X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:13:25 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-862496@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <billhogarty@direcway.com>
Received: from a34-mta01.direcway.com ([66.82.4.90] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.3)
  with ESMTP id 862414 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:10:39 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.82.4.90; envelope-from=billhogarty@direcway.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dpc691984131.direcpc.com [69.19.84.131])
 by a34-mta01.direcway.com
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.05 (built Mar  3 2005))
 with ESMTP id <0IQY00D4ME3YKV@a34-mta01.direcway.com> for
 lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:09:49 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:09:31 -0800
From: billhogarty <billhogarty@direcway.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Flying in primer question
In-reply-to: <list-861933@logan.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Original-Message-id: <43925DEB.5020601@direcway.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
References: <list-861933@logan.com>

Now that the discussion has degenerated to slick vs mat  vs blunt 
submarine noses, I remember an article in one of the popular aviation 
magazines about a year ago that published data showing a slight increase 
(2-3 MPH) cruising speed in a spam can when polished with typical 
household polish (lemon Pledge, if memory serves)
Maybe our submarines would go faster if we polished them????