Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:43:24 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mxsf21.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.221] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 596003 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:16:17 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.221; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from mxip14.cluster1.charter.net (mxip14a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.144]) by mxsf21.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j08KFkgZ012410 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:15:46 -0500 Received: from 24-159-109-154.cpe.ga.charter.com (HELO userx0zwln1ueg) (24.159.109.154) by mxip14.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 08 Jan 2005 15:15:46 -0500 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.88,110,1102309200"; d="scan'217,208"; a="707776611:sNHT20403380" From: "Farnsworth" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs? X-Original-Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:16:28 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0027_01C4F595.068B9640" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C4F595.068B9640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm sure everyone that has answered this subject has valid reasons for saying what was said. My thoughts are: On the thought that the airplane can't stand a "hard landing" at 4,000 pounds. Maybe not, but can the airplane withstand a "hard landing" at 3500 pounds. I don't think that just because an airplane weighs 4,000 pounds, that there will of necessity be a "hard landing". It isn't too difficult to cause damage at minimum weight if one fails to use proper technique. I have landed airplanes above their maximum authorized landing weight more that once (and I have made takeoffs many, many times well above the maximum landing weight) without ANY adverse affects. Certainly, if a person doesn't take into consideration the added weight, bad things can happen. Heavier weights require longer runways, gentle braking, higher takeoff speeds, planning for reduced rate of climb, and lower "G" capability. I believe Carlton (flew his Legacy to Europe) had a 2,600 gross weight to allow for the increased fuel to make the trip. But to say that the sky will fall because of just a higher gross weight is, in my opinion, not exactly true. Probably a great deal of the proposed increase in weight would be to allow for fuel that would be burned off in the course of the flight. I would be more inclined in use a higher takeoff weight with an airplane that is Turbo/Supercharged than one that is normally aspired. Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Race#44 ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C4F595.068B9640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm sure everyone = that has=20 answered this subject has valid reasons for saying what was=20 said.

My thoughts are:

On the thought that the airplane can't = stand a "hard=20 landing" at 4,000 pounds. Maybe not, but can the airplane withstand a = "hard=20 landing" at 3500 pounds. I don't think that just because an airplane = weighs=20 4,000 pounds, that there will of necessity be a "hard landing". It = isn't too=20 difficult to cause damage at minimum weight if one fails to use = proper=20 technique.

I have landed airplanes above their maximum = authorized landing weight more that once (and I have made = takeoffs many,=20 many times well above the maximum landing weight) without ANY = adverse=20 affects.

Certainly, if a person doesn't take into=20 consideration the added weight, bad things can happen. Heavier weights = require=20 longer runways, gentle braking, higher takeoff speeds, planning = for=20 reduced rate of climb, and lower "G" capability.

I believe Carlton (flew his Legacy to = Europe) had a=20 2,600 gross weight to allow for the increased fuel to make the trip.=20

But to say that the sky will fall because = of just a=20 higher gross weight is, in my opinion, not exactly = true.

Probably a great deal of the proposed = increase in=20 weight would be to allow for fuel that would be burned off in the = course of=20 the flight.

I would be more inclined in use a higher = takeoff=20 weight with an airplane that is Turbo/Supercharged than one that is = normally=20 aspired.

Lynn Farnsworth

Super Legacy #235

TSIO-550

Race#44

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C4F595.068B9640--