Pst J600
02-02-2003, 03:33 PM
#76
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Pst J600
Wow ! I take an evening away from the computer to work on a friend's airplane, and when I get back I find war breaking out ! Did you guys miss me that much ? 
Where to start ? Okay, we got several letters of complaint about Gerhard's post ; if that had been the last post on this thread when I viewed it, I would simply have nuked it. However, since several responses have been made in support of David, several of which quote the original post, it seems to me that we can't remove the one post without also removing those that responded telling Gerhard that he was wrong.
So - I'm faced with two options here - remove all, or leave all. Removing all would probably lead to the inevitable cries of "draconian censorship and erosion of civil rights" etc., so - given that I feel that the responses have restored a reasonable degree of balance, my gut feel here is to leave them all here. If I, or the other mod's, receive significant input to the contrary, that decision will be reversed.
Going forward ...
Personal attacks are NOT allowed on RCU, so please ensure that you abide by this rule. That applies for posts against the person of David, or Gerhard, or Frank, or anyone else for that matter.
There's also just too much emotion showing in some of these posts. Please do us all a favor, and take the time to re-read your posts before you hit submit, and consider whether you could make your point in a way that is less abrasive, personal, or emotional. Your post is actually more likely to be effective in getting your point across if it is done calmly, subjectively, and logically, than if you come across as someone who perhaps has an axe to grind.
Next... yes, it is troubling if submissions to the AMA are not all being given fair treatment. However, that is a very big "if".
For all of you who are railing against AMA injustice, giving the AMA a week to respond, or otherwise making demands of the AMA here... how many of you have bothered to call the AMA and ask Carl Maroney for facts and explanations, instead of just assuming the worst and jumping on the bandwagon ? Please raise your hand if you have actually taken the trouble to try to get facts from the source....
I suggest that this "AMA injustice" topic be dropped until someone actually comes along with any facts, since repeating the same allegations over & over is getting kinda old in my view.
Let's all just calm down a bit, okay ?
Thanks,
Gordon
Where to start ? Okay, we got several letters of complaint about Gerhard's post ; if that had been the last post on this thread when I viewed it, I would simply have nuked it. However, since several responses have been made in support of David, several of which quote the original post, it seems to me that we can't remove the one post without also removing those that responded telling Gerhard that he was wrong.
So - I'm faced with two options here - remove all, or leave all. Removing all would probably lead to the inevitable cries of "draconian censorship and erosion of civil rights" etc.
, so - given that I feel that the responses have restored a reasonable degree of balance, my gut feel here is to leave them all here. If I, or the other mod's, receive significant input to the contrary, that decision will be reversed.Going forward ...
Personal attacks are NOT allowed on RCU, so please ensure that you abide by this rule. That applies for posts against the person of David, or Gerhard, or Frank, or anyone else for that matter.
There's also just too much emotion showing in some of these posts. Please do us all a favor, and take the time to re-read your posts before you hit submit, and consider whether you could make your point in a way that is less abrasive, personal, or emotional. Your post is actually more likely to be effective in getting your point across if it is done calmly, subjectively, and logically, than if you come across as someone who perhaps has an axe to grind.
Next... yes, it is troubling if submissions to the AMA are not all being given fair treatment. However, that is a very big "if".
For all of you who are railing against AMA injustice, giving the AMA a week to respond, or otherwise making demands of the AMA here... how many of you have bothered to call the AMA and ask Carl Maroney for facts and explanations, instead of just assuming the worst and jumping on the bandwagon ? Please raise your hand if you have actually taken the trouble to try to get facts from the source....
I suggest that this "AMA injustice" topic be dropped until someone actually comes along with any facts, since repeating the same allegations over & over is getting kinda old in my view.
Let's all just calm down a bit, okay ?
Thanks,
Gordon
02-02-2003, 04:18 PM
#77
AMA
First let me say I know nothing about the specifics of the PST approval process.
But I do know something about the process in general.
Like any bureaucratic process, an intimate knowledge of the process is critical in getting it to move forward. You need to submit the correct data in the correct format, then you need to shepherd it through the process.
Remember some of these motors have taken a long time to get through, some a short time. There is indeed a variation.
Assume the people who are building the PST have not been through this process before, are in a different hemisphere, have a different native language, etc. it would not surprise me if it would take on the outside limit of the variation of approval time.
What does surprise me is this rush to indite the AMA. Some are even VOLUNTEERS that allow us to enjoy this hobby. I have always found these guys to be helpful, engaged and dedicated.
It seems they deserve the benefit of the doubt over a brand new company submitting its first product!!
Just my opinion,
But I do know something about the process in general.
Like any bureaucratic process, an intimate knowledge of the process is critical in getting it to move forward. You need to submit the correct data in the correct format, then you need to shepherd it through the process.
Remember some of these motors have taken a long time to get through, some a short time. There is indeed a variation.
Assume the people who are building the PST have not been through this process before, are in a different hemisphere, have a different native language, etc. it would not surprise me if it would take on the outside limit of the variation of approval time.
What does surprise me is this rush to indite the AMA. Some are even VOLUNTEERS that allow us to enjoy this hobby. I have always found these guys to be helpful, engaged and dedicated.
It seems they deserve the benefit of the doubt over a brand new company submitting its first product!!
Just my opinion,
02-02-2003, 05:16 PM
#78
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pst J600
Okay..lets give AMA a chance to explain.
On the AMA certification process, I doubt that PST is amature in this. From reading treads on the RCU, it seems that Kelly Williams is handling the certification process for PST and TJT. TJT3000 is now approved, right?
I think that AMA will be busy taking phone calls on Monday.
Regards,
Kevin C.
On the AMA certification process, I doubt that PST is amature in this. From reading treads on the RCU, it seems that Kelly Williams is handling the certification process for PST and TJT. TJT3000 is now approved, right?
I think that AMA will be busy taking phone calls on Monday.
Regards,
Kevin C.
02-02-2003, 09:51 PM
#83
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pst J600
Originally posted by GerhardH
So maybe I was a little rough on old David. But please keep magazine reports and personal interes separated
So maybe I was a little rough on old David. But please keep magazine reports and personal interes separated
Gerhard,
David has given very favorable reports on my Fiber Optic servo extensions, but when he reviewed them, he refused the freebee, he insisted on paying for them not to be biased. I like that..
02-03-2003, 12:34 AM
#84
Pst J600
May I make just one more word on this issue. to make the postion absolutely clear.
I am NOT bashing anyone on this thread, AMA , FTE or his products or anyone else or anything for that matter. I just , as an AMA member 2001-2002 , would like to know why the T-500 did not require recertification but the Wren engine did, simply because they changed distributor whilst the certificated engine remained technically identical.
Fair question? I look forward to hearing the comments from the AMA from whom I simply ask the facts and their comments on this apparent anomaly. I have no other agenda whatsoever.
BRG,
David Gladwin
I am NOT bashing anyone on this thread, AMA , FTE or his products or anyone else or anything for that matter. I just , as an AMA member 2001-2002 , would like to know why the T-500 did not require recertification but the Wren engine did, simply because they changed distributor whilst the certificated engine remained technically identical.
Fair question? I look forward to hearing the comments from the AMA from whom I simply ask the facts and their comments on this apparent anomaly. I have no other agenda whatsoever.
BRG,
David Gladwin
02-03-2003, 01:33 AM
#85
ME-262
Matt wrote:
<<Hey Vin, how have you got time to type on the computer, you have a ME-262 to build!>>
I have a nib Airworld ME-262 "turbine" version sitting on the shelf begging for two small motors, is that waht you are implying here Matt?? Geez, Wilcox made me keep my big mouth shut, but you are uncontrolable!!!
Vin...
<<Hey Vin, how have you got time to type on the computer, you have a ME-262 to build!>>
I have a nib Airworld ME-262 "turbine" version sitting on the shelf begging for two small motors, is that waht you are implying here Matt?? Geez, Wilcox made me keep my big mouth shut, but you are uncontrolable!!!
Vin...
02-03-2003, 04:53 AM
#86
Pst J600
I think I did.
Firstly, in my copy of RCJI the table above graph 2 shows the engine burns 6.7 ounces a minute at 12 pounds of thrust but only 6.1 ounces at 13.4 pounds.. in other words more thrust uses less fuel, somewhat unusual, perhaps some figures been transposed or have I missed something. ? That looked wrong so I referred to the graph which looks right.
However, in the graph it shows that at 5.45 Kilos of thrust (12 pounds, (same as rated thrust of T-500 so we can compare like with like) it burns 1000ml in 4.9 minutes or 204 cc per minute, at a fuel Specific Gravity of .8 that is 160 grammes, 5.7 ounces per minute. at 12 pounds of thrust.
On the graph it also shows that at 160k, 6. 0 kilos of thrust , 13.4 pounds, the engine burned 1 liter of fuel in 4.5 minutes or 222 ml per min or a mass of 177.5 grammes, 6.4 ounces per minute, again using a fuel SG of .8. That seems normal, increasing thrust results in increased consumption.
The graph is different to the table in that fuel consumption increases with thrust, normal.
I think my maths are correct and there appears to be discrepancy between the table and the graph from which I took the figures.
I had no involvement with this test so perhaps you could refer it to Tom Wilkinson who I am sure will be happy to discuss.
At 12 pounds thrust the SFC expressed as gms/sec/ Newton works out at .0489 and 0.04930 at 6 kilos., as Tom says up there with the best of the rest, in fact better than any engine recorded in the GTBA efficiency contes tabulated on page 52.
I am sure SimJet have a very good engine and are to be congratulated on the engine's performance, particularly on understating the engine's performance.
MY unequivocal aplogies if my maths are wrong.
Comments anyone?
BRG,
David Gladwin
Firstly, in my copy of RCJI the table above graph 2 shows the engine burns 6.7 ounces a minute at 12 pounds of thrust but only 6.1 ounces at 13.4 pounds.. in other words more thrust uses less fuel, somewhat unusual, perhaps some figures been transposed or have I missed something. ? That looked wrong so I referred to the graph which looks right.
However, in the graph it shows that at 5.45 Kilos of thrust (12 pounds, (same as rated thrust of T-500 so we can compare like with like) it burns 1000ml in 4.9 minutes or 204 cc per minute, at a fuel Specific Gravity of .8 that is 160 grammes, 5.7 ounces per minute. at 12 pounds of thrust.
On the graph it also shows that at 160k, 6. 0 kilos of thrust , 13.4 pounds, the engine burned 1 liter of fuel in 4.5 minutes or 222 ml per min or a mass of 177.5 grammes, 6.4 ounces per minute, again using a fuel SG of .8. That seems normal, increasing thrust results in increased consumption.
The graph is different to the table in that fuel consumption increases with thrust, normal.
I think my maths are correct and there appears to be discrepancy between the table and the graph from which I took the figures.
I had no involvement with this test so perhaps you could refer it to Tom Wilkinson who I am sure will be happy to discuss.
At 12 pounds thrust the SFC expressed as gms/sec/ Newton works out at .0489 and 0.04930 at 6 kilos., as Tom says up there with the best of the rest, in fact better than any engine recorded in the GTBA efficiency contes tabulated on page 52.
I am sure SimJet have a very good engine and are to be congratulated on the engine's performance, particularly on understating the engine's performance.
MY unequivocal aplogies if my maths are wrong.
Comments anyone?
BRG,
David Gladwin
02-03-2003, 05:17 AM
#88
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ,
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
miscalculation
Hi david,
I removed the post because I thought the better of getting embroilled in the politics of this group, but you got to it first so I might as well continue the response. I felt there were some numbers had been misquoted by Mr. Gladwin and that he should be more prudent in his participation in this users group due to his position at RCJI (I didn't think the comments were THAT disagreable David!).
I found the table mis-leading at first also. The 6.7 oz/min is the manufacturer's quoted values, but below it is the 13.4 lb thrust fuel consumption in square brackets which is a measured figure and I think should have been one column over to avoid confusion.
On the graph, I read 4.5 minutes to consume 1 litre at 13.4 lbs. Graphs are subject to interpolation.
I removed the post because I thought the better of getting embroilled in the politics of this group, but you got to it first so I might as well continue the response. I felt there were some numbers had been misquoted by Mr. Gladwin and that he should be more prudent in his participation in this users group due to his position at RCJI (I didn't think the comments were THAT disagreable David!).
I found the table mis-leading at first also. The 6.7 oz/min is the manufacturer's quoted values, but below it is the 13.4 lb thrust fuel consumption in square brackets which is a measured figure and I think should have been one column over to avoid confusion.
On the graph, I read 4.5 minutes to consume 1 litre at 13.4 lbs. Graphs are subject to interpolation.
02-03-2003, 07:00 AM
#90
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ,
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
source of confusion
As a matter of interest Tom Wilkinson 's independant and impartial review of the SimJet 1200 (RCJI P 18-21) shows that at 12 pounds of thrust the engine consumed 1 liter of fuel in 4.9 minutes or 205 ml per minute, 14% greater than the manufacturers claim as given above ! At 160k RPM the graph shows 222 ml per minute i. e. 1 liter in 4.5 mins. which is 25 % more than the 180ml figure.
These are not my calculations, merely figures extracted from Tom's graph.
BRG,
David Gladwin. [/B]
These are not my calculations, merely figures extracted from Tom's graph.
BRG,
David Gladwin. [/B]
My apologies. I should have read more carefully before I stuck my neck out! The quote above was where the confusion started. Your calculations are quite correct, but I didn't read the initial post closely enough I'm afraid. After re-reading the article again and double checking a few things I figure the root source of my confusion was the 180 ml/min claim to which you were responding. Tom's article quotes the manufacturers posted fuel consumption as 6.7 oz/min. That same number is listed on the simjet website, but right next to it is the 180 ml/min, which when you work the numbers through does not equate to 6.7 oz/min. I smell conversion error somewhere - something far too easy to do! So the conlcusions drawn from your percentages were contradictory to Tom's conclusions because the previous poster's reference number is out of whack. Light goes on. Consitent units, preferably metric, make life much easier.
TSFC folks! (g/sec/N)I'll just go back to only reading posts again now thanks....
02-03-2003, 10:50 AM
#91
Pst J600
Then I am sorry Prattcan1 1 did find your comments unsavoury to say the least. My calculations were double checked and, I believe, very accurate. You, on the other hand were making EXACTLY the mistakes which you accused me of making
but you took it on yourself to make unpleasant comments and to recommend I get my act together.
You were, incorrectly, accusing me of making exactly the mistake you made and frankly I find that offensive, and its time to tell you and others how I feel as my patience with you, Gerrhard, Tiano and Christensen amongst others has reached its limit and the gloves are off.
I am used to dealing with highly professional and competent people in the aviation industry whether flying at Mach 2 on Concorde giving the technical commentary from the flight deck on my company supersonic charters with BA and Air France or in command of a 767 or 757 somewhere around the world. When I receive personal and totally incorrect crititicism from amateurs in the public domain it gets up my nose and seriously annoys. I intend to defend myself.
I have no position at RCJI other than to write what I believe to be accurate, honest and unbiased articles and I am very careful to check my facts, but I am not infallible, just very diligent. I represent no-one, repeat no-one, and I am not a member of any "Team ". If RCJI or its readers don't want me that's fine I don't need their modest payments, I do alright without them, thanks to the success of my business which was run to the highest standards of business ethics and expanded, profitably year after year until the Paris crash. I am not a propulsion engineer but I understand gas turbine operations, it was my job, after one of the best trainings in the world as an RAF pilot and QFI. I have operated, over 40 years of flying experience , many engines ranging from 8 pounds of thrust to 60,000 pounds . As a flying instructor in the RAF, at the College of Air Warfare, I was selected to instruct very senior, Air Rank, officers in jet operations including, amongst others, the Commandant designate of the Central Flying School and the RAF College, as well as training and checking other instructors. Rolls Royce has invited me and other company pilots to give them our feedback on operation of the RR RB211 535- E4 an engine I love as much as my PST 600 since those engines carried me and my passengers around the world with never a single failure. In return RR gave us an excellent lunch and an in depth look at their manufacturing and research facilities because they felt our input was valuable and we would understand what they were doing, we did.
A few weeks ago I spent a most enjoyable evening in Sydney with Duncan Simpson, the HS test pilot , who flew the first flight on the Hawk and did much valuable development work on the Harrier : our technical conversation was warm, cordial and most enjoyable and at a rather higher level than Simjet and T-500 SFCs, not like some of the peurile comments I have been subjected to on this thread and in PMs. But Duncan was a professional of the highest reputation in test flying, just like Brian Trubshaw, the British Concorde test pilot with whom I spent a very enjoyable, unforgettable, afternoon in his kitchen drinking coffee and talking about aeroplanes with which we had a mutal acquaintance, the Valiant, VC10 and Concorde. That conversation I treasure as Brian, who treated me as an equal, died four days later.
So guys, take me or leave me, I do my damdest to further this hobby and if you think the foregoing is BS, just remember, its all true.
See you around, perhaps,
David Gladwin
but you took it on yourself to make unpleasant comments and to recommend I get my act together.
You were, incorrectly, accusing me of making exactly the mistake you made and frankly I find that offensive, and its time to tell you and others how I feel as my patience with you, Gerrhard, Tiano and Christensen amongst others has reached its limit and the gloves are off.
I am used to dealing with highly professional and competent people in the aviation industry whether flying at Mach 2 on Concorde giving the technical commentary from the flight deck on my company supersonic charters with BA and Air France or in command of a 767 or 757 somewhere around the world. When I receive personal and totally incorrect crititicism from amateurs in the public domain it gets up my nose and seriously annoys. I intend to defend myself.
I have no position at RCJI other than to write what I believe to be accurate, honest and unbiased articles and I am very careful to check my facts, but I am not infallible, just very diligent. I represent no-one, repeat no-one, and I am not a member of any "Team ". If RCJI or its readers don't want me that's fine I don't need their modest payments, I do alright without them, thanks to the success of my business which was run to the highest standards of business ethics and expanded, profitably year after year until the Paris crash. I am not a propulsion engineer but I understand gas turbine operations, it was my job, after one of the best trainings in the world as an RAF pilot and QFI. I have operated, over 40 years of flying experience , many engines ranging from 8 pounds of thrust to 60,000 pounds . As a flying instructor in the RAF, at the College of Air Warfare, I was selected to instruct very senior, Air Rank, officers in jet operations including, amongst others, the Commandant designate of the Central Flying School and the RAF College, as well as training and checking other instructors. Rolls Royce has invited me and other company pilots to give them our feedback on operation of the RR RB211 535- E4 an engine I love as much as my PST 600 since those engines carried me and my passengers around the world with never a single failure. In return RR gave us an excellent lunch and an in depth look at their manufacturing and research facilities because they felt our input was valuable and we would understand what they were doing, we did.
A few weeks ago I spent a most enjoyable evening in Sydney with Duncan Simpson, the HS test pilot , who flew the first flight on the Hawk and did much valuable development work on the Harrier : our technical conversation was warm, cordial and most enjoyable and at a rather higher level than Simjet and T-500 SFCs, not like some of the peurile comments I have been subjected to on this thread and in PMs. But Duncan was a professional of the highest reputation in test flying, just like Brian Trubshaw, the British Concorde test pilot with whom I spent a very enjoyable, unforgettable, afternoon in his kitchen drinking coffee and talking about aeroplanes with which we had a mutal acquaintance, the Valiant, VC10 and Concorde. That conversation I treasure as Brian, who treated me as an equal, died four days later.
So guys, take me or leave me, I do my damdest to further this hobby and if you think the foregoing is BS, just remember, its all true.
See you around, perhaps,
David Gladwin
02-03-2003, 01:52 PM
#93
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: DundasOntario, CANADA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pst J600
David,
I can not understand why people use this forum to engage in personal attacks. We are here to discuss our HOBBY ! I appreciate it when well qualified people, such as yourself, make the time and effort to try to further our understanding of these wonderful toys. I have never detected any bias in your postings here or in RCJI articles. I , for one , appreciate you input !
I can not understand why people use this forum to engage in personal attacks. We are here to discuss our HOBBY ! I appreciate it when well qualified people, such as yourself, make the time and effort to try to further our understanding of these wonderful toys. I have never detected any bias in your postings here or in RCJI articles. I , for one , appreciate you input !
02-03-2003, 02:13 PM
#94
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
Pst J600
Cheers, David.
Anyway...guys...this is not all about bashing and personal attacks. When someone comes busting onto the scene with a "new" product and a whole lot of hype, expecting to sell us engines that go for $2000 and up, in a mature market, they ought to be a little straighter with us about what it really is. I am not the only one who felt that it was a process of dragging the truth out of FTE about what these engines really were, and I am certainly not the only one to feel that the PUBLIC is being presented one story and the AMA is being told quite another. So, if calling someone out on issues of obfuscatory hype and questionable practices is bashing, so be it.
I don't beleive AMA is at fault here. I think we, the public, were led to beleive one thing about the T-series engines, and AMA was told quite another. At any rate, If the T-series engines are legal, then the Wren should be, too.
I know I am far from alone in feeling this way.
Anyway...guys...this is not all about bashing and personal attacks. When someone comes busting onto the scene with a "new" product and a whole lot of hype, expecting to sell us engines that go for $2000 and up, in a mature market, they ought to be a little straighter with us about what it really is. I am not the only one who felt that it was a process of dragging the truth out of FTE about what these engines really were, and I am certainly not the only one to feel that the PUBLIC is being presented one story and the AMA is being told quite another. So, if calling someone out on issues of obfuscatory hype and questionable practices is bashing, so be it.
I don't beleive AMA is at fault here. I think we, the public, were led to beleive one thing about the T-series engines, and AMA was told quite another. At any rate, If the T-series engines are legal, then the Wren should be, too.
I know I am far from alone in feeling this way.
02-03-2003, 03:54 PM
#95
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ojai
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tht's it
Originally posted by EASYTIGER
I am not the only one who felt that it was a process of dragging the truth out of FTE about what these engines really were, and I am certainly not the only one to feel that the PUBLIC is being presented one story and the AMA is being told quite another.
I am not the only one who felt that it was a process of dragging the truth out of FTE about what these engines really were, and I am certainly not the only one to feel that the PUBLIC is being presented one story and the AMA is being told quite another.
Well said.
02-03-2003, 04:20 PM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cape TownCape, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Units
Hi David,
Maybe some of the non-metric types can clear this up for us.
1 fluid ounce = 29.56 ml
1 ounce = 28.4 g
1Kg = 35.2 ounces
Kerosene SG 0.820
Clearly one fluid oz and oz by weight is not the same thing, if my info is correct, any ideas?
For example if an engine used 10oz (by weight) a minute that would be 284 g/min or 284/0.82 = 346ml/min.
IF 10 floz/min thats 295.6ml min, a difference of 17%.
Cheers
Andre
Maybe some of the non-metric types can clear this up for us.
1 fluid ounce = 29.56 ml
1 ounce = 28.4 g
1Kg = 35.2 ounces
Kerosene SG 0.820
Clearly one fluid oz and oz by weight is not the same thing, if my info is correct, any ideas?
For example if an engine used 10oz (by weight) a minute that would be 284 g/min or 284/0.82 = 346ml/min.
IF 10 floz/min thats 295.6ml min, a difference of 17%.
Cheers
Andre
02-03-2003, 04:56 PM
#97
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: anaheim, CA
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMA Approvalls
Hello all I called the AMA, and spoke to Illona she is always been very helpful in any special services matter.I asked first if the FTE line is approved and she confirmed,second I asked why others including myself was informed to re-subbmit complete documentation on already AMA approved motors that we are just looking to change the name of the distributor.She said this is a matter that, Carl Malone will be happy to answer and explain he is out of town and will call me when hes back.Remember that AMA is a bureaucracy and these matters come up all the time, so I will wait to here from Carl and then post a update to this matter for all who's interested.
As for Fuel consumption ,why don't we hold a Fuel Consumption Competition, Like at Super Man and have a special award given to the winner like a Hawaiian vacation
well ok maybe some trophy will be fine, this will help weed out false fuel consumption statements from manufactures!
As for Fuel consumption ,why don't we hold a Fuel Consumption Competition, Like at Super Man and have a special award given to the winner like a Hawaiian vacation
well ok maybe some trophy will be fine, this will help weed out false fuel consumption statements from manufactures!
02-03-2003, 05:27 PM
#98
Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: , ,
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T-500
Q: Why did it only take FTE a couple of weeks to get their engine AMA approved, while Wren can't do so
A: Each engine at the AMA has a file following that product. In case of RAM, the company is closed and they no longer produce the engine. Therefor, since we did not change the design of the engine, a simple name change was all it took. This takes very little time. In case with Wren, they wanted to use the JDE 54 approval since it is the exact same engine apart from the JDE logo engraved in the casing. Well, here the situation is different. One AMA file, but two engines. JDE is not out of business, so two engines can not have the same approval file.
Q: Why is the PST engine not approved yet, the AMA has had months to do it?
A: Wrong. I have learned that vital information regarding their approval was submitted just weeks ago. What this means is that the AMA has not had all the information needed to finalize the approval process until recently. Not the AMA's fault is it? -Not the big conspiracy suggest by some others is it? I find it difficult to understand why PST management does not step up to the plate and tell their frustrated customers that they may not be able to fly at Florida jets because THEY procrastinated, and did not get the information shipped out in time. Instead of this turning into an AMA bashing, suggesting corruption within their volunteer officials.
Now, that should be simple to understand right.
As to the other claims made that we did not tell the truth from the beginning. BS. Our press release sits unchanged on our website just as it was put there from day one, and it clearly states that the new T-series engines are based on the now defunct RAM products. The reason why ET, Menamf and others has such a hard time understanding the facts is that they most likely never read the release but probably just listened to the first rumors out there.
Now, I the best RCU tradition, I can now sit back and wait for attacks from people who pick out parts of this message and turns it into a new attack, ignoring both the facts just for the hell of it.
Disgusted from Florida
A: Each engine at the AMA has a file following that product. In case of RAM, the company is closed and they no longer produce the engine. Therefor, since we did not change the design of the engine, a simple name change was all it took. This takes very little time. In case with Wren, they wanted to use the JDE 54 approval since it is the exact same engine apart from the JDE logo engraved in the casing. Well, here the situation is different. One AMA file, but two engines. JDE is not out of business, so two engines can not have the same approval file.
Q: Why is the PST engine not approved yet, the AMA has had months to do it?
A: Wrong. I have learned that vital information regarding their approval was submitted just weeks ago. What this means is that the AMA has not had all the information needed to finalize the approval process until recently. Not the AMA's fault is it? -Not the big conspiracy suggest by some others is it? I find it difficult to understand why PST management does not step up to the plate and tell their frustrated customers that they may not be able to fly at Florida jets because THEY procrastinated, and did not get the information shipped out in time. Instead of this turning into an AMA bashing, suggesting corruption within their volunteer officials.
Now, that should be simple to understand right.
As to the other claims made that we did not tell the truth from the beginning. BS. Our press release sits unchanged on our website just as it was put there from day one, and it clearly states that the new T-series engines are based on the now defunct RAM products. The reason why ET, Menamf and others has such a hard time understanding the facts is that they most likely never read the release but probably just listened to the first rumors out there.
Now, I the best RCU tradition, I can now sit back and wait for attacks from people who pick out parts of this message and turns it into a new attack, ignoring both the facts just for the hell of it.
Disgusted from Florida
02-03-2003, 06:15 PM
#99
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ojai
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: T-500
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FTE
[B]
WOW....I think Easytiger has made many good posts on here, and helped many people. A bunch of people own and fly turbines without waivers.
BTW, I am not sure the profanity really helps you, but I guess that choice.
I remember when BVM was accused of crashing his F-100 on here, I talked to him he laughed it off, and I don't think they ever posted anything!. I think he has the right attitude!
Mark
[B]
WOW....I think Easytiger has made many good posts on here, and helped many people. A bunch of people own and fly turbines without waivers.
BTW, I am not sure the profanity really helps you, but I guess that choice.
I remember when BVM was accused of crashing his F-100 on here, I talked to him he laughed it off, and I don't think they ever posted anything!. I think he has the right attitude!
Mark
02-03-2003, 09:02 PM
#100
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 996
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turbines
I think the whole process is way over regulated,
I said it years ago , It's just another model airplane engine , why the big fuss.
We did not have this kind of regulation when four strokes came out, When Blown and super charged four strokes came out, its become "JUST ANOTHER MODEL AIRPLANE ENGINE" it's not it's nuclear powered.
I said it years ago , It's just another model airplane engine , why the big fuss.
We did not have this kind of regulation when four strokes came out, When Blown and super charged four strokes came out, its become "JUST ANOTHER MODEL AIRPLANE ENGINE" it's not it's nuclear powered.