Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP id 1147276 for rob@logan.com; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 04:02:12 -0500 Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 02:27:31 -0500 Received: from AVIDWIZ@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id k.17.255d7492 (4410) for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 02:30:49 -0500 (EST) From: AVIDWIZ@aol.com Message-ID: <17.255d7492.29cedaa8@aol.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 02:30:48 EST Subject: Turbine lancair IVPT for only $220,000? To: lancair.list@olsusa.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Dear Hamid, You're probably right so figure 180 kts @ 54 GPH for 7-1/2 min. to allow for time to clear the pattern and climb to FL 180 and you've burned 5 gal which will give you an additional 7 or 8 min flight time at cruise which equates to 39 miles. This give us a range of 704 miles with 20 gal reserve. In the article it mentions that the IVP-T is supposed to get down to 33 GPH at FL260 so if they can work out the pressurization that will surely help since higher altitudes equals lower fuel burn and higher TAS. However, in congested airspace like Los Angeles where I am based, it is routine to be kept at lower altitudes for quite a distance so for operations in Southern California I think a 15 min climb is probably pretty close. On several flights I have been held to 5,000 ft for 60 miles before climb release to 9,000 where I sat for another 20 miles and then step climbed in 3,000 ft increments to FL230 15 min would have been a dream! The real answer here is to fix the pressurization problem so the plane can climb high and cruise economically. The other equally problematic issue is that of fuel capacity. My understanding is that in order to squeeze 122 gal in the IVP-T they do so by utilizing a header tank or reserve tank mounted on the belly of the plane. This sounds like a potential fire hazard if one makes a forced landing, wheels up. What the members of the list who are building turbine lancairs can perhaps share with us is: a) What are you doing to address pressurization? b) How are you addressing fuel capacity? I have heard of a Lancair IVP in Ohio which had a thicker than normal wing root . From what I can remember this plane boasted of 120-130 gal capacity I know several IVP-T's are being built so perhaps they can share their ideas with us. Also the factory has been very quiet lately regarding the turbine...whats up guys? Regards, Dave Riggs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore assist with the management of the LML. Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>