X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:07:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1120462 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 May 2006 18:53:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.137; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.5.) id q.462.e1a4da (14502) for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 18:52:42 -0400 (EDT) From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <462.e1a4da.319fa63a@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 18:52:42 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1148079162" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5026 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1148079162 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/19/2006 6:45:33 AM Central Standard Time, marv@lancaironline.net writes: Though I have flown an L4 and Columbia with the idea of buying one at different times, I do not have even an hour in each type, so I have no way to judge or compare the different models, let alone discern the stability and control nuances - I just knew they were too twitchy for me. Only a qualified engineer could legitimately compare the numbers (derivatives) or an unbiased test pilot be able to discern the differences. My opinions are based upon feedback from qualified people, including professional engineers and test pilots who have flown the Lancairs - and that is as much as I'm going to say about that. Rienk, Thank you for your reply. Everyone has opinions on this forum about everything under the sun. Some are qualified by training and experience to offer their analysis of the facts-- many are not. You have made some rather serious allegations about the Lancair IVP's safety record and its aerdynamic characteristics and flying qualities, but at the end of the day you offer no factual evidence to support these opinions nor any personal qualifications to support your opinons other than to say "you have talked to a few people." I hope when you get the Envoy flying, you and your product do not get flamed based on unsupported claims such as these. As George Braly and company would say, "show me the data." You have not and cannot because there is no data to support your claims. If you are interested in the Lancair accident record, I suggest you visit _www.ntsb.gov_ (http://www.ntsb.gov) or attend the annual Lancair forum at Oshkosh where the past year's accident and lessons learned are reviewed. After building and flying a Lancair IVP for over 3 years and 700 hours, I can say with some authority that there are no stability/ controllability issues that I am aware of. As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and FAA designated pilot examiner I can say that the aircraft is safe in the hands of a competent pilot who makes good decisions. Regards, Jeff Edwards Lancair IVP -------------------------------1148079162 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 5/19/2006 6:45:33 AM Central Standard Time,=20 marv@lancaironline.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Though I=20 have flown an L4 and Columbia with the idea of buying one at
=20 different times, I do not have even an hour in each type, so I have no=20 way
to judge or compare the different models, let alone discern=20= the=20 stability
and control nuances - I just knew they were too twitch= y=20 for me. Only a
qualified engineer could legitimately compare the= =20 numbers (derivatives) or
an unbiased test pilot be able to disce= rn=20 the differences. My opinions are
based upon feedback from qualif= ied=20 people, including professional engineers
and test pilots who hav= e=20 flown the Lancairs - and that is as much as I'm
going to say abo= ut=20 that.

Rienk,

Thank you for your reply. Everyone has opinions on this forum about=20 everything under the sun. Some are qualified by training and experience to o= ffer=20 their analysis of the facts-- many are not.

You have made some rather serious allegations about the Lancair IVP's=20 safety record and its aerdynamic characteristics and flying qualities, = ;but=20 at the end of the day you offer no factual evidence to support these opinion= s=20 nor any personal qualifications to support your opinons other than to say "y= ou=20 have talked to a few people." I hope when you get the Envoy= =20 flying, you and your product do not get flamed based on unsupported claims s= uch=20 as these. As George Braly and company would say, "show me the data." You hav= e=20 not and cannot because there is no data to support your claims. If you are=20 interested in the Lancair accident record, I suggest you visit www.ntsb.gov or attend the annual Lanc= air=20 forum at Oshkosh where the past year's accident and lessons learned are=20 reviewed.

After building and flying a Lancair IVP for over 3 years and 700 hours,= I=20 can say with some authority that there are no stability/ controllability iss= ues=20 that I am aware of. As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and FAA designat= ed=20 pilot examiner I can say that the aircraft is safe in the hands of a compete= nt=20 pilot who makes good decisions.

Regards,

Jeff Edwards

Lancair IVP

-------------------------------1148079162--