So Terrence O'Neill what specifics are you doing to improve your 235/320's pitch sensitivity  ??    Don Skeele   235/320  N320J
>
> From: "terrence o'neill" <troneill@charter.net>
> Date: 2006/07/18 Tue AM 01:40:59 EDT
> To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [LML] Re: Hmmm
>
> Jeff,
>     Let me comment on your opinions on my post.
>
>   pretty good, just as all drivers are pretty good.  We need to cut them a
>   little slack, like we do drivers, who are also us, and who handle amazing
>   complexity, without someone telling them 'Okay, you can pull out into traffic
>   now; and you gan climb that hill, and you can  turn onto I-70..."  And they do
>   it with an acceptable lev el of safety, and without medicals every two years.
>
>   Terrence,
>
>   You said:
>   Drivers are safe? Over 40,000 people are killed on our roads every year. Over a million are seriously injured.
>
>   Floating statistics.  How m any driver-hours per fatality?  
>   Also, we who own our roads and cars find this level of safety acceptable, adn don;t want any government agency telling us when to go, when to turn, how to operate our cars, other than speed limits posted too low, for the insurance lobbies, and for providing enforcers justification for their cars and equipment... not that most of them don;t do a good job of helping people in need, and catching obviously unsafe drivers, drunks, etc. Why are posted speeds 10 to 20 mph different for identical roads in two different states?
>
>    GA Pilots are safe? Part 91 flying is 25 time more hazardous that Part 121.
>   Another un-checked statistic.  Have you researched accidetn data (like I did) and found that the airlines report safety in terms of passesnger miles?  Is a 747 with 500 passengers 500 times safer than one with jujst crew?  And since that's abviously a lying statistic, one must ask why the FAA and airlines report such data... and why pilots like yourself do not question it, or see the fallicy of it.  In truth, in terms of pilot-hours flown, the GenAve aircraft are a little less (insignificant percentasge) safe than airlines, even considering thet the airline piklots have state of the art equipment, top training and proficiency, and are baby-sat from taxi clearance to shut-down.  Comapre that to the average low time pilot, flying his ramp-roped 25-year-old airknocker with steam gages and low compression thrice overhauled engines, etc.
>
>   Come to Oshkosh and sit down with me and let's go over the Lancair accident statistics. You show me where the airplane let down the pilot, versus where the pilot let down the airplane. Be at the Lancair Forum at 1730 Thursday.
>   I've already done over the Lancair accident statistics, so you'll have to do it yourself.  I don't know if I'll arrive in time for the Forum, but  I'd like to.
>   In the meantime, let me point out again several posts problems  
>   1. I've noted on a number of previous posts: the 2-seat Lancairs haev too-light a pitchcontrol, in lbs-per-G,a s documented by CAFE tests.  This was also complained about by a top AF test pilot, in detail.  Probably most Lancair piltos just disregard informatiojn they didn;t want to hear, because they didn't know what to do about it..  I've suggested a correction, and am doing it to my L235/320.
>   2. The horizontal tail is too small -- evidenced by very slow stall-recovery.  Everyone knows this but you, and I read many LML posts confession fear of stalling, i guess.  Austrailia required the tail be enlarged. I've suggested a better cure, and will try it on my own.
>
>
>   Airplanes have been improved immensely in the last ten years or so. I have EFIS screens with moving map, datalink weather, a bitching betty telling me when I get too close to stall. Sterling Ainsworth had that and a turbine powered airplane.. but he flew into convective activity because he did not pay for the Canadian WSI subscription, iced up his pitot tube (which most likely had pitot heat off) and put the aircraft into a full power dive until the tail departed.  How much safer could his airplane been designed? He purposely flew an airplane into conditions he knew before hand were hazardous-- did it anyway and somehow this kind of accident is the airplane's fault? I call it "free will."
>   Again, Jeff, you're talking about avionics and pilots, not the airplane itself.
>
>   Cirrus's have a ballistic parachutes yet pilots still fail to pull the handle when they should. Too late, too fast, out of the envelope--fatal and this is the airplanes fault?
>   Tell this to Cirrus.
>
>   Of course everything could be better with future techology -- but we ain't got it today and even if we did you can't force everyone to run out and buy it. There will still be someone 100 years from today flying a J-3 Cub to Oshkosh and they will still be flying the Ford trimotor there. I hope to be there.
>   You hope to still be flying J3 technology even 100 years from now?
>
>   Terrence
>