On Jan 6, 11:26*pm, Tech Support wrote:
Looks like a time for war stories so will jump in and add a few bits
for history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me the real point of all this is that we ARE tool-using critters.
We already KNOW man can fly. We've got several examples of low-cost,
durable, RELIABLE engines that generate enough thrust to safely carry
loads on the order of 800 pounds.

The AIRFRAME is an example of a structure having optimized ratios of
strength-to-weight. Although the very best materials are expensive,
the cost of materials is not linear with regard to strength. Going to
other-than-optimum materials... giving away perhaps 10% of our
strength... which may also be read as increasing our WEIGHT by 10%...
or reducing our LOAD by 10%.... does not reflect a price redduction
of 10%... what it reflects is more on the order of a 90% REDUCTION in
price.

That is the key point that must be gotten across to people who are
willing to build their own airplanes.

Which leads-in to the second point, which was the original purpose of
this post and the origin of this thread. And that is the fact that
while a person my be willing to accept the facts as stated above, most
of them who are willing to try and build their own airplanes and power
it with a converted car engine LACK THE SKILLS TO DO SO. Which lead
to the billy-dew about a single picture being worth a thousand words
(ie, 1P=1000W).

The EAA hates this idea because it would impact their financial
position. And when the EAA doesn't like something, the 'something'
tends to get a bad press... or none at all :-)

-R.S.Hoover