Might I heartily reply: YES! Bernie, I do remember you and that post last year. Touche'! I've also been very aware of that "blunder" I made a year ago...I also believe I ate my share of humble pie.... While I've been reflecting about that Dana thing, last night got me thinking about my about Panzera's Comments: Panzera's comments not only very offensive to me and others, but also served as a wake-up call: It really made me sit down and think this whole Corvair Engine thing out. In order for this engine to perform safely at the level that reflects the amount of effort involved, Is this engine cost and time effective? What am I gaining from using it? What are my goals for my aircraft? Well those questions caused me to look at my Mission Statement. It also caused me to re-look at my Pugh Analysis. These were documents that I created were what influenced the decision to utilize the Corvair to begin with. After reflecting on these 2 documents, the answer started to become clearer. I updated the Pugh analysis with more realistic weighted parameters, and it gave a completely different answer: I need to forget about building some techno hot-rod airplane, and build the airplane...With a airplane powerplant. So I'm happy (maybe even a little proud) that I stayed within my disipline, rolled up my sleeves and came to a better, more realistic decision. No emotion, just the facts.... That's what I was trained to do. I've focused and centered my decision not on Panzera's behavior, but on my aircraft parameters, goals and mission statement. I can say that it truly was a learning experience, and that I mostly enjoyed that experience. I'll still be around the KRNet, and will hopefully be able to contribute. However, I'm inclined (maybe even obligated) to adhere to my Engineering Disipline and use an aerospace powerplant. So I thank-you Bernie for bringing that to light, Maybe we all can learn a little something from this after all,-even under adversity.
--- "B. Wunder" <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott, > You probably don't remember me from the gathering > .....but I have been > reading the posts on the Corvair side of the net > when things went to pot by > someone making a crack or joke about something you > said. But what struck me > immediately was the message below because I was so > mad at you for making > Dana sign off the KRnet....but he came back and I > hope you do to...I think > that you have a lot of valuable input.....why folks > can't just stick to > posting subjects that are technical and not personal > comments is beyond > me...I have seen too many blowups on both the KRnet > and now the Corvair > net......and the real losers are us poor folks > trying to gain knowledge and > insight from those who have gone before us! > r/ > Bernie > KR2S Builder > Lexington Park, MD > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n2w6 > > > Date: May 7, 2003 5:24 AM > > From: Dana Overall <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: KR>liability Rant-See ya!! > > > >From: "Ron Eason" <[email protected]> > >LET ELECT THIS GUY PRESIDENT! > > > >From: "Scott Cable" <[email protected]> > It starts by allowing these sleeze-ball attorneys to > advertise. > > I knew my intent to enlighten the list, as a whole, > potential liabilities > inherent with airplanes construction would turn on > my intentions to share > valuable information. I am too good a friend with > Mark Langford not to be > able to see his distrust, Mark and I will remain > friends, but it should have > stopped there. I did not call engineers > sleeze-balls or whatever profession > Mr. Cable is proud to claim as his stake in life. > ----------------------------------------------------- > ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO [email protected] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
