X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:23:38 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-950730@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <jakey@telcomplus.net>
Received: from mail.telcomplus.net ([64.40.39.4] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7f)
  with ESMTP id 950550 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:37:10 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.40.39.4; envelope-from=jakey@telcomplus.net
Received: by mail.telcomplus.net from localhost
    (router,SLmail V5.1); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:08 -0800 
    for <lml@lancaironline.net>
Received: from hoben1 [64.40.39.155]
 by mail.telcomplus.net [64.40.39.4]  (SLmail 5.5.0.4433) with SMTP
 id 3A41FB6D159F4C4C8208C53E4FBDE519
 for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:56 -0800
X-Original-Message-ID: <004401c62043$79978a70$9b272840@hoben1>
From: "James Keyworth" <jakey@telcomplus.net>
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-950052@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Winglets versus Wingtips
X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-SLUIDL: E68DBD02-D06C49B4-957FE905-63ECEDE0

> "...My opinion having flown many many Lancairs with and without winglets, 
> and my
> own of course, I feel it is a big difference.
>  Much lighter control forces, better roll rates, easier to fly. IMHO
>
>  Charlie K.


Charlie - exactly which way gives "much lighter control forces, better roll 
rates, easier to fly"?   With winglets or without?

JHK
EAA # 778405