X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:38:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4032858 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:56:06 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.15; envelope-from=skipslater@verizon.net Received: from SkipPC ([173.58.203.163]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KUZ00CCVERTIFQV@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:55:06 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Message-id: <32815122D81147FB9DEE55416995EEE3@SkipPC> From: "Skip Slater" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list X-Original-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:55:03 -0800 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01CA81A5.F06BE430" 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_004B_01CA81A5.F06BE430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy, You have twisted some words (again). To wit: "the LML police insist = that the published Vne is the point of distruction(sic)" Neither I nor anyone else who has commented on this thread ever said = that. We all know Vne is set with a margin for safety. The point is = that this margin is not a finite number, so by exceeding redline = airspeed, you have no idea how close you may be to a point of structural = failure. At speeds above the green arc, a good jolt of unexpected = turbulence has the potential to break something. Above Vne, that = potential grows exponentially and at some undefined point in every = Lancair, structural failure is a certainty. What Lancair does by = setting a Vne is put out a number that hopefully protects all builders = from such a catastrophic event. You've often cited race pilots who = often exceed Vne, but those planes were structurally modified to do = that. Did you personally build your plane and if so, did you make such = modifications to it? Also, keep in mind that insurance is not the same = for someone who races their plane when you talk about your low premiums. = You claim that "The Lancair designers, I'm sure, were very conservative = with their numbers." First, neither you or anyone else on the list = knows exactly how conservative they were. By exceeding Vne by any = amount, you're guessing how much. To a career pilot like myself, that's = like guessing whether there's a bullet in the chamber of a pistol while = playing Russian Roulette. Odds are that you'll get away with it, but = that doesn't make it a good idea.=20 You also said, "All Lancair's were designed safe and should be flown = within the published limits, I agree." If that's all you said, we = wouldn't be having this discussion. But in the same post, you also said, = "I never said I fly past Vne all the time, I said I have and do on = occasion in the right conditions.", which would seem to conflict with = the previous statement. I don't know how you define the "right = conditions" to exceed a manufacturer set limitation and violate FAR's, = but several very experienced pilots on this list have simply expressed = to you that it's a bad practice. For that we've been labeled "Police". = I'd have preferred that you simply accept the fact that our interest is = purely in your safety and that of your passengers. That should be a = common thread among all of us on the LML. We clearly can't make you = heed our advice, but speaking for myself, it is my great hope that this = discussion may influence some other current or potential Lancair driver = that they should think long and hard before doing something like = ignoring a P.O.H. limitation. Happy landings, Skip Slater ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01CA81A5.F06BE430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Randy,
 
You have twisted some words = (again).  To=20 wit: "the LML police insist = that the=20 published Vne is the point of distruction(sic)"
 
Neither I nor anyone else who has = commented on this=20 thread ever said that.  We all know Vne is set = with a=20 margin for safety.  The point is that this margin is not a = finite=20 number, so by exceeding redline airspeed, you have no idea how close=20 you may be to a point of structural failure.  At speeds = above the=20 green arc, a good jolt of unexpected turbulence has the potential = to break=20 something.  Above Vne, that potential grows exponentially and at = some=20 undefined point in every Lancair, structural failure is a = certainty. =20 What Lancair does by setting a Vne is put out a number that=20 hopefully protects all builders from such a catastrophic = event. =20 You've often cited race pilots who often exceed Vne, but those = planes were=20 structurally modified to do that.  Did you personally build your = plane and=20 if so, did you make such modifications to it?  Also, keep in = mind that=20 insurance is not the same for someone who races their plane when you = talk about=20 your low premiums. 
 
You claim that "The Lancair = designers,=20 I'm sure, were very conservative with their numbers."  First, = neither=20 you or anyone else on the list knows exactly how conservative they = were. =20 By exceeding Vne by any amount, you're guessing how = much. =20 To a career pilot like myself, that's like guessing whether there's = a=20 bullet in the chamber of a pistol while playing = Russian Roulette. =20 Odds are that you'll get away with it, but that doesn't make it a good=20 idea. 
 
You also said, "All Lancair's = were=20 designed safe and should be flown within the published limits, I = agree." =20 If that's all you said, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But = in the=20 same post, you also said, "I never said I fly = past Vne=20 all the time, I said I have and do on occasion in the right=20 conditions.", which would seem to conflict with the previous=20 statement.  I don't know how you define the "right conditions" to = exceed a=20 manufacturer set limitation and violate FAR's, but several very = experienced=20 pilots on this list have simply expressed to you that it's a bad = practice. =20 For that we've been labeled "Police".  I'd have preferred = that you=20 simply accept the fact that our interest is purely in your safety and = that of=20 your passengers.  That should be a common thread among all of us on = the=20 LML.  We clearly can't make you heed our advice, but speaking for = myself,=20 it is my great hope that this discussion may influence some other = current or=20 potential Lancair driver that they should think long and=20 hard before doing something like ignoring a P.O.H.=20 limitation.
 
Happy landings,
Skip=20 Slater    
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01CA81A5.F06BE430--