X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:10:46 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.97.144.113] (HELO n016.sc0.he.tucows.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1919291 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:00:28 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.97.144.113; envelope-from=billhogarty@hughes.net Received: from [192.168.1.101] (69.19.84.131) by n016.sc0.he.tucows.com (7.2.078) (authenticated as billhogarty@hughes.net) id 45F6481D0002750F for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:59:34 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <45F7029A.20306@hughes.net> X-Original-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:59:22 -0800 From: billhogarty User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: enough runway References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I dont agree that "locking" the wheels is the best way to stop on a short runway. Blowing out a tire just adds direction control problems to an already bad situation. (BTW, there was an "antiskid" option being offered for the Lancair some time ago altho I cant recall who the mfgr was. That might be one way to avoid a blown tire.) Anyway, why use short runways in the first place when the downside can be so expensive? We have so many airports available to us here in the U.S. that picking a short runway doesnt seem to me to be a very reasonable choice. I much prefer a longer runway so I can coast to the turnoff without using any brakes at all. Its a lot easier on the machine and also on the driver. More food for thought. Regards, Bill Hogarty