X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:16:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f225.google.com ([209.85.219.225] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4010640 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:31:29 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.225; envelope-from=geiszfarm@tds.net Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so4648077ewy.5 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:30:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.101.66 with SMTP id b2mr8833582ebo.7.1260286249735; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:30:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:30:49 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <75eb2f1a0912080730o833fbc1u7d3fb1c9658196f9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LML] Fw: Vne is NOT a meaningless number From: "geiszfarm tds.net" X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Something about old pilots,and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. After 29,000 hours and 49 years of flying,these things still manage to scare the s..t out of me often enough. Tread lightly guys, things. Gil On 12/8/09, Wolfgang wrote: > Anyone ? ? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: "Wolfgang" > Sender: > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number > Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:28:30 -0500 > To: lml > > > > > Can someone give the criteria and procedure that is used to derive a > Vne speed ? > > Wolfgang > >