wrote snip

Well, I kind of did remember Bill posting about his time as a test
pilot, but my recollection was that after a couple of interesting
posts about how much fun it was, he began saying some pretty nasty
things about the OMABP and told us he wasn't flying it anymore.

So I asked him in the Kitplanes thread if this was in fact the same
airplane he wrote about. I said: "Is this the same airplane that you
trashed here in this group because of PSRU failures?"
snip

Trashed? I just read Bill's post you provided. It resonated with
honesty and reasonableness. (which is suprising for BWB! ;-) Just
kidding Bill.) Where does he say the reduction unit kept failing
other than the one bad belt? Telling the public truthfull details
about a project after you're gone and you have time to reflect on it
is not being nasty. It's being a hero to some potential widow; and
letting the rest of us consumers know better what's posssibly in store
for us after we read the slick marketing brochures. Your misguided
loyalty to a hunk of metal is odd Corky. Water-cooled, rubber belted
engine's worry me. My hat's off to BWB, for calling a spade what he
thinks a spade is at the time, even if it hurts people's feelings who
are too close to the project. This might not successfully dissuade me
from buying the engine, but after reading Bill's post I don't think
I'd fly it over water or at night.

After categorizing all the things you thought were at fault in the
airplane, I'm not surprised that you decided to not pilot it anymore.
Heck, it made sense to me back in 1997 when you wrote it. Can you see
why, remembering what you'd said, I might be confused by your
Kitplanes post?

But it looks like you are now solidly behind the OMABP. I guess they
must be relieved. I think I am.

Corky Scott

This kind of built-in safety conflict vs. profitability with those who
make safety decisions while standing on the ground and counting their
money is a very familiar saga for professional pilots (paid or not.)
What seems significant Corky is the passage of seven years without
high failure or fatalities. Bill's attitudes as a test pilot then,
were quite understandable and prudent considering a low budget test
program like that. Now that time's been built up on the engine and
more is known about the choices they made, I'm sure Bill is proud of
having been part of it. As opposed to certain helicopter programs
where the test pilots signed off on practically anything that
management shoved down their throats. The test pilot's attitudes in
those cases resulted in a lot of missing man formations. The above
are my opinions only.

pacplyer