Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:43:00 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-402012@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <dfs155@adelphia.net>
Received: from mta13.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.44] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1)
  with ESMTP id 401789 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:57:31 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.44; envelope-from=dfs155@adelphia.net
Received: from f3g6s4 ([67.22.49.202]) by mta13.adelphia.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with SMTP
          id <20040908065704.UMYR24693.mta13.adelphia.net@f3g6s4>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 02:57:04 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <014c01c49571$47fb2160$ca311643@losaca.adelphia.net>
From: "Dan Schaefer" <dfs155@adelphia.net>
X-Original-To: "Lancair list" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Engine and communication failures
X-Original-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:58:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441

Brent,

The part of your answer (in the subject post) regarding the track question,
i.e., "Most candidates *guess* a much larger number" tells it all. I
wouldn't hire an engineer who would guess at this one (or any of your other
posers either).

I can't agree with you more regarding modifications, only wish I was as
eloquent in expressing same. I have seen some "improvements" made, not only
to Lancairs, by self-proclaimed experts that makes my blood run cold. My
guess as to why some of them haven't come apart is because Lance so
overdesigned (in some cases) that the airplane retained enough margin to
survive even when royally screwed up.

Regards,

Dan Schaefer