|
|
> From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
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
|
|