X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:49:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm27-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.232] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5051207 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:37:28 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.91.232; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm27.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2011 04:36:53 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.32] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2011 04:36:53 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1032.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2011 04:36:53 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 789220.44315.bm@omp1032.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 32488 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jul 2011 04:36:53 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gFtpQO0kJ4yoUC81ZUtLG9I/AzLRYFatVE1a5l7SFSHD9VA+8R1L+LdU0KEjFq2Huq4xw5QPr48hSJsX0L5F6yEwuyu2TQK3QWOIt/741p6wvcAY7gfTDIdlCaSPIVxOgs/BuvnRJZCAqqEx3hWfr03mv8Sl5ReruzkPm3TAwps=; X-YMail-OSG: Q16vxnUVM1kipGDBdE0XbYE5J9cBbfhA1NEa6rS1kn_LBMO k7_bHGWPoXgSPPphq3C2WRtsJaWwfYKwuYbDI2GFAq1x1tjjmXyIsdWkx0oN pF.lKG2jx7emlFVPlJOsqyWsEoXs5l6NTY29Z7ZzQqKDrL95gcMcPAB_Tdaj 91dyEVy4Oda6SMrJHWtyIpmK3ffPWun6WBWT769UIBEr1Yb2IaIkQ91pzodD lhgePkJB6x5r1YrTpFcVSgjrVSnkyzdMKoxkYmMt1Rb7yJgCDL3pvJt1QVJY Jlv2PpznUgjFPFDwOgodeYhir8RY5YEoq42halz9jOfBkur.HORBl.H44H5v jDiJQN6Qr9gqmqmK7Me.RvCzK6UmM6bwAKy9AJYiQo3BaCBKvGiOGKrifNjQ 3lryERUj6vIQ2ew-- Received: from [76.8.220.21] by web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:36:52 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/14.0.3 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 X-Original-Message-ID: <1310618212.22176.YahooMailClassic@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:36:52 -0700 (PDT) From: randy snarr Subject: Re: [LML] Re: another Lancair X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-324185332-1310618212=:22176" --0-324185332-1310618212=:22176 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Grayhawk, The reason I say that is I see a lot of certified birds collecting dust at = the field. Rows and rows of planes that rarely fly. Plenty of experimentals sitting in hangars when fuel is bloody $6 per gallo= n too I guess. Still, the experimental world has a pulse, the certified ships seem to be s= itting more... Just one mans observation .. I am a pilot and airplane builder so any opinion from me is suspect at all = levels... Randy Snarr "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if n= ot utterly impossible" -Simon Newcomb, 1902 --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: From: Sky2high@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 2:25 PM =0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0ARandy,=0A=C2=A0=0AFlying time is an incredibly inaccura= te measure. Your situation is a =0Aperfect example. If I wanted to build x-= country time I would use the 150.=C2=A0 =0AA 100 NM trip might take an hour= in the 150, only 30 minutes in the 320 and =0Amerely a 15 minute ballistic= arc in a IV-P.=C2=A0 The crash speed of the =0A320=C2=A0is probably twice = that of the 150.=C2=A0 Hmmm, I could =0Aprobably=C2=A0land the un-powered 1= 50 on the flat=C2=A0roof of the Menard's =0ADistribution Center - but I wou= ld need a bit more room for the 320.=0A=C2=A0=0AThere are many more opportu= nities for "Oops!" in a retractable gear high =0Aperformance aircraft than = in a slow, error=C2=A0forgiving trainer.=C2=A0 Uh, the =0AMalibu had quite = a kill rate (Doc killer) when operated by, uh, pilots whose =0Aeducation an= d training focused on gall bladders, rectums, etc. rather than upset =0Arec= overy, thunderstorm avoidance, yada, yada.=0A=C2=A0=0AGrayhawk=0A=C2=A0=0A= =C2=A0=0A=0AIn a message dated 7/12/2011 9:30:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time= , =0Arandylsnarr@yahoo.com writes:=0A=0A =0A =0A =0A Interestin= g stats. One factor I did not see is the =0A amount of flying each group does= . I have a plane in each group and the =0A certified model in my 2 p= lane fleet does 1/20th of the flying as my =0A experimental model. M= ost owners do not have 2 planes however, I believe =0A there are mor= e flight hours per plane for experimentals that =0A certifieds... That is a complete guess but I would like to see this =0A comparriso= n based on flight hours... Thanks for sharing.. Randy =0A Snarr N694RS 235/320 N4442U Cessna 150 in the hangar =0A with dust on it... "Flight by =0A machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignif= icant, if not =0A utterly impossible" -Simon Newcomb, 1902 --- On Mon, =0A 7/11/11, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: =0A =20 From: =0A Sky2high@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: =0A another Lancair To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Monday, July 11, =0A 2011, 7:44 AM =0A =0A Jeff,=0A =C2=A0=0A I couldn't f= ind anything useful either in a scan of news letters =0A or under = the button "safety".=C2=A0 The Safety Wire article was too =0A sma= ll to read and is missing page 3.=C2=A0 How ridiculous that the EAA =0A = reserved safety info=C2=A0only for=C2=A0counselors.=C2=A0 Oh =0A = well.........=0A =C2=A0=0A I have attached Lee Metca= lf's Lancair accident analyses thru 2005 =0A and the copy of an ar= ticle I had laying around that points out =0A why=C2=A0one should = be suspicious=C2=A0of "experimental" accident =0A stats.=C2=A0 Per= haps the community will find these interesting.=0A =C2=A0=0A = Scott=0A =C2=A0=0A =0A=0A In a message dated= 7/10/2011 2:18:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =0A vtailjeff@aol.c= om writes:=0A =0A Scott,=0A =20 =0A The summary and white paper is on the web site. lobo is now = =0A deeply involved in other EAA and FAA aviation safety =0A = projects.=C2=A0=0A =20 =0A Best regards,=0A =20 =0A Jeff Sent from my iPad=0A =20 On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Sky2high@aol.com =0A wrote: =0A =0A =0A =0A Jeff,=0A = =C2=A0=0A Any analysis is of interest to all - espe= cially those that =0A can't make your session at OSH.=C2=A0 Pe= rhaps some summary at the =0A LOBO site?=0A =C2= =A0=0A Scott Krueger=0A =C2=A0=0A = =0A In a message dated 7/8/2011 7:40:41 A.M. Central Daylight = =0A Time, vtailjeff@aol.com =0A writes:=0A = =0A Mark,=0A =C2=A0=0A = Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been to =0A Os= hkosh Airventure? These accidents are discussed in detail =0A = there. Based on your comments about the engines you would be =0A = surprised. In many cases it was not the engine.=0A = =C2=A0=0A Jeff Edwards =0A =20 =0A -----Original =0A Message----- From: Mark Steitle To: =0A lml@lancaironline.net Sent: =0A Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: [LML] Re: another =0A Lancair =0A Steve,=C2=A0 =0A=0A =20 =0A I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy. =0A= =C2=A0Even if he was a jerk, we still need to solve this ri= ddle. =0A =C2=A0Is LOBO following up on each of these crashe= s to learn =0A what the experts determine to be the cause(s)= ? =C2=A0If not, =0A we'll continue to be having these conver= sations until we =0A eventually run out of pilots, or airpla= nes.=0A =20 =0A Mark=C2=A0 =0A On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 =0A PM, Steve= Colwell =0A wrote: =0A =0A =0A =0A = =0A =C2=A0=0A =0A = I would sure would like to =0A know why all of these "cer= tified engines" are quitting on =0A takeoff. =C2=A0=0A = =0A =C2=A0=0A =0A = Mark =0A S.=C2=A0=0A Maybe the en= gine =0A driven fuel pump is failing.=C2=A0 We are running= low boost =0A continuously in case the engine pump fails = and to address fuel =0A pressure issues at altitude, hot f= uel, vapor lock and other =0A problems. =C2=A0=0A = I understand the =0A engine will not make full po= wer on low boost (reduce manifold =0A pressure and settle = for less power?)=C2=A0 =0A =C2=A0=0A Or, = it might quit if =0A high boost is on and the mixture is n= ot adjusted.=C2=A0 =0A =C2=A0=0A Since en= gine driven =0A pump failure, heat and altitude all affect= fuel delivery, it =0A would seem using the low boost cont= inuously could solve or =0A make these problems manageable= . =0A =C2=A0=0A Dr. Lyle Koen did our =0A= last two physicals.=C2=A0 He was a very likeable guy who = built =0A one of the early IV=E2=80=99s and had over 1000 = hours on it.=C2=A0 We =0A talked to him about joining LOBO= and coming to the Branson =0A Fly-In.=C2=A0 =0A = Given the more =0A knowledgeable than usual witnes= s account, could training have =0A changed this outcome?= =0A Steve=C2=A0 Legacy =0A IO550=0A = =C2=A0 =3D -----Inline =0A Attachment Follows----- =0A -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --0-324185332-1310618212=:22176 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Grayhawk,
The reason I say that is I see a= lot of certified birds collecting dust at the field. Rows and rows of plan= es that rarely fly.
Plenty of experimentals sitting in hangars when fuel= is bloody $6 per gallon too I guess.

Still, the experimental world = has a pulse, the certified ships seem to be sitting more...

Just one= mans observation ..
I am a pilot and airplane builder so any opinion fr= om me is suspect at all levels...
Randy Snarr

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and ins= ignificant, if not utterly impossible"
-Simon Newcomb, 1902
--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com><= /b> wrote:

From: Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair
To: lml@= lancaironline.net
Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 2:25 PM

=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A
Randy,
=0A
&nbs= p;
=0A
Flying time is an incredibly inaccurate measure. Your situa= tion is a =0Aperfect example. If I wanted to build x-country time I would u= se the 150.  =0AA 100 NM trip might take an hour in the 150, only 30 m= inutes in the 320 and =0Amerely a 15 minute ballistic arc in a IV-P.  = The crash speed of the =0A320 is probably twice that of the 150. = Hmmm, I could =0Aprobably land the un-powered 150 on the flat ro= of of the Menard's =0ADistribution Center - but I would need a bit more roo= m for the 320.
=0A
 
=0A
There are many more opportu= nities for "Oops!" in a retractable gear high =0Aperformance aircraft than = in a slow, error forgiving trainer.  Uh, the =0AMalibu had quite = a kill rate (Doc killer) when operated by, uh, pilots whose =0Aeducation an= d training focused on gall bladders, rectums, etc. rather than upset =0Arec= overy, thunderstorm avoidance, yada, yada.
=0A
 
=0AGrayhawk
=0A
 
=0A
 
=0A
=0A
In a= message dated 7/12/2011 9:30:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time, =0Arandylsnarr= @yahoo.com writes:
=0A
=0A =0A =0A =0A
Interesting stats.
One factor I did not see is the =0A = amount of flying each group does. I have a plane in each group and the = =0A certified model in my 2 plane fleet does 1/20th of the flying as= my =0A experimental model. Most owners do not have 2 planes however= , I believe =0A there are more flight hours per plane for experiment= als that =0A certifieds...
That is a complete guess but I would l= ike to see this =0A comparrison based on flight hours...
Thanks f= or sharing..
Randy =0A Snarr

N694RS
235/320

N444= 2U Cessna 150 in the hangar =0A with dust on it...

"Flight by =0A machines heavier than air is= unpractical and insignificant, if not =0A utterly impossible"
-Simon Newcomb, 1902

--- On Mon, =0A 7/11/11, Sky2hig= h@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com> wrote:
=0A
From: =0A Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com><= br>Subject: [LML] Re: =0A another Lancair
To: lml@lancaironline= .net
Date: Monday, July 11, =0A 2011, 7:44 AM

=0A =
=0A
Jeff,
=0A =
 
=0A
I couldn't find anything useful eithe= r in a scan of news letters =0A or under the button "safety". = ; The Safety Wire article was too =0A small to read and is missing= page 3.  How ridiculous that the EAA =0A reserved safety inf= o only for counselors.  Oh =0A well.........
= =0A
 
=0A
I have attached Lee Metcalf= 's Lancair accident analyses thru 2005 =0A and the copy of an arti= cle I had laying around that points out =0A why one should be= suspicious of "experimental" accident =0A stats.  Perha= ps the community will find these interesting.
=0A
 =
=0A
Scott
=0A
 
=0A =
=0A=0A
In a message dated 7/10/2011 2:18:42 P.M. Cent= ral Daylight Time, =0A vtailjeff@aol.com writes:
=0A =
=0A
Scott,
=0A
=0A
The summary and white paper is on the web si= te. lobo is now =0A deeply involved in other EAA and FAA aviatio= n safety =0A projects. 
=0A

= =0A
Best regards,
=0A

=0A =
Jeff

Sent from my iPad
=0A

On= Jul 9, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Sky2high@aol.com =0A wrote:

=0A
=0A
=0A =
=0A =
Jeff,
=0A
 
=0A =
Any analysis is of interest to all - especially those that =0A = can't make your session at OSH.  Perhaps some summary at the = =0A LOBO site?
=0A
 
=0A =
Scott Krueger
=0A
 
=0A =
=0A
In a message dated 7/8/2011 7:40:41 A.M= . Central Daylight =0A Time, vtailjeff@aol.com =0A = writes:
=0A
=0A
Mark,
=0A
 
= =0A
Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been = to =0A Oshkosh Airventure? These accidents are discussed in = detail =0A there. Based on your comments about the engines y= ou would be =0A surprised. In many cases it was not the engi= ne.
=0A
 
=0A
Jeff E= dwards

=0A

=0A
-----Original =0A Message-----
From:= Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: =0A lm= l@lancaironline.net
Sent: =0A Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 p= m
Subject: [LML] Re: another =0A Lancair

=0A =
Steve,  =0A=0A

=0A =
I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy. =0A =  Even if he was a jerk, we still need to solve this riddle. =0A =  Is LOBO following up on each of these crashes to learn = =0A what the experts determine to be the cause(s)?  If = not, =0A we'll continue to be having these conversations unt= il we =0A eventually run out of pilots, or airplanes.
= =0A

=0A
Mark 
=0A
On Wed, Jul 6, 2= 011 at 1:05 =0A PM, Steve Colwell <<= a rel=3D"nofollow" title=3D"http://mc/compose?to=3Dmcmess1919@yahoo.com">mc= mess1919@yahoo.com> =0A wrote:
=0A =
=0A =
=0A
=0A =0A
&n= bsp;
=0A
=0A
I would sure would like to =0A = know why all of these "certified engines" are quitting on =0A = takeoff.  
=0A =0A
<= /u> 
=0A
=0A Mark =0A= S. 
=0A Maybe the engine =0A dr= iven fuel pump is failing.  We are running low boost =0A = continuously in case the engine pump fails and to address fuel =0A = pressure issues at altitude, hot fuel, vapor lock and other = =0A problems.  
=0A =
I understand the =0A = engine will not make full power on low boost (reduce manifold = =0A pressure and settle for less power?)  =0A =  
=0A
Or, it might quit if =0A high = boost is on and the mixture is not adjusted.  =0A &nb= sp;
=0A
Since engine driven =0A pump failure, heat a= nd altitude all affect fuel delivery, it =0A would seem us= ing the low boost continuously could solve or =0A make the= se problems manageable. =0A  =0A
Dr. Lyle Koen= did our =0A last two physicals.  He was a very likea= ble guy who built =0A one of the early IV=E2=80=99s and ha= d over 1000 hours on it.  We =0A talked to him about = joining LOBO and coming to the Branson =0A Fly-In.  <= u>
=0A
Given the more =0A knowledgeable than usual witn= ess account, could training have =0A changed this outcome?=
=0A
Steve  Legacy =0A IO550
=0A
 

=3D
-----Inline =0A Attachment Follows-= ----

=0A
--
For arc= hives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/Li= st.html
--0-324185332-1310618212=:22176--