X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:53:29 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [70.62.14.124] (HELO ustek.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6295427 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 May 2013 07:20:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=r.simon@ustek.com Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CE5C5E.21281CE2" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: RE: [LML] Lancair Aerobatics X-Original-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:17:35 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Lancair Aerobatics Thread-Index: Ac5cXIPMrHE3uidwQCKVRUMH0Hee5g== From: "Lancair" X-Original-Sender: "Robert Simon" X-Original-To: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CE5C5E.21281CE2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that aerobatics must be approached cautiously but not all Lancair designs are accidents waiting to happen. Our slim-winged IV-P brethren deal with one set of circumstances while the ES and Legacy and even the Evolution might offer greater capabilities. On my first familiarization flight in the ES I asked the Lancair instructor about the roll rate. His reply was "I don't know - time it". We spent the next 20 minutes rolling the plane quite comfortably in both directions over the Oregon high desert and then went on our merry way. Not a spirited performer like a Pitts S2C but that was not the intended use. I do not know what the instructor's response would have been had we been flying a IV-P. =20 =20 Robert Simon ES-P N301ES =20 =20 From: cwfmd@yahoo.com [mailto:cwfmd@yahoo.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:17 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Lancair Aerobatics =20 Several challenges face the new Lancair pilot. Please approach aerobatics very carefully. My Lancair 4P has a much higher wing loading, intended for cruise performance.=20 . =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CE5C5E.21281CE2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree = that aerobatics must be approached cautiously but not all Lancair = designs are accidents waiting to happen.  Our slim-winged IV-P = brethren deal with one set of circumstances while the ES and Legacy and = even the Evolution might offer greater capabilities.  On my first = familiarization flight in the ES I asked the Lancair instructor about = the roll rate.  His reply was “I don’t know – = time it”.  We spent the next 20 minutes rolling the plane = quite comfortably in both directions over the Oregon high desert and = then went on our merry way.  Not a spirited performer like a Pitts = S2C  but that was not the intended use.  I do not know what = the instructor’s response would have been had we been flying a = IV-P. 

 =

Robert = Simon

ES-P = N301ES

 =

 =

From:= = cwfmd@yahoo.com [mailto:cwfmd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May = 28, 2013 1:17 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: = Re: [LML] Lancair Aerobatics

 

Several = challenges face the new Lancair pilot. Please approach aerobatics very = carefully. My Lancair 4P has a much higher wing loading, intended for = cruise performance.
 .

 =

------_=_NextPart_001_01CE5C5E.21281CE2--