X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:06:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.106] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4006318 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:27:35 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.106; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP57 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:26:58 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [76.194.229.173] X-Originating-Email: [randystuart@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from laptop ([76.194.229.173]) by BLU0-SMTP57.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:26:55 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number X-Original-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:26:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0069_01CA7730.2E06BED0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2009 19:26:56.0025 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CE7D090:01CA7773] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01CA7730.2E06BED0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark,=20 This was my original paragraph in a post discussing the safety of parts = and maintenance: " I have no problem with pushing our Lancair's to their = limit, as Lance=20 intended, but always know what you're flying. Pushing my Lancair over = 300 mph is always a thrill but all the systems are well maintained and = proven with many flight hours." That was ALL I said that started this Vne fire storm. I never advocated = anyone else to fly this speed. I never said I took unsuspecting = passengers on dangerous flights. I never offered to take anyone past = Vne. I never said it was safe to take someone else's plane past Vne. = That was it, nothing, nada, no more!!!! From that one line I was hung on a cross and stoned. At that point = you're damn right I was ready to defend what I know to be true, and the = facts. And the truth is, Lancair's are and have been pushed safely past = their published limits. The facts are, Lancair's DO NOT come apart from = flutter, there is absolutely no proof of this. =20 Lancair's do crash, and perhaps a bit more then the norm, but = considering the high performance nature of these aircrafts and the fact = ANYONE can buy one, it's not right to condemn the aircraft when every = crash in a Lancair was, in one form or another, pilot error.=20 Slow approaches are the lion share of crashes, flying into know storms = (LNC- 4), spins, engine failure on departure, etc. Some of these afflict = any aircraft and some are prone to high performance aircraft, like our = Lancair's. I have witnessed most of these events. Poor choices or just = pure lack of ability was the fault, not the aircraft.=20 I defend everything I've said concerning the Lancair capabilities, they = are more aircraft then most pilots utilize. Their history proves this.=20 Again, I have never in any posts, suggested any pilot fly beyond his or = hers ability or comfort level. My posts are very explicit concerning the = quality of a built aircraft, the conditions being flown, parts & = maintenance and, of course, pilot ability. I never even said "Vne was a = meaningless number"!! I didn't start the Vne thread!! I share in everyone's concern for safety and I've seen more then my = share of destroyed Lancair's, and fatalities. But not one pilot I ever = knew, living or deceased, was forced into flying his aircraft. He flew = it on his own terms, made his own decisions. For that I commend them. = Truth is, I feel safer in my Lancair then I do driving to the airport.=20 If someone chooses to take my comments out of context and feels I = personally guarantee their safety in any Lancair, then I would say = that's pilot error. I don't condone this nor have I advocated this. Any = pilot in any aircraft, from a student to Bob Hoover, makes their own = decisions. I believe most everyone in this community is fully aware of = the consequences that awaits them if they fail to maintain their = aircraft and abilities. One person's aircraft and abilities do not = reflect anyone else's.=20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Sletten=20 To: lml=20 Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:41 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number Randy, You are correct, we ARE all individuals who make our own choices. We = are also, however, members of a community. This particular community has = borne more than it's share of casualties of late; I would recommend you = forgive the membership for looking out for one of its own. There's making a point, and there's making a point. While some folks = are certainly more abrasive than others, in light of the current dynamic = in the community, I would encourage you to assume the best intentions of = all who offer comments about safety.Although some have made it seem as = though they are more worried about their bottom line when it comes to = their insurance premium; I would be willing to bet if asked, ALL of them = would tell you the idea of you (or someone following in your footsteps) = getting hurt or bending an aircraft poses their greatest concern -- at = least it does for me. Below, I've copied a few comments from your previous posts on the = subject of Vne. I would encourage you to review these and consider how = they might be taken by a relatively new, inexperienced or impressionable = pilot, perhaps one who did not build his or her aircraft, but believes = they have a perfect specimen. You've used many terms like 'I believe,' = 'it would be my guess,' etc, which tells us you are posting your = opinion, but you've added the word 'stats' more than once suggesting = your opinion is based on relevant data. The long and the short of it is = you've made several definitive statements suggesting the Vne published = by the factory is too conservative and can be safely ignored. I think if you are honest with yourself you will agree that while not = necessarily encouraging dangerous attitudes and ideas, they certainly = don't make a case for erring on the side of caution. Again, given the = numbers of recent Lancair accidents -- many fatal -- caution and = prudence seem the safest bet, especially when discussing a subject such = as limitations. I would ask how you might feel to discover a brand new LNC-2 purchaser = had hurt him/herself -- or a pax -- based on your advice. I don't mean to offend you, and I don't pose the above hypothetical to = be nasty or flippant; I'm trying to show how I (and perhaps a few others = who've expressed their concerns) view the situation. I would also ask = that you take a step back and reconsider your reaction to the = community's concern. I for one am glad beyond words to know that if = others in my tribe believe I am doing something that could be considered = dangerous they are not afraid to speak up -- even if they believe it = might offend me. Respectfully, Mark Sletten --Original Messages----- From: Randy To: lml Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number This is a forum about Lancair's, geared to a Lancair community. We = are not all gray, we are all individuals, we all make our own choices. = Not to be judged. I believe Lance, like other designers, always sets the safe limits to = the lowest common denominator. They take into consideration the worst = builders that cut corners, use to much resin, build heavy or not = straight, etc. Under these conditions Vne would be an unsafe speed, but = a light quality built, straight aircraft would be safe beyond the = published limits. Again, these are published numbers in a POH that = covers multiple models of aircraft. Not from the "Builder" but the kit = maker. I wonder what the Vne was on the actual test plane Lance built? = It would be my guess the Vne was much higher then the POH. Lance designed and manufactured a very strong very advanced kit, if = built right, as intended, it will far exceed your expectations. And the = only flutter you'll get is when your heart flutters from the performance = Lance designed for pilots that are willing to enjoy it. LNC-2's have safely flown faster then mine as well as raced far beyond = the arbitrary published limits in the Lancair owners manual. These are = for reference. ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01CA7730.2E06BED0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,=20
This was my = original paragraph=20 in a post discussing the safety of parts and maintenance: " = I have no problem with pushing our = Lancair's to=20 their limit, as Lance
intended, but always know what you're flying. = Pushing=20 my Lancair over 300 mph is always a thrill but all the systems are well=20 maintained and proven with many flight hours."
That was ALL I = said that=20 started this Vne fire storm. I never advocated anyone else to fly = this=20 speed. I never said I took unsuspecting passengers on dangerous flights. = I never=20 offered to take anyone past Vne. I never said it was safe to take = someone else's=20 plane past Vne. That was it, nothing, nada, no=20 more!!!!
 
From that one line = I was hung=20 on a cross and stoned. At that point you're damn right I was ready to = defend=20 what I know to be true, and the facts. And the truth is, Lancair's are = and have=20 been pushed safely past their published limits. The facts are, Lancair's = DO NOT=20 come apart from flutter, there is absolutely no proof of=20 this.
 
Lancair's do = crash, and=20 perhaps a bit more then the norm, but considering the high performance = nature of=20 these aircrafts and the fact ANYONE can buy one, it's not right to = condemn=20 the aircraft when every crash in a Lancair was, in one form or another, = pilot=20 error.
Slow approaches = are the lion=20 share of crashes, flying into know storms (LNC- 4), spins, engine = failure on=20 departure, etc. Some of these afflict any aircraft and some are prone to = high=20 performance aircraft, like our Lancair's. I have witnessed most of these = events.=20 Poor choices or just pure lack of ability was the fault, not the = aircraft.=20
 
I defend = everything I've said=20 concerning the Lancair capabilities, they are more aircraft then most = pilots=20 utilize. Their history proves this.
 
Again, I have = never in any=20 posts, suggested any pilot fly beyond his or hers ability or comfort = level. My=20 posts are very explicit concerning the quality of a built aircraft, the=20 conditions being flown, parts & maintenance and, of course, = pilot=20 ability. I never even said "Vne was a meaningless number"!! I didn't = start the=20 Vne thread!!
 
I share in = everyone's concern=20 for safety and I've seen more then my share of destroyed Lancair's, and=20 fatalities. But not one pilot I ever knew, living or deceased, was = forced=20 into flying his aircraft. He flew it on his own terms, made his own = decisions.=20 For that I commend them. Truth is, I feel safer in my Lancair then I do = driving=20 to the airport.
 
If someone chooses = to take my=20 comments out of context and feels I personally guarantee their = safety in=20 any Lancair, then I would say that's pilot error. I don't condone this = nor have=20 I advocated this. Any pilot in any aircraft, from a student to Bob = Hoover, makes=20 their own decisions. I believe most everyone in this community is fully = aware of=20 the consequences that awaits them if they fail to maintain their = aircraft and=20 abilities. One person's aircraft and abilities do not reflect anyone = else's.=20
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark=20 Sletten
To: lml
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 = 6:41=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a = meaningless number

Randy,

You are correct, we ARE all individuals who make our own choices. = We are=20 also, however, members of a community. This particular community has = borne=20 more than it's share of casualties of late; I would recommend you = forgive the=20 membership for looking out for one of its own.

There's making a point, and there's making a point. While some = folks are=20 certainly more abrasive than others, in light of the current dynamic = in the=20 community, I would encourage you to assume the best intentions of all = who=20 offer comments about safety.Although some have made it seem as though = they are=20 more worried about their bottom line when it comes to their insurance = premium;=20 I would be willing to bet if asked, ALL of them would tell you the = idea of you=20 (or someone following in your footsteps) getting hurt or bending an = aircraft=20 poses their greatest concern -- at least it does for me.

Below, I've copied a few comments from your previous posts on the = subject=20 of Vne. I would encourage you to review these and consider how = they might=20 be taken by a relatively new, inexperienced or impressionable pilot, = perhaps=20 one who did not build his or her aircraft, but believes they have a = perfect=20 specimen. You've used many terms like 'I believe,' 'it would be my = guess,'=20 etc, which tells us you are posting your opinion, but you've added the = word=20 'stats' more than once suggesting your opinion is based on relevant = data. The=20 long and the short of it is you've made several definitive statements=20 suggesting the Vne published by the factory is too conservative and = can be=20 safely ignored.

I think if you are honest with yourself you will agree that while = not=20 necessarily encouraging dangerous attitudes and ideas, they certainly = don't=20 make a case for erring on the side of caution. Again, given the = numbers of=20 recent Lancair accidents -- many fatal -- caution and prudence seem = the safest=20 bet, especially when discussing a subject such as limitations.

I would ask how you might feel to discover a brand new LNC-2 = purchaser=20 had hurt him/herself -- or a pax -- based on your advice.

I don't mean to offend you, and I don't pose the above = hypothetical to be=20 nasty or flippant; I'm trying to show how I (and perhaps a few others = who've=20 expressed their concerns) view the situation. I would also ask that = you take a=20 step back and reconsider your reaction to the community's concern. I = for one=20 am glad beyond words to know that if others in my tribe believe I am = doing=20 something that could be considered dangerous they are not afraid to = speak up=20 -- even if they believe it might offend me.

Respectfully,

Mark Sletten

 
--Original Messages-----
From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com>To:=20 lml
Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless = number

 This is a forum about Lancair's, geared to a = Lancair=20 community. We are not all gray, we are all individuals, we all make = our own=20 choices. Not to be judged.

I = believe Lance,=20 like other designers, always sets the safe limits to the lowest common = denominator. They take into consideration the worst builders that cut = corners,=20 use to much resin, build heavy or not straight, etc. Under these = conditions=20 Vne would be an unsafe speed, but a light quality built,=20 straight aircraft would be safe beyond the published limits. = Again,=20 these are published numbers in a POH that covers multiple models of = aircraft.=20 Not from the "Builder" but the kit maker. I wonder what the Vne was on = the=20 actual test plane Lance built? It would be my guess the Vne was = much=20 higher then the POH.

Lance designed = and=20 manufactured a very strong very advanced kit, if built right, as = intended,=20 it will far exceed your expectations. And the only flutter you'll = get is=20 when your heart flutters from the performance Lance designed for = pilots that=20 are willing to enjoy it.

LNC-2's have = safely flown=20 faster then mine as well as raced far beyond the arbitrary = published limits=20 in the Lancair owners manual. These are for=20 = reference.
------=_NextPart_000_0069_01CA7730.2E06BED0--