Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:49:45 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2479538@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <ed.mccauley@bltinc.com>
Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.49] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b9)
  with ESMTP id 2479416 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:02:06 -0400
Received: from sdn-ap-001njpennp0318.dialsprint.net ([63.185.129.64] helo=BltNewsLetter)
	by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 19drLd-0005W6-00
	for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 06:02:02 -0700
X-Original-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:02:26 -0400
From: Ed McCauley <ed.mccauley@bltinc.com>
Subject: re: [LML] Re: flight plan: IV-P vs IV-PT
X-Original-To: LML <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Original-Message-ID: <OVRINVY2USM9W0pRMiA0NTM0ODI2NjQ@BltNewsLetter>
In-Reply-To: <list-2479294@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: Bottom Line Technologies Inc.
X-Mailer: GoldMine [6.00.30503]
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nice Great spreadsheet.  It would seem the costs are comparable.  The only =
spreadsheet item that raises a flag with me was that the reserve fuel was based =
on cruise (altitude) consumption.  Not the reality of shooting low level =
approaches and then doing the same at an alternate.  I hate that quiet sound!

-Ed McCauley
Lancair IV-PT 10.2345 % +/- 15%
Milford, NJ