On 27 Feb 2005 23:53:53 -0800, "
wrote:

I will definitely and absolutely defy all bureaucracy until after the
prototype is completed. To reiterate, I will not tolerate any
interference from any government or private agency or institution
during the prototype phase of this project.

In which case, I assume that you developing the aircraft outside of the US,
since, by law, you can't fly the airplane here unless the FAA grants you an
airworthiness certificate. Unless you're going for an
Experimental/Amateur-Built license, the FAA won't grant you such a certificate
until you prove to them that the airplane is adequately designed. And the
Exp/Am-Built only lets you build *one* airplane...if you want to go into
production, the FAA *seriously* gets involved.

So...how are you intending to keep then away?

On 28 Feb 2005 00:17:27 -0800, "
wrote:

I consider all of your previous objections to be advantages on my part.

Quote:

"A. Aren't a pilot"

A) Pilots don't design planes, they fly them.

True, but what you are designing will be operated by pilots. TV wasn't
developed by a blind person, nor were computers developed by people who couldn't
handle mathematics.

B. Aren't an engineer

B)I'm not bound to the overhead of having "a career on the line". I
don't know of the accepted design boundaries. I'm not associated with
any university, corporation, or other institution that is going to
thwart any new discoveries by the process of "peer review". Engineers
out there ought to be keenly aware of these handicaps.

Ever hear of a man named Burt Rutan? He's an engineer and aircraft designer,
and doesn't seem to be hindered by "having a career on the line" nor is he
limited by knowledge of the accepted design boundaries. His designs have
bordered on the fantastic, but he hasn't been hindered by any peer reviews.

And you know, *he* doesn't have any problems finding investors....

C. Have assembled a aircraft design team without an aeronautical
engineer

C)Same advatages as above.

The purpose of an engineering education is to be able to understand *why* things
won't work. Say someone came to you claiming that they had developed a
fantastic new aircraft generator. Say you glanced at the design and noted the
output wires were 26 gauge. Your past experience would tell you this was
totally inadequate...you wouldn't need to install the unit in an airplane to
find this out.

Due to his or her background knowledge, an aeronautical engineer will be able to
prevent the design from dead-end routes. There's little that hasn't been tried,
at some point, and part of an engineering education is to know *why* some things
wouldn't work. Yes, a sharp-edged airfoil is faster...but an aeronautical
engineer would know the drawbacks when it came to slow-speed handling.

D. Don't know what it takes to build, analyze, static test, or flight
test an aircraft.

D)I don't need to know everything. Every task will be deligated to the
most qualified. That's my accepted responsibility.

Certainly! But you've already rejected hiring the kind of person (e.g.,
aeronautical engineer) who would *know* how to do this stuff. And without a
general understand of the process, what do you use as a basic for estimating
costs and schedules?

E. Aren't familiar with the FAA rules for certifying aircraft.
E)I am determined to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the FAA is a
hinderance to all intellectual activity or scientific discovery. They
will not be necessary for the prototype development and would only get
in the way.

I think most of us here agree with the sentiment, but the realities of law, as I
explained above, are different.

F. Haven't done a shred of research on the field to know of the other
small jets being developed by companies that HAVE all the above experience.

F)I wish not to be influenced by old ideas when my stated objective is
to develop "new" technology!

Start with a basic trade study of ambulatory and communicative skills between
specie and bovine excretatory products....

Ron Wanttaja