternatives
to traditional a/c engines. If a Rotax 912 is mounted on a Vari-Eze instead of 
a
Continental O-200, wouldn't that qualify as an alternative engine?

As for criteria, how about some minimum flight time (honor system would have 
to
apply) to qualify the installation as a viable 'alternative.' I'm not saying
that highest time wins, just that it be proven to be airworthy.

Beyond that, anyone qualified to be a judge should have some idea about 
quality
of workmanship. How about asking the ultralite judges how they judge a Rotax 
or
AMW or ??? mounted on a light plane? 

The judges must have had similar problems early in the Rutan invasion. They
adapted. As more & more alternative engines show up I think that the problem
will solve itself.

Another tack might be, "If you can't beat 'em, circumnavigate 'em." The Senior
Poberezny held the first Sport Aviation Association annual flyin this summer.
Perhaps we could start promoting some of our grass roots flyins in association
with the SAA. It's focus is back to basics & affordable flying. For those who
haven't seen it yet, here's the web site:

http://www.sportaviation.org/

I hope some of this is useful.

Charlie