Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([207.30.195.104]) by ns1.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35)
          with ESMTP id com for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>;
          Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:19:28 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010322102845.042d87a0@olsusa.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:28:54 -0500
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: N295VV@aol.com (by way of Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>)
Subject: Re:  IV vs. IVP
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

<x-flowed>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
I was one of the earlier builders, and the option for a pressurized plane was
only being talked about, so it was not a real consideration.

I have watched with interest, therefore, the development of the P system from
the sidelines.

I was surprised at the high ratio of planes flying with this "mod" nowadays,
and I have slowly come to the conclusion that for most of the country, the P
mod may not be the way to go, even though it seems to be the vogue.

Thus for potential builders who are monitoring this site, and who may be
making purchasing decisions, I offer the following observations based mostly
on my own plane, a non-P version:

The non-P is lighter, easier to build, flies just as high, is faster, climbs
faster,  is more maneuverable, is less complex, runs cooler, and just has
more horses to go flying at all times.

The parts are readily available to build a non-P.  There is no several
hundred day wait for critical pressurization components, as has been
mentioned on this forum.

Although I am an Illinois flat-lander, I have flown over the highest portion
of the Rocky Mountains several times with complete comfort, and, in my mind,
no stress or worry about some pressurization component failing-the non-P has
no history of blowing windows out of doors at 20,000' or so.

I wear an Oxygen cannula all the time.  If I were flying a P, I would wear
one all the time.  Oxygen makes me a more alert pilot.  There is no
consideration for any argument that the pressurized aircraft frees the pilot
from wearing O2.  I would not fly with a pilot at altitude that didn't have
his O2 on at all times.  This should not be a consideration for the type of
Lancair you build.

And, lastly, the pressurized plane costs more, lots more.  Buy a nice sporty
automobile with that amount, and drive it around the country side during the
time you save not building a pressure version.

I am sure this thread will generate lots of discussion from those who have
made the P choice, and who are happy they have done so.

If I lived in the Western mountain area, I am sure that  a P version would be
given more consideration, but having flown in that area, I am not sure that
it would be a priority for my choice, even today.

David Jones

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
</x-flowed>