<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
To Chris Zavatson:

Thanks Chris, for taking me back to the days when I had to know all
the derivations for my physics prof to even consider letting me get
a passing grade in his class! Yeah, you're right about how to relate
the correct numbers for "k" in my last post to the real world, but I
 figured that "about 5200" would be close enough since the other numbers,
given the quality of our instruments in GA cockpits, are probably SWAGs
anyway (for the non-engineering types out there, that Scientific
Wild-Assed Guesses - used 'em all the time when I was at B----g and
 R------l designing the really beeg iron. [[How's that make you travelersfeel?]]).

You make a very good point about the resulting increase in total thrust
due to more efficient prop aerodynamics. What's most pleasing
about the whole thing is that this airframe is so responsive to thrust
increases. Must be because it's so darned slick, when done right.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment,

Dan Schaefer
N235SP


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1