Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 09:53:43 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2569708 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:57:32 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id q.113.285c8798 (3964) for ; Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:57:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <113.285c8798.2c8b33b8@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:57:28 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Egads, further to the Redmond 100? X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1062853048" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 1010 -------------------------------1062853048 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/5/2003 11:58:49 PM Central Daylight Time, LHenney@dellepro.com writes: With an increase in altitude my TAS normally loses a couple kts. Thus, the race shouldn't have produced normal speeds but a little slower than "normal". On the other hand, the winds aloft last year had a 90 deg shift from the surface to 3K AGL and they were huge as one climbed. Being high on the tailwind leg floored my Groundspeed. The point is that decreasing TAS with increasing altitude and variable winds probably play a much greater role in actual time to finish than the couple mile turn radii argument. Oh, and did I mention that "marketing" may have a role in published speeds? Hi Speed Larry, Au Contrair, Mon Ami! In the Cup Race, the EAA had the last leg 10 SM shorter than is geographically possible. This made my speed for that leg 233 mph instead of 227.5. In the Redmond 100, Lancair was theoretically using a strange number of 99.9 NM while the course is at least 101.4 NM, geographically speaking. If the turns are included, it is 103 nm and my time would indicate that I was actually going 228 mph. However, it would also mean Arnie (360) was doing 237.5, not the 229 they reported and Fred did 222 not 214. The other problem with the Redmond 100 was the inconsistent violation of the rules of mathematics when computing speeds. Winds did have an affect as my instrumentation noted a slight tailwind on the Madras to Sun River leg leading me to make my climb to 6000 feet earlier than I had planned in order to take advantage of it. Arnie complained that I didn't inform him of this fact as he was ahead of me penetrating the smoke at a lower altitude while dodging rock piles. I had adjusted my normal speeds for the altitude. I am only racing against myself since, usually, everyone else has either a bigger engine or tacked on a turbo. Each venture involves another tweak for performance and this one was no exception. The change in TAS is not linear for my "configuration" and the current ignition map (whatever that may be). All I can do is look at my stack of foolscap scribbled with performance data to check against that observed during the race - luckily, the lovely voice on the traffic alerter, "Traffic Nearby!" does get me to look out the window. Every knot is a knot not unimportant to a nut! Scott Krueger Sky2high@aol.com II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) -------------------------------1062853048 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/5/2003 11:58:49 PM Central Daylight Time, LHenney@= dellepro.com writes:

With an in= crease in altitude my TAS normally loses a couple kts. Thus, the race=20= shouldn't have produced normal speeds but a little slower than "normal".&nbs= p;

On the oth= er hand, the winds aloft last year had a 90 deg shift from the surface to 3K= AGL and they were huge as one climbed. Being high on the tailwind leg= floored my Groundspeed.

The point=20= is that decreasing TAS with increasing altitude and variable winds probably=20= play a much greater role in actual time to finish than the couple mile turn=20= radii argument. Oh, and did I mention that "marketing" may have a role= in published speeds?

Hi Speed Larry,

Au Contrair, Mon Ami! In the Cup Race, the EAA had the last leg 1= 0 SM shorter than is geographically possible. This made my speed for t= hat leg 233 mph instead of 227.5.

In the Redmond 100, Lancair was theoretically using a strange number of= 99.9 NM while the course is at least 101.4 NM, geographically speaking.&nbs= p; If the turns are included, it is 103 nm and my time would indicate that I= was actually going 228 mph. However, it would also mean Arnie (3= 60) was doing 237.5, not the 229 they reported and Fred did 222 not 214= . The other problem with the Redmond 100 was the inconsistent vi= olation of the rules of mathematics when computing speeds.

Winds did have an affect as my instrumentation noted a slight tailwind=20= on the Madras to Sun River leg leading me to make my climb to 6000 feet earl= ier than I had planned in order to take advantage of it. Arnie co= mplained that I didn't inform him of this fact as he was ahead of me pe= netrating the smoke at a lower altitude while dodging rock piles.

I had adjusted my normal speeds for the altitude. I am only racin= g against myself since, usually, everyone else has either a bigger engine or= tacked on a turbo. Each venture involves another tweak for performanc= e and this one was no exception. The change in TAS is not linear for m= y "configuration" and the current ignition map (whatever that may be). = All I can do is look at my stack of foolscap scribbled with perfo= rmance data to check against that observed during the race - luckily, the lo= vely voice on the traffic alerter, "Traffic Nearby!" does get me to look out= the window.

Every knot is a knot not unimportant to a nut!

Scott Krueger
Sky2high@aol.com
II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR)

-------------------------------1062853048--