Your fancy schmancy dream machine

Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
where I had been instead of where I was going.
I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.

--------------------------------------

and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

* Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
* Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
* Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
aircraft.
* More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
replaced as it should be.
* Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
build.

-----------------------------------------
I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.

Jerry

I liked his concept of design too Jerry. But I think the guy is
either a guy who never built an airplane then maintained it or he's
just a statistical outlier. Nobody I know who has an experimental
flying machine whether it be a helicopter, balloon or airplan takes
the short cuts he proposes. I know YOU don't, and I never have.

-- Expensive up-keep is too bad, but it is what it is. If you don't
do it, you die.

--Engine replacement is usually done long before it's needed. When
things start to show significant wear, the engine is rebuilt. I've
done it, you've done it.

--Used parts that are time proven are better than new parts in many
cases. Take a CAM. Once a CAM has proved to you it doesn't have some
goofy area in it that wears away in the first 1000 hours, you
reprofile it and use it again. It's much safer than a new CAM, casted
with some new ****ing alloys that have not been run 1000 hours. Same
wtih an engine case. Give me one that's been cycled 2000 times and
I'll build you an engine where the case won't crack.

-- I dont' get the broken part piece. It depends on the part. For
christ's sake, I had a broken NAV light the other day. I bought a new
one. I don't get his point there at all. If a part is critical and
it's busted...and it can't be fixed to new specs, then no homebuilder
I know would want to risk his ass on it. You buy a new one, or you
fix the bad one to original or better than new specs.

-- I don't see this. What albout the Harmon Rocket? The Glassair?
The Lancair. Christ. All of them are like flying a Lycoming strapped
to your back. What is this underpowered engine ****? This guy is
just writing to see his name show up on the screen.

I find fault in just about everthing he says too. He's just a big bag
of wind like most of the rest of RAH.

It always has been and it will always be...because the idiots and the
Galactically stupid muther ****ers can post here and act like the real
guys who have done it for real and done it for years...guys like you
and guys like me.

BWB