Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [65.32.5.135] (HELO ms-smtp-05.tampabay.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b6) with ESMTP id 220371 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:43 -0400 Received: from 34025820001 (213.205.202.68.cfl.rr.com [68.202.205.213]) by ms-smtp-05.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i5LDQdJJ003199 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:26:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <002301c45793$8e956160$6501a8c0@34025820001> From: "Charlie Kohler" X-Original-To: "LancairList" Subject: training/economy X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C45772.07483F00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C45772.07483F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good morning all, It looks like a slow "Newsday" on the Lancair list --so I thought I = would make a few comments about articles in the latest flying magazine = (July issue). It might spark a little interest in those who hold = opposing views. Richard Collins in his "On Top" column, Training for Life, he makes this = statement "I wrote a while back that the insurance requirements for = recurrent training on such complex single engine airplanes as the Cessna = P 210 and the Piper Malibu/Mirage have done exactly no good. The = airplanes actually appear to have a worse accident record since more = recurrent training has been mandated for owners to be able to buy = meaningful insurance."=20 As we attempt to entice insurance companies to lower our rates by adding = training requirements (hours-in the traffic pattern and practice = area--ground school classes), we may be in fact not concentrating on the = elements that are the most problematic, in our training. With the = Lancair emphasis on training are we going down the same path that = Richard speaks of? Could it be that training for actual cross-country (with flights IFR) = would be a better scenario?. Looking for ways to improve judgment in = regards to preflight preparation, which would include, preflight = planning, weight and balance, weather, approaching uncontrolled airports = etc. etc. etc. would be more applicable to the Lancair IV?. This type of training is done with the airlines with a training/check = Captain after the simulator (which by the way is capable of doing all = check out training to include the rating ride). But this is called = Initial line experience. Maybe our training should be broken into two sections also. Aircraft = check out/cross-country training. ------------------------------------------------------ Another article that caught my eye was "Left Seat" by Mac McLellan. = "There's life left in piston engines". I couldn't help but notice that = the Lancair IV bests every figure cited. He says "SFC in airplane piston engines is phenomenal, approaching .40 = in cruise." Approaching??=20 Well, the Continental TSIO 550 is 41.3. Nautical mile per pound is NMPP. NMPP at 75% (262 HP) using 108.22 LB/hr = is 52.=20 Or stated as 2 1/2 miles per pound of fuel. Or 22cents per mile. = ($3.25 per gallon at 5.85 pounds per gallon)=20 The article states that "high-performance singles typically get more = than two nautical miles per pound of fuel even at high speed cruise".=20 The Continental powered Lancair IV P is 25% better than that figure.=20 But with aviation fuel now over three dollars a gallon, heading for four = dollars this summer, we can take some measure of relief that we are at = the top of the envelope.=20 And we should all be cheering on George Braly at GAMI for the PRISM. It = will increase these figures and will allow us to use unleaded premium = auto gas and increase horse power.=20 Charlie K. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C45772.07483F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good morning all,

It looks like a slow "Newsday" on the Lancair list --so I thought I = would=20 make a few comments about articles in the latest flying magazine (July = issue).=20 It might spark a little interest in those who hold opposing views.

Richard Collins in his "On Top" column, Training for Life, he makes = this=20 statement "I wrote a while back that the insurance requirements for = recurrent=20 training on such complex single engine airplanes as the Cessna P 210 and = the=20 Piper Malibu/Mirage have done exactly no good. The airplanes actually = appear to=20 have a worse accident record since more recurrent training has been = mandated for=20 owners to be able to buy meaningful insurance."

As we attempt to entice insurance companies to lower our rates by = adding=20 training requirements (hours-in the traffic pattern and practice = area--ground=20 school classes), we may be in fact not concentrating on the elements = that are=20 the most problematic, in our training. With the Lancair emphasis on = training are=20 we going down the same path that Richard speaks of?

Could it be that training for actual cross-country (with flights IFR) = would=20 be a better scenario?. Looking for ways to improve judgment in regards = to=20 preflight preparation, which would include, preflight planning, weight = and=20 balance, weather, approaching uncontrolled airports etc. etc. etc. would = be more=20 applicable to the Lancair IV?.

This type of training is done with the airlines with a training/check = Captain=20 after the simulator (which by the way is capable of doing all check out = training=20 to include the rating ride). But this is called Initial line = experience.

Maybe our training should be broken into two sections also.  = Aircraft=20 check out/cross-country training.

------------------------------------------------------

Another article that caught my eye was "Left Seat" by Mac McLellan. = "There's=20 life left in piston engines". I couldn't help but notice that the = Lancair IV=20 bests every figure cited.

He says "SFC in airplane piston engines is phenomenal, approaching = .40 in=20 cruise." Approaching??

Well, the Continental TSIO 550 is 41.3.

Nautical mile per pound is NMPP. NMPP at 75% (262 HP) using 108.22 = LB/hr is=20 52.

Or stated as  2 1/2 miles per pound of fuel. Or  =  22cents=20 per mile. ($3.25 per gallon at 5.85 pounds per gallon)

The article states that "high-performance singles typically get more = than two=20 nautical miles per pound of fuel even at high speed cruise".

The Continental powered Lancair IV P is 25% better than that figure. =

But with aviation fuel now over three dollars a gallon, heading for = four=20 dollars this summer, we can take some measure of relief that we are at = the top=20 of the envelope.

And we should all be cheering on George Braly at GAMI for the PRISM. = It will=20 increase these figures and will allow us to use unleaded premium auto = gas and=20 increase horse power.

Charlie K.

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C45772.07483F00--