Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:51:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth06.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 595762 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:43:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=skipslater@earthlink.net Received: from [4.61.194.102] (helo=skipslater) by smtpauth06.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CnKcS-0002wE-Eu for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:43:20 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=test1; d=earthlink.net; h=Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=WN+aldO6zthbS670vecMjVf2MrcEii6J1fC5+fYgxbTTwcpeKwe19pQi1srIE9w3; X-Original-Message-ID: <000401c4f5a9$a15077e0$6401a8c0@mshome.net> Reply-To: "Skip Slater" From: "Skip Slater" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs? X-Original-Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:43:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-ELNK-Trace: cbee950bdf563876c8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c2609c312041c1e0cfebe24921a85806e1738a8438e0f32a48e08350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.61.194.102 I'll add one more thought on the GW issue... In the event you have to abort a takeoff at your self-determined GW of 4,000# or more and you happen to be on a short runway, the additional energy you have to dissipate may well exceed the capacity of your brakes. I'm not sure if the IV's brakes are the same as the ES's (I suspect they are), but between brake effectiveness and poor geometry between the brake pedals and the cylinders attached to them, high energy stops are not something I have a warm fuzzy feeling about. Even if the structural and aerodynamic issues weren't there (and they most certainly are) adding about 25% to the factory advertized gross weight with the stock brakes is just asking for trouble. I said this awhile back when a IV-PT builder said he was planning a 4200# GW and it bears repeating: if you just put a number you arbitrarily choose on your paperwork absent a complete analysis of all the various sturctural and aerodynamic issues, you're essentially a full time test pilot every time you takeoff and fly above the Lancair advertised max gross. I understand the need for the higher weights, but if Lancair isn't willing to test and approve them, maybe it's time to stop and wonder why. Skip Slater