Aircraft certification questions.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
rvers.com...
However, there are other considerations:
1) The marketplace is *tiny*, and approximating 'fixed' in size; you
have
to capture a significant 'share' to have any hope of recouping your
start-up costs.
2) The buyers in that market are, in general, *conservative*. _VERY_
conservative. Those 'willing to take a risk' on a new manufacturer,
absent a *compelling* reason to do so, are a _tiny_ minority.
3) As a result of #2, just being 'better' is _not_enough_ to get you
significant sales. You have to be "enough better" that people will
switch. Demonstrated reliability of construction counts for a *lot*.
A 'clone', built to 'apparently' the same standards, will still take
a _long_ time to acquire the same degree of reputation for
reliability.
4) 'Superior manufacturing and a better financial model' alone has *not*
been perceived as "*enough* better" to have any hope of capturing
enough market share to make the expenditure worth doing.
5) To be 'enough better' to have a hope of capturing enough share to
make the thing 'worth doing', major design changes are required.
Getting a 0.02% weight reduction for the same horsepower won't
get any attention. Get a 20% weight reduction, with the same
horsepower,
and _lots_ of people will be knocking on your door, at least for
'evaluation' purposes. Get a demonstrated 20% weight reduction, and
a
30% reduction in fuel consumption, and you can probably sell your
entire
production line output for _years_ ahead, before the first customer
delivery has 100 hours on it.

If someone did go through the trouble to reverse engineer and get a TC they
would still have to get STCs for any installation they wanted their product
used on.

I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
a whole engine, or a whole airplane? BRBR

You already can.

http://www.superiorairparts.com/vantage.asp

All new O-360 from Superior parts.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

(Robert Bonomi) wrote in message ervers.com...
In article ,
psyshrike wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote in message
. com...

SNIP


You _can_. All you have to do is *PROVE* that all those standards have
been met. With _your_ own data. When you _do_ prove that, to the FAA's
satisfaction, they will award *you* a type certificate of your very own.

You just can't use "somebody else's" test data to show that _your_ engine
meets the requirements.

The whole argument is based on the assumption that two engines exactly
identicle. I'm not argueing about whether that is possible. I'm
arguing about the jurisdiction of the FAA's regulation in the case
that they are. Given the assumption, you still haven't explained why I
shouldn't be able to use somebody elses test data.


A patent prevents somebody else from doing the _same_thing_ you did.
*Even*if* they come up with it 'independently'.

*Anybody* can 'do what you did' (*exactly*, every step) to get a TC, and
get their own TC for an identical product. The original TC 'owner' has
*zero* power to restrict them from doing so. There are *NO* barriers that
prevent them from doing so.

It is simply 'not easier' for that party to do so, because they cannot
use -your- work as a 'springboard' for their TC application.


'springboard'ing is the reason why patents expire. Denial of the right
to 'springboard' without concurrent provision for expiration, is
denying something to the new player that is otherwise provided
implicitly through expiration of patents.

"Not harder, not easier" -- sounds like 'fair to everyone', to me.

I am sure comrade Stalin would have agreed with you.


Sorry, nothing prevents them from using previuos art. I can steal
all the aspects of Lycoming or Continentals design to build a new engine.
Their design (which is what patents support) is free for me to pick and
choose from. What I don't get a free pass around is showing my new
engine is safe to the FAA's standard.

OK. Why no free pass?

Wrong question. Why *should* the Johnnie-come-lately be _entitled_ to
the 'free pass'?

Is that really what you meant to say? In a free market economy all
things not specifically regulated are implicitly entitled. IOW, if the
law doesn't say I can't, I can.

Your implying that the business has to justify why they should be able
to copy, rather than the state having to justify why copying should be
prevented. I think an 8th grade civics book aught to clear that one up
for you.

"Why shouldn't he be entitled?" _is_ the right question. You made the
original point, I didn't. You failure to consider your own argument in
greater detail suggests that you are not interested in exploring the
concept; rather just ****ing from a rooftop to make yourself feel
superior. Which of course you are free to do. Unless _your_ regulatory
practice applies, in which case you'll have to apply for a permit.


"Empirical evidence" is not the same as "proof".


Your right. But if aircraft were "proof" safe none of them would ever
crash from defect then would they? "Proof" is a red herring. What you
call proof is defined by the whole of part 21, which is where the
conflict is in the first place.

SNIP long drawn out argument about how duplication can't be
accomplished

Again, I wasn't asking if it could be done, I was asking about whether
the FAA dictates licensing rights based on TC, and whether that
conflicts with intellectual property law. My observation is that you
don't have any more information than I do. You think your right. I'd
like to know if I am. Sufficed to say, further argument will yield
nothing.

I'll just leave it at that. Your welcomed to the last word.

Thanks
Matt