Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:15:06 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1116724@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.70; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com;
  b=dXAdYmVTWlkTN3xrWm/6EeIOQCZjuIDqhhHmWoXWQVBQ1tYYXnTlUbKn+WsIvlph;
  h=Received:Reply-To:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:Message-ID:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Reply-To: <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
From: "richard  titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Stability and Control
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: 
Thread-Index: AcZ2vbL1tCX+3hnAQ5O4D8bUYiiHSQAFmYqQAHrBkwA=


"Rienk Ayers said...

...I continue to assert that, ideally, the plane is designed to
be the most stable and controllable that it can be, so that when a pilot
does something stupid, there is a better chance of getting out of the mess
in one piece...


Mr Ayers,

The statement above (in isolation) seems to make sense.

However, in the context of your earlier post, you offensively imply anything
even remotely less would be "unsafe", and then continued on a tirade about
Lancairs (many models) all being unsafe and recommended grounding them,
while offering virtually no facts and/or credible, tangible, or feasible
improvement suggestions (for any of them).  I don't necessarily agree with
most of your opinions, nor the approach/demeanor of your posts.

However, if you really are sincere, perhaps you should focus your energy
where you mouth is, and have your team analyze the landing gear of the
Envoy.  Certainly a fixed gear is more forgiving of pilot (and perhaps
mechanical) mishaps.  Even despite various warnings and/or system
redundancies, fixed is still safer.

So, per similar application of your warped logic (drivel), if you don't
remove the retracts and go fixed gear, then all your efforts on the Envoy
are thus wasted on an "UNSAFE" airplane (which should also obviously not be
flown).  No need to include facts or risk/cost/performance discussion, as
they don't seem to apply in your world nor view of safety.

To further help with other safety improvements, I've attached a picture of a
concept modification which should help you in your STRUGGLES to ever get out
of the design phase, let alone flight testing, let alone selling, let alone
successful mature business, let alone ever even thinking about FAA
certification issues.  Obviously, you've got plenty to focus on in your own
shop, rather than throwing mud (and flames) at others.  Shame on you - how
immature.  Hmmmm, perhaps the attached design concept really is a good fit
in your world.

Seriously, outside of a lot of wasted emotional energy, the real waste is
that unfortunately, a meaningful discussion regarding control stick feedback
forces, control responsiveness, associated effects to stability, and
additional insights for training might have ensured from a more appropriate
initial message.  However, your short-sighted, self-indulgent, and offensive
approach doomed all of that.

If you're as smart as you claim, you know my opinion, and won't respond to
this unless it's a brief unqualified apology for the damage you've caused.  

Maybe if we're lucky, time will pass, your post will be forgotten, and
someone else will bring it back up with a constructive mindset.

Rick