Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:08:28 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mxsf40.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.172] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 602887 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:28:03 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.172; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from mxip01.cluster1.charter.net (mxip01a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.131]) by mxsf40.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0B2RkSA001043 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:27:46 -0500 Received: from 24-159-109-154.cpe.ga.charter.com (HELO userx0zwln1ueg) (24.159.109.154) by mxip01.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 10 Jan 2005 21:27:47 -0500 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.88,114,1102309200"; d="scan'217,208"; a="507426194:sNHT67685614" From: "Farnsworth" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs? X-Original-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:28:10 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4F75B.48C8A490" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4F75B.48C8A490 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [LML] Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs? Lynn writes " All one had to do was pay more money to get the higher weight limit. Flying at either weight was safe " Lynn's comments underscore the general misunderstanding about gross weight. Every pound of cargo (extra fuel, passengers, baggage) you load into an airplane makes that plane less safe. Part of the confusion is due to the way an airframe is rated for load in Gs. Wing spars are tested at a certain load and then this load is converted into G's assuming a given gross weight. Increase the gross weight and the wings break off at a lower G load. Brent, The airplanes (and company) I referenced in the above quote was Boeing. Perhaps they don't understand about gross weight either? It sounds like your position is, "unsafe at any weight"? Regards, Lynn ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4F75B.48C8A490 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Subject: [LML] Re: Approved Weights for Lancair=20 IVP/IVPTs?

Lynn writes " All one = had to do was=20 pay more money to get the higher weight limit. Flying at either weight = was=20 safe "

Lynn's comments = underscore the=20 general misunderstanding about gross weight. Every pound of cargo = (extra fuel,=20 passengers, baggage)  you load into an airplane makes that plane = less=20 safe.  Part of the confusion is due to the way an airframe is = rated for=20 load in Gs. Wing spars are tested at a certain load and then this = load =20 is converted into G's assuming a given gross weight. Increase the = gross=20 weight  and the wings break off at a lower G = load. 

 Brent,
 = ;
The airplanes (and company) I = referenced in the=20 above quote was Boeing. Perhaps they don't understand about gross = weight=20 either?
 = ;
It sounds like your position is, "unsafe at = any=20 weight"? 
 = ;
Regards,
 = ;
Lynn
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C4F75B.48C8A490--