X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:41:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4005121 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:11:47 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.82; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP48 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:11:12 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [76.252.173.151] X-Originating-Email: [randystuart@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from laptop ([76.252.173.151]) by BLU0-SMTP48.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:11:10 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number X-Original-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:11:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01CA766D.31878BC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2009 20:11:10.0988 (UTC) FILETIME=[40F944C0:01CA76B0] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01CA766D.31878BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark,=20 On the contrary, I think these stats are very germane. The reason I = think these stats are important is because Lancair's have a long racing = history. And very true, most Lancair's never exceed Vne, or even get to = Vne. But there is a portion that have exceeded this number and beyond.=20 Lancair's are now and have been raced all across the US for many years. = Many postings have been on the LML with race results year after year. = These planes exceed the published limits. The Lancair factory has = promoted racing at their events. This list goes on about Lancair's = racing. Including my Lancair.=20 With that said, it would stand to reason with 1000's of hours and nearly = 20 years of racing, if there were known problems or concerns they would = have been posted. Lancair is vigilant concerning service bulletins, it's = in their best interest. If there were any flutter problems it would = have been posted. Proof of that is the LNC-4 problems in bad weather.=20 Unlike most aircraft built, some Lancair's are commonly pushed to the = limit and beyond and the STATS speak for themselves. This is why the = stats are germane. A few have been modified for the extremes and others have not. All and = all not one has come apart. I think that's pretty impressive! I am not in any way advocating any pilot push his / hers Lancair past = the published limits ever, in any conditions. But this is a proven = aircraft and if a few of us like to push the limits that's on us, no one = else.=20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Sletten=20 To: LML=20 Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 9:32 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number Randy, You keep repeating these stats as if they mean something germane to = this discussion. Are you implying LNC-2 pilots exceed Vne regularly? I have two thoughts about these stats:=20 First, without knowing the number of times the published Vne has been = exceeded in LNC-2 aircraft, whether the airframe has been modified, the = flight conditions, altitude, KIAS/KTAS, etc, this 'stat' means nothing. = Anecdotal evidence is not data. Second, the fact that Lancair hasn't issued a bulletin regarding = flutter on a certain model of aircraft tells me the Vne chosen for it = appears to be appropriate -- it says nothing about the prudence of = exceeding it. What this info says to me more than anything else is that most LNC-2 = pilots have a healthy respect for the published Vne. --Mark Sletten Randy Stewart said: =20 =20 =20 =20 The stats are: Not one LNC-2 has come apart from exceeding Vne. = There are no service bulletins from Lancair regarding high speed flutter = on a small tail LNC-2.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01CA766D.31878BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,=20
On the contrary, I = think these=20 stats are very germane. The reason I think these stats are = important is=20 because Lancair's have a long racing history. And very true, most = Lancair's=20 never exceed Vne, or even get to Vne. But there is a portion that = have=20 exceeded this number and beyond.
Lancair's are now = and have=20 been raced all across the US for many years. Many postings have been on = the LML=20 with race results year after year. These planes exceed the published = limits. The=20 Lancair factory has promoted racing at their events. This list goes on = about=20 Lancair's racing. Including my Lancair.
With that said, it = would stand=20 to reason with 1000's of hours and nearly 20 years of racing, if=20 there were known problems or concerns they would have been posted. = Lancair=20 is vigilant concerning service bulletins, it's in their best interest. =  If=20 there were any flutter problems it would have been posted. Proof of that = is the=20 LNC-4 problems in bad weather.
Unlike most = aircraft built,=20 some Lancair's are commonly pushed to the limit and beyond and the STATS = speak=20 for themselves. This is why the stats are = germane.
A few have been = modified for=20 the extremes and others have not. All and all not one has come apart. I = think=20 that's pretty impressive!
I am not in any = way advocating=20 any pilot push his / hers Lancair past the published limits ever, in any = conditions. But this is a proven aircraft and if a few of us like to = push the=20 limits that's on us, no one else.
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark=20 Sletten 
To: LML
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 = 9:32=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a = meaningless number

Randy,

You=20 keep repeating these stats as if they mean something germane to this=20 discussion. Are you implying LNC-2 pilots exceed Vne regularly?

I=20 have two thoughts about these stats: 

First,=20 without knowing the number of times the published Vne has been = exceeded in=20 LNC-2 aircraft, whether the airframe has been modified, the flight = conditions,=20 altitude, KIAS/KTAS, etc, this 'stat' means nothing. Anecdotal = evidence is not=20 data.

Second,=20 the fact that Lancair hasn't issued a bulletin regarding flutter on a = certain=20 model of aircraft tells me the Vne chosen for it appears to be = appropriate --=20 it says nothing about the prudence of exceeding it.

What=20 this info says to me more than anything else is that most LNC-2 pilots = have a=20 healthy respect for the published Vne.

--Mark=20 Sletten


Randy=20 Stewart said: 


The=20 stats are: Not one LNC-2 has come apart from exceeding Vne. = There are no=20 service bulletins from Lancair regarding high speed flutter on a = small=20 = tail LNC-2.
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01CA766D.31878BC0--