Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <429548B8.8000508@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:55:36 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: The Rotary Powered Flyers Association
References: <list-960436@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-960436@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I don't believe a "manual" of "suggested/accepted" practice would be 
appropriate or particularly useful in an experimental arena. Nor would I 
expect most folks to pay a lot of attention to it.

A "black list" OTOH would be quite useful.

Paul's setup that precipitated his first dramatic forced landing would 
be prominent in the "Fuel

System" chapter. He had a setup that pretty much assured vapor lock, and 
it did.

Various coolant circulation schemes that resulted in hard-to-remediate 
air bubbles in the cooling system (block and radiators) would be 
appropriate and useful.
\A number of fuel system schematics that have proven to work well (as 
well as some details on why the designer chose a particular scheme) 
would be useful. Electrical hints (like Paul's "don't wire two engine 
monitoring device pickoffs on the same transducer" would make the list.

Whatever John Slade finds out about his problem with controllers might 
be helpful.

We've (collectively) DO have to make all the mistakes. We are NOT 
obliged to replicate one another's trail of tears. We'll get through 
this thing a lot quicker and easier if we only make the mistakes once, 
instead of once EACH.

What DON'T work is more useful to experimenters than what DOES ... Jim S.

Al Gietzen wrote:

> Ed;
>
> I think the idea of a checklist; or what might become a sort of 
> “manual” of suggested practice, is a good one; however, I don’t see it 
> as necessarily a direct adjunct to a technical review. Each 
> installation is configured different according to the type of aircraft 
> and the builders ideas. Although a checklist can serve as a structure 
> to coordinate a review; the important thing is (as you have stressed 
> before) the function of a system, and the factors supporting that 
> function, be clear to at least one member of the “advisor” team, so 
> the review becomes configuration independent. Perhaps it is just me, 
> but the idea of checklists seems to structured, and the focus can 
> become the checklist rather than what is actually going on.
>
> The checklist and compilation of accepted practice is something that 
> needs to be available to anyone even from the start of an 
> installation. Attempts at this have been made (Best practices, the 
> Wiki site), but one function of the ARPA (or whatever) should/would be 
> to bring more attention and focus on its compilation.
>
> Just a couple of early morning stray thoughts.
>
> Al
>
> My suggestion is to start working on a "Checklist". That could start here
>
> on the list - not necessary for face to face for to get that ball 
> rolling.
>
> We even have some material such as the "Best Practices List" and the 
> Weki?
>
> thing (that I am not familiar with) that may well provide a starting 
> point.
>
> My point here is if we are to be successful we will need such a 
> "checklist"
>
> and if we are unable to develop one, I question how effective we are 
> going
>
> to be. It should at least have a subpart that a builder could start
>
> consulting from day one - as John Slade mentioned, with no guidance while
>
> constructing - people are going to be a bit resistive to having invested
>
> time and money and then are told they need to rip it out and start over.
>
> Help prevent the problem rather than help me fix it sort of approach. I
>
> know we could never cover all avenues and should not try. I think we 
> focus
>
> on the rotary engine aspect particularly the critical subsystems such 
> as: .
>
> 1. Fuel
>
> 2. Ignition
>
> 3. Controller
>
> 4. Electrical Wiring
>
> 5. Lubrication
>
> 6. Cooling
>
> 7. Motor Mount
>
> 8. Exhaust
>
> 9. Intake
>
> etc.
>
> In each case, we might start out with a brief description of the 
> function of
>
> the subsystem, principles of operation, possible gotchas, examples of 
> good
>
> (or bad) approaches.
>
> Clearly it would be a live body of knowledge that would continue to be 
> added
>
> to and refined.
>
> Just some thoughts on the topic
>
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "David Staten" <Dastaten@earthlink.net>
>
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 9:41 AM
>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] The Rotary Powered Flyers Association
>
>> Polling the list...
>
>>
>
>> Interest in forming such a group. Participation requirements will be 
> left
>
>> to be determined.
>
>>
>
>> Goals as previously stated:
>
>> 1) Member Education and Safety
>
>> 2) Pre-First Flight and Phase One Inspections and Support
>
>> 3) Ongoing Peer Technical Support for rotary engined aircraft
>
>> 4) Industry Liason (Insurance, Manufacturers, Kit Builders)
>
>> 5) Accident Investigation / Rotary Engine Expertise
>
>>
>
>> This list serv can serve (with Marv's approval) as the means for
>
>> distributing information regarding the group.
>
>>
>
>> It can incorporate separately, or as an independent EAA chapter, or 
> as an
>
>> adjunct to an existing EAA chapter. Incorporate or add on to a 501C3 so
>
>> that expenses can be deducted by members.
>
>>
>
>> The Annual Business Meeting would be held in a public airshow venue, 
> such
>
>> as OSH, SNF, or Pickneyville.. prefereably someplace centrally 
> located so
>
>> ALL can attend with less than 2 days flying.
>
>>
>
>> Members would volunteer to be advocates for the rotary engine, provide
>
>> peer safety inspections and technical counseling. Reimbursement for
>
>> services/expenses can be considered and are to be determined later.
>
>>
>
>> We can better determine our direction and focus once an initial core 
> group
>
>> decides to start functioning. Once we know who/what our resources are,
>
>> then we can better determine where to begin.
>
>>
>
>> David Staten
>
>> League City (Houston), Texas
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>
>>>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>
>>
>
>>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>
>>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>