Re: Oops [was "Exponential" differential via mechanics]

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>

Well, I'm glad we have a disagreement about the landing problem (if any)
rather than some licensing/regulation issue where we were causing you some
other sort of problem. I have read of licensing issues such as engine
ignition needing to be approved by the PFA (Great Britain) or documentation
of G-load testing before approval (not sure where that was -- New Zealand
maybe). I didn't want us to cause you or anyone else that sort of problem.

Mike Perry

At 04:05 PM 10/25/2006 +1000, you wrote:

Mike when I say "as long as it is not compulsory" it is a form of Aussie
humour like irony. I said it because people get upset if I do not agree with
everything or anything to do with the sixpack. They want me to join the
queue . I have explained my ideas about the diferential dual pivoting
rudder/tailwheel splitter before and won't repeat it now. I am qualified as
an engineer and I take a critical look at anything before it goes into my Q.
It is also a matter of time and priorities that are mine to decide.

I do not oppose all of the 6 pack and if it sounds a bit vehement that is
because I do get tired of having to repeatedly justify my decisions not to
use each and every item. I have a modified tailwheel with vertical axis, a
pneumatic tyre and reflexed aelerons and I am very happy with my Q. That is
fine for me at the age of 68 so it can't be too bad for anyone else.

I may make other changes when time and priorities permit.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.