Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 01:11:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com ([204.127.198.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b1) with ESMTP id 1235947 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 May 2002 00:27:46 -0400 Received: from attbi.com ([24.127.94.60]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020513042746.MUCT22408.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@attbi.com> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:27:46 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <3CDF401B.9010101@attbi.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:24:59 -0700 From: "Brent S." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: " (Lancair Mailing List)" Subject: Re: [LML] Engines for the IV References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I love the turbine idea in a IV. User friendly and handful's of power on demand. However, the high fuel burn takes any serious cross country or lower altitude flight (which I enjoy) and blows it right out the exhaust pipe! I don't count that as a "obvious other benefit" for this type of airplane. Now if you want a $400,000 (or more) toy, turbine is the way to go! Brent S.