|
Message
I agree Rusty. I believe it's most important to talk about the actions we
can take to reduce the risks. That's my goal. There's lot's of simple things we
can do. We know that if you make 20 changes to your engine, 4 of those changes
represent most of the risk. So we just have to nail those 4.
The other part is how easy to overlook the good stuff. I'm so impressed
with Perry's approach. He undertook extremely risky project, but if you look at
some of his techniques, it's inspiring. In fact I was inspired and copied his
methods.
-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by
stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland,
Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design
info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
But it's so clear that the path most take is of extreme risk,
I thought it best to post what I had so far. I thought "maybe one or two guys
will read this and take more effective action at reducing risk".
Hi
Al,
Do you intend to
provide us with a complete analysis when you have it finished? If so,
then I'd suggest that everyone just hold your questions until such time.
If this isn't something you're planning to do, then I think very little will
be accomplished by statements such as the one I quoted above.
I think most everyone
here will read a report with an open mind, however, like any suggestions or
advice, each of us will make our own decision on the validity of the
report. I also think we all probably have a good idea where the
danger lies, and fortunately, it's in components we can control, rather than
the internal engine itself.
BTW, if you want to
see why your ears have been burning the last few days <g>, you can sift
through the posts on the archive:
Cheers,
Rusty
Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-3
(flying)
Kolb Slingshot (Mazda single rotor
project)
Sonerai-IIL
(Subaru...NOT)
|