X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4003190 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:03:28 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.17; envelope-from=skipslater@verizon.net Received: from SkipPC ([173.58.203.163]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KU5005D6MWL8Y4H@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:02:45 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Message-id: From: "Skip Slater" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number X-Original-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:01:59 -0800 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA7503.7DEA76F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA7503.7DEA76F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lynn, My only objection here is the cavalier disregard for limitations. = Your plane is an exception in that it was specifically modified to race, = as was Greenameyer's and the IV that Lancair raced in the early Sport = Class races in Reno (at least the engine was). Your mods make your = plane safe to fly at those speeds and you have established a higher Vne = that you respect. That's the smart way to do it. The vast majority of = the Lancairs flying don't have the airframe mods you have and their = pilots, if they choose to fly past redline IAS, have nothing upon which = to base their own limiting airspeed. I hope you're not suggesting that = they're all as safe to fly as fast as you do. If our entire community decides that limitations are just guidelines = which can be ignored, we deserve all the bad press we've been getting. = If you ignore Vne, why not ignore an RMP limit, G limit or any other = limitation you find too restrictive? It's an attitude we shouldn't be = fostering, particularly in a public forum such as the LML. If Joe B. thinks Lancair Vne's are too low, why doesn't he raise them? = If the factory endorses the raising of limits based upon their own = research and flight testing, I have no problem with that. However if = you, Randy or any other Lancair drivers right up to Joe instead advocate = the disregard of the current published limitations, I personally think = that's an unwise choice. I've been a professional pilot since I left = college and I wasn't trained to think that way and strongly discourage = the practice. Why don't we just leave it at that. Regards, Skip ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA7503.7DEA76F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lynn,
   My only objection = here is=20 the cavalier disregard for limitations.  Your plane is an exception = in that=20 it was specifically modified to race, as was Greenameyer's and the = IV that=20 Lancair raced in the early Sport Class races in Reno (at least the = engine=20 was).  Your mods make your plane safe to fly at those speeds and = you have=20 established a higher Vne that you respect.  That's the = smart way=20 to do it.  The vast majority of the Lancairs flying don't have the=20 airframe mods you have and their pilots, if they choose to fly past = redline=20 IAS, have nothing upon which to base their own limiting = airspeed.  I=20 hope you're not suggesting that they're all as safe to fly as fast as = you=20 do.
   If our entire community = decides that=20 limitations are just guidelines which can be ignored, we deserve all the = bad=20 press we've been getting.  If you ignore Vne, why not ignore an RMP = limit,=20 G limit or any other limitation you find too restrictive?  It's an = attitude=20 we shouldn't be fostering, particularly in a public forum such = as the=20 LML.
  If Joe B. thinks Lancair Vne's = are too low,=20 why doesn't he raise them?  If the factory endorses the raising of = limits=20 based upon their own research and flight testing, I have no problem with = that.  However if you, Randy or = any other=20 Lancair drivers right up to Joe instead advocate the disregard of = the=20 current published limitations, I personally think that's an unwise = choice. =20 I've been a professional pilot since I left college and I = wasn't=20 trained to think that way and strongly discourage the=20 practice.
   Why don't we just leave it = at=20 that.
   Regards,
   = Skip 
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CA7503.7DEA76F0--