Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:29:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mxsf24.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.224] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 600856 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:19:37 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.224; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from mxip08.cluster1.charter.net (mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.138]) by mxsf24.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j09NJKJc022368 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:19:20 -0500 Received: from 24-159-109-154.cpe.ga.charter.com (HELO userx0zwln1ueg) (24.159.109.154) by mxip08.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 09 Jan 2005 18:19:20 -0500 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.88,111,1102309200"; d="scan'217,208"; a="548065570:sNHT19791148" From: "Farnsworth" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs? X-Original-Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:19:26 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C4F677.C0913760" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C4F677.C0913760 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brent, I must admit that I have only flown the IV Turbine and so have no experience with how the other IVs fly. However it appears to me that some people are inserting a little hysteria in a simple request by someone for information. I'm not sure that approach best serves the request for information. I have flown several airplanes that could be flown at more that one gross weight. All one had to do was pay more money to get the higher weight limit. Flying at either weight was safe, however if the payment to operate at the higher weight wasn't made, it wasn't "legal" to operate there. So in that case it isn't a matter of safety, but of legality. It appears to me that some of the above this relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure your response to this subject isn't really current, considering that the Lancair web site lists the gross weight as 3550 and you are using 3,200 lbs. It appears to me that Lancair has decided to use some of the "growth" that they feel is already built into the airplane. You say that you won't fly at the Lancair listed gross weight. That is fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that someone that does is unsafe. To fly at a higher weight one probably needs more that 310 HP. Longer runways and higher airspeeds would be required. To dismiss the request for information by using ridicule and sarcasm is not, in my opinion, very helpful. I agree. Fly smart! Fly safe! Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Race#44 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C4F677.C0913760 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brent,

I must=20 admit that I have only flown the IV Turbine and so have no experience = with how=20 the other IVs fly. However it appears to me that some people are = inserting a=20 little hysteria in a simple request by someone for information. I'm not = sure=20 that approach best serves the request for = information.

I have=20 flown several airplanes that could be flown at more that one gross = weight. All=20 one had to do was pay more money to get the higher weight limit. Flying = at=20 either weight was safe, however if the payment to operate at the higher = weight=20 wasn't made, it wasn't "legal" to operate there. So in that case = it isn't=20 a matter of safety, but of legality.

It=20 appears to me that some of the above this relevant to this = discussion.=20

I'm=20 not sure your response to this subject isn't really current, considering = that=20 the Lancair web site lists the gross weight as 3550 and you are using = 3,200 lbs.=20 It appears to me that Lancair has decided to use some of the "growth" = that they=20 feel is already built into the airplane.

You=20 say that you won't fly at the Lancair listed gross weight. That is=20 fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that someone that does is = unsafe.=20 To fly at a higher weight one probably needs more that 310 HP. Longer = runways=20 and higher airspeeds would be required.

To=20 dismiss the request for information by using ridicule and = sarcasm is not,=20 in my opinion, very helpful.

I=20 agree. Fly smart! Fly safe!

Lynn=20 Farnsworth

Super=20 Legacy #235

TSIO-550

Race#44

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C4F677.C0913760--