X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 50 [XX] (100%) RECEIVED: Received headers not consistent with Juno "FROM:" Return-Path: Received: from m12.lax.untd.com ([64.136.30.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with SMTP id 2054418 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 May 2007 00:06:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.30.75; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from m12.lax.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m12.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABDE9UHZAL9UB8S for (sender ); Sat, 19 May 2007 21:05:11 -0700 (PDT) X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkBtUAQ4yTBSNwNp3o7c2yA1oqTML+Z7SxA== Received: (from alwick@juno.com) by m12.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id MM6HLHR3; Sat, 19 May 2007 21:04:41 PDT To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 20:55:04 -0700 Subject: Re: Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Marginal Cooling contributes to Crash. Message-ID: <20070519.210423.3328.5.alwick@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.49 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,7-12,15-47,49,51-52 From: al p wick X-ContentStamp: 15:7:4230074712 X-MAIL-INFO:3debeb1bceb37ffee7472f1b672f23da0b9ea32f8b8ac35bce8ba39e8b3e8b6e27e31ec7eb5f1bae1b8ece5723776f57feb38f X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m12.lax.untd.com|alwick@juno.com > From: Finn Lassen > So keeping below VNE means there is something wrong with the > aircraft -- marginal design? You've got the right idea. What if your plane took off at 60 mph, but had a VNE of 70mph? Wouldn't you agree that is marginal? So the risk drops the further VNE is from your cruise speed. Do you agree? That's the point. > Keeping an eye on and reducing RPM in that Cessa 152 when it > approaches > red line means a marginal engine/prop design? Yes, planes that don't have red line so close to normal operations are safer. The rotary is good example. You don't have to worry about red line. Your risk of overrev is near zero. Yet it happens on Cessna. > > Sorry Al, this simply doesn't wash. It's called staying within > operating > limits and is standard procedure in operation of any machine. Standard procedure yes, but does it really have to be standard? >Yes, I > know some are on a quest to automate and install safeguards to the > point > where the operator does not have to think or can't do anything > wrong, > but where is the fun in that? What makes you think I have less fun? If you want to be totally safe, stay > on > the ground, in your house, in your bed (well -- that may not be > totally > safe either). To be totally "safe" is to stop living -- being dead. > > So the trick is finding the middle ground -- don't do anything > completely stupid and don't stop living either. Certainly agree, flying adds to life risk. -al wick Cozy IV powered by Turbo Subaru 3.0R with variable valve lift and cam timing. Artificial intelligence in cockpit, N9032U 240+ hours from Portland, Oregon Glass panel design, Subaru install, Prop construct, Risk assessment info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html