<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
         <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
         <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

hi all-

i for one hope that the engineair alternative becomes a good reality and
alternative to the present viable options.  however, after full evaluation of MY mission for my ivp i opted for the turbine. i think that the fuel consumption as previously outlined are a bit exaggerated.  while on a demo flight out of redmond with orrin and rick schramek in the back at 9000 ft msl we saw 300 ktas burning 50 or so gallons per hour.  pulled back to 260 ktas dropped the fuel burn to 35.5 gph-obviously still a lot but acceptable
for the awesome performance, rate of climb, etc.  i guess i'll  find out the real world performance in a few years-time will tell. i also agree it is time to let the dogfights re: engineair go and their development continue.  we should all support them within reason but there must be truth in advertising.  rick's recent comments reminded me of my trip to amelia island florida this past spring.  tucked away on the ramp(engineless) was jim rahm's ivp.  the local fbo told me that he had some type of engine problem and had to land unexpectedly and pull the engine. as i recall the fbo heard that he was going to add more hp when he replaced it.  just wondering what the real story is and why haven't we heard anything about this.  i have no proprietary interest in any of these matters.  nor do i know rick other than meeting him at the lancair flyin and taking the demo ride with him and have no grudge against anyone-just want to know the facts!  we owe it to aviation safety to hold new endeavors to higher standards than the status quo.

happy safe healthy holidays to all,

david

LML website:   http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore
assist with the management of the LML.

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.