Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:27:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from esmtp.cave.com ([66.35.72.5] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.3) with ESMTP id 431562 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:53:56 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.35.72.5; envelope-from=Lancair@ustek.com Received: from ustek.com ([24.95.74.155]) by esmtp.cave.com (VisNetic.MailServer.v7.2.4.1) with ESMTP id CQN38002 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:53:11 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4154DB74.2010401@ustek.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:44:04 -0400 From: N301ES Reply-To: Lancair@ustek.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] incidence difference References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080305080805090104040706" --------------080305080805090104040706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Overmars wrote: > ANY aeroplane that has such an enormous difference in wing(tip) > incidence is nothing short of a deathtrap in my opinion. I plan to use the builders' workshop at Lancair in Frbruary, and I fully expect that by then they will be able to document all measurements within a fraction of a percent. Continuous improvement is required of all companies who expect to remain in business and Lancair is not run by a bunch of dummies. However I do not believe that their errors are unique, nor do I believe that these errors alone are responsible for the accidents. Consider the hand layups in all the early Rutan designs. These wings and canards are hand made without molds by first time builders, but still they are not falling out of the sky. Glasairs? Wings are slide through holes hand cut into the fuselage. Methinks something besides inexact angles alone is causing the problem. Robert M. Simon, (ES-P on order!) --------------080305080805090104040706 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Overmars wrote:

ANY aeroplane that has such an enormous difference in wing(tip) incidence is nothing short of a deathtrap in my opinion.

I plan to use the builders' workshop at Lancair in Frbruary, and I fully expect that by then they will be able to document all measurements within a fraction of a percent. Continuous improvement is required of all companies who expect to remain in business and Lancair is not run by a bunch of dummies. However I do not believe that their errors are unique, nor do I believe that these errors alone are responsible for the accidents. Consider the hand layups in all the early Rutan designs. These wings and canards are hand made without molds by first time builders, but still they are not falling out of the sky. Glasairs? Wings are slide through holes hand cut into the fuselage. Methinks something besides inexact angles alone is causing the problem.

Robert M. Simon, (ES-P on order!)

--------------080305080805090104040706--