X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:20:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.137.4] (HELO imo-m23.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1235946 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:03:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.4; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-m23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.5.) id q.3c6.56a8e94 (43932) for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:02:15 -0400 (EDT) From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <3c6.56a8e94.31e82af7@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:02:15 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LNC2-handling without nose strut inflation X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1152831735" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5026 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1152831735 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/13/2006 8:03:58 AM Central Standard Time, n103md@yahoo.com writes: The functional purpose of the nose strut is : 1) to hold the wheel in the right place relative to the airframe, 2) to absorb some energy on less graceful landings, and 3) allow the nose to rise gently on takeoff so the pilot has a moment to find the right elevator position. A rubber hose clamped to the strut can allow the strut to serve #1 well, #2 adequately, and #3 not so well. In my view, that is sufficient to allow a safe flight by someone who knows how to fly a Lancair in the first place. Consider that many airplanes are flying with little or no shock absorption in the nose gear. It's probably better than the rock-hard mooney donuts that used to be on the mains of my LNC2. If I were facing considerable inconvenience versus flying with a deflated nose strut plus radiator hose and hose clamps, I would clamp on the hose, and give the nose a few tugs up and down to insure proper takeoff attitude and prop clearance. If it passed those tests, I would fly it home. The greatest risk would be ridicule on the LML :-) George Braly (privately) and I (on the lml) had this exact discussion with Shannon Knoeplfin 2 years ago. He thought that he was someone "who knew how to fly a Lancair in the first place" and decided "the considerable inconvenience" was too much to bear so he departed Oshkosh. He died less than 30 minutes later attempting an engine out landing into Madison. The moral of the story is, if you are terribly inconvenienced by mechanical malfunctions aircraft are prone to and cannot stand the thought of waiting on the ground for them to be properly repaired then you should not be a pilot. Regards, Jeff -------------------------------1152831735 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 7/13/2006 8:03:58 AM Central Standard Time,=20 n103md@yahoo.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>The=20 functional purpose of the nose strut is :
1) to hold the wheel in the r= ight=20 place relative to the airframe,
2) to absorb some energy on less grace= ful=20 landings, and
3) allow the nose to rise gently on takeoff so the pilot= has=20 a moment to
find the right elevator position.
A=20 rubber hose clamped to the strut can allow the strut to serve #1 well, #2=20 adequately, and #3 not so well. In my view, that is sufficient to allowa=20 safe flight by someone who knows how to fly a Lancair in the first place.=20
Consider that many airplanes are flying with little or no shock absorp= tion=20
in the nose gear. It's probably better than the rock-hard mooney=20 donuts
that used to be on the mains of my LNC2.

If I were facin= g=20 considerable inconvenience versus flying with a
deflated nose strut pl= us=20 radiator hose and hose clamps, I would clamp
on the hose, and give the= =20 nose a few tugs up and down to insure
proper takeoff attitude and prop= =20 clearance. If it passed those tests,
I would fly it home. The greatest= =20 risk would be ridicule on the LML :-)

George Braly (privately) and I (on the lml) had this exact discussion w= ith=20 Shannon Knoeplfin 2 years ago. He thought that he was someone "who knew how=20= to=20 fly a Lancair in the first place" and decided "the considerable inconvenienc= e"=20 was too much to bear so he departed Oshkosh. He died less than 30 minutes la= ter=20 attempting an engine out landing into Madison.

The moral of the story is, if you are terribly inconvenienced by mechan= ical=20 malfunctions aircraft are prone to and cannot stand the thought of wai= ting=20 on the ground for them to be properly repaired then you should not be a= =20 pilot.

Regards,

Jeff

-------------------------------1152831735--