|
|
I concur... when something goes wrong, the ideas/potential failure points start flowing out in free discussion. Some are dismissed, some get a lot of weight, and some are never validated nor disproved. Part of what makes this such a successful online community is that we exchange ideas freely, and usually objectively.
I hope to see things progress to the point that folks who DONT want to do the engineering/experimenting will have bolt on options available to them in the near future: Its coming - between finished blocks from Bruce, intakes from Bruce, Mounts from CCI, Electronics and gearboxes from Tracy.. its starting to take on the appearance of a quasi-firewall forward (or aft) option.
Even if that point occurs, there will always be someone wanting to "do it better" or get a bit more performance by customizing, or just trying a different approach. I will acknowledge there is more than one way to skin a cat.. I just want to be able to make cat skinning as safe and risk free as PRACTICAL.
Dave
Ernest Christley wrote:
al p wick wrote:
When you guys review the past incidents, are you able to find multiple
causes? Are you able find how it applies to your plane, or tend to think
"That doesn't apply to me.....?".
Oh, no. Trust me on this one. NOBODY gets away with that one.
You could fill a book with the number of possible causes this list came up with for Ed's latest 'adventure'. And that has hopefully been folded back in to positive steps that people who've been following can take to improve their success and reliability.
One thing you could not be aware of is the latest discussion on forming and 'inspection' organization. The biggest objection to it has been the idea of 'approved systems'. Nobody wants it like that. It is a very independant group over here. As soon as someone comes up with an optimized cnc manifold, a few will buy it and a whole bunch of others will say they're trying something different. We're kinda weird like that. Go figure.
|
|