X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:04:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [70.62.14.124] (HELO server1.USTEK) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1962408 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:39:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=rsimon@ustek.com Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0 X-Original-Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:40:26 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0 Thread-Index: Acd1N9WE2Ic6vA1qRQCRigoi7480mgAA01ZQ From: "Lancair" X-Original-Sender: "Robert Simon" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Scotty, =20 I think that we do not disagree and I do not demean the aircraft by referring to it as purpose built. It was designed to carry one highly trained and motivated individual very far and very fast in the horizontal, climb and dive directions. That was a very good thing. And yes it had some then new technology and the damn thing was put into production in, what was it, less than a year from initial design? A heck of a feat. My point was that it did that job well but we do not find a fleet in current production. Other modern technologies can fly just just as much on less fuel and lower cost. So the P-51 was a great plane for tits purpose and time but is not to be emulated in today's market. (Unless one is prospecting for a trophy wife.) =20 Robert M. Simon ES-P N301ES =20 ________________________________ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Scotty G Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:59 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0 Robert wrote: =20 The P-51 was purpose built. I would suggest that the P-51 was more of a unique aircraft than an example of good use of technology. Otherwise the industry would have continued with and improved upon that design. =20 Robert M. Simon ES-P N301ES Oh boy. =20 Purpose built? Aren't all airplanes purpose-built? Escort. Fighter. Attack. Dive Bomber. Recon... Man, I just have to disagree with you on these counts... The P-51, for it's time, used two new pieces of 'technology' that made it head and shoulders above the rest. The airfoil and the cooling system were marvels of aeronautical advnacement that still stand today. The original design was improved upon - the British Merlin and a two-stage supercharger really 'made' the airplane. Until the demise of one current Merlin racing engine builder, we continued that tradition with Dago Red. We still hold the course record at Reno with a hot lap of 511 mph and a race average of 507. (Now I'll agree THAT ONE is a one purpose airplane! (Okay, two... It burns money really fast...) =20 Industry moved on to jets. The Mustang (among a few others) still represents the epitome of piston-engine airplane design. Plus... chicks dig them. =20 Scotty G Warbird Digest Magazine September Pops Air Racing