Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:38:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sv3.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 583447 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:35:55 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.148; envelope-from=johnlittle@ansonic.com.au Received: from little (unknown [202.61.208.106]) by sv3.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D1C9C13D9D for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:35:14 +0800 (WST) X-Original-Message-ID: <000201c4ede5$ec667d90$6ad03dca@little> From: "John Little" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] IVP low power settings vs. pressurization X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:12:32 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4EE3E.EE57EFE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4EE3E.EE57EFE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colyn, I refer to your LML posting on 12/01/04 regarding speed brakes. = You asked the question 'should I persevere with my old-style mechanical = speed brakes'? My interest as an Australian at the same level of build = (IVP), is that I also have the old style brakes and am similarly = questioning their use. Did you come to a decision? What influenced that decisiion? Would really appreciate your input. Regards John Little Hamilton Vic Aust ----- Original Message -----=20 From: colyncase on earthlink=20 To: Lancair Mailing List=20 Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 6:18 PM Subject: [LML] IVP low power settings vs. pressurization I've been looking at long range profiles and noticing that a lot of = the interesting range is below 28" MP. I've heard this is the least that will keep you pressurized = at altitude. Is this really true? =20 Anyone done anything to tighten up their airframe so that they can run = at lower power settings? thanks, Colyn Case ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4EE3E.EE57EFE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colyn,
    I refer to your LML = posting on=20 12/01/04 regarding speed brakes.    You asked the = question=20 'should I persevere with my old-style mechanical speed = brakes'?   My=20 interest as an Australian at the same level of build (IVP), is that I = also have=20 the old style brakes and am similarly questioning their = use.
    Did you come to a=20 decision?
    What influenced that = decisiion?
    Would really = appreciate=20 your input.
 
    Regards
 
    John = Little
    Hamilton Vic = Aust
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 colyncase on earthlink =
Sent: Thursday, December 23, = 2004 6:18=20 PM
Subject: [LML] IVP low power = settings vs.=20 pressurization

I've been looking at long range = profiles and=20 noticing that a lot of the interesting range is below
28" MP.  I've heard this is the = least that=20 will keep you pressurized at altitude.
 
Is this really true?   =
 
Anyone done anything to tighten up = their airframe=20 so that they can run at lower power settings?
 
thanks,
 
Colyn Case
 
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4EE3E.EE57EFE0--