Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:44:02 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-751932@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <sportform@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2)
  with ESMTP id 751913 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:17:50 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.32; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (really [68.5.208.199]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP
          id <20050220191704.WOGT11483.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@[10.0.1.2]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:17:04 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2)
In-Reply-To: <list-751898@logan.com>
References: <list-751898@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-48--376679269
X-Original-Message-Id: <dbc3471998bf95efa367a596c843f9d5@cox.net>
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FADEC Rough idle explanation
X-Original-Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:17:03 -0800
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2)


--Apple-Mail-48--376679269
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


> >There is a reason that NO ONE qualified to instruct in the Legacy=20
> that is familiar with the
> Aerosance FADEC development program will get near one.<
> =A0
> Barry,
> =A0
> I believe there is place for opinion and a place for facts on this=20
> website.=A0 You are certainly entitled to your opinion on Fadec,=20
> however, your statement above is clearly wrong.

You are clearly correct, I should have stated "NO ONE that I have=20
spoken to, which includes the 3 pilots involved with flying the=20
developmental FADEC for the IO-550N will fly in, much less train in, a=20=

FADEC equipped airplane."  I would also add that I am completely for=20
advancing technologies that make flying more safe and efficient, they=20
just don't pay me enough to be a test pilot....

I apologize for a statement that was more broad reaching than intended.

Cheers,

Barry

--Apple-Mail-48--376679269
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1



<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><x-tad-bigger>>There is a
reason that NO ONE qualified to instruct in the Legacy that is
familiar with the </x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><x-tad-bigger>Aerosance FADEC
development program will get near one.<<</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>

=
<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><x-tad-bigger>=A0</x-tad-bigger></fontfa=
mily>

=
<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><x-tad-bigger>Barry,</x-tad-bigger></fon=
tfamily>

=
<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><x-tad-bigger>=A0</x-tad-bigger></fontfa=
mily>

<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><x-tad-bigger>I believe there is
place for opinion and a place for facts on this website.=A0 You are
certainly entitled to your opinion on Fadec, however, your statement
above is clearly wrong.

</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></excerpt>

You are clearly correct, I should have stated "NO ONE that I have
spoken to, which includes the 3 pilots involved with flying the
developmental FADEC for the IO-550N will fly in, much less train in, a
FADEC equipped airplane."  I would also add that I am completely for
advancing technologies that make flying more safe and efficient, they
just don't pay me enough to be a test pilot....


I apologize for a statement that was more broad reaching than intended.


Cheers,


Barry


--Apple-Mail-48--376679269--