X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: LML Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:32:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.26] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4004332 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:26:23 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.78.26; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id d26so133846eyd.3 for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:25:48 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Kf1/OlaaE1bN0deIdfJNFK2lShELazryCXf4//DKPMIOQ6imJeBf4Oc4KxA4NFtq8A xBhLBBRXrTTE3ASGsdUPXBHFGGHw3eO2cc0fqNTAwnI83NIRjmyc5CnmWHVFKAKSLp1Z ZUruvi2dNJJyPLNp+hQiVNhDvRLW+AOFZ3oL4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.91.10 with SMTP id g10mr692497wef.217.1260062748246; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:25:48 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:25:48 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number From: Mark Sletten X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d77e3c810208047a053840 --0016e6d77e3c810208047a053840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Randy, You keep repeating these stats as if they mean something germane to this discussion. Are you implying LNC-2 pilots exceed Vne regularly? I have two thoughts about these stats: First, without knowing the number of times the published Vne has been exceeded in LNC-2 aircraft, whether the airframe has been modified, the flight conditions, altitude, KIAS/KTAS, etc, this 'stat' means nothing. Anecdotal evidence is not data. Second, the fact that Lancair hasn't issued a bulletin regarding flutter on a certain model of aircraft tells me the Vne chosen for it appears to be appropriate -- it says nothing about the prudence of exceeding it. What this info says to me more than anything else is that most LNC-2 pilots have a healthy respect for the published Vne. --Mark Sletten Randy Stewart said: [image: Message Header] [image: Undecoded Message] The stats are: Not one LNC-2 has come apart from exceeding Vne. There are no service bulletins from Lancair regarding high speed flutter on a small tail LNC-2. --0016e6d77e3c810208047a053840 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy,

You keep repe= ating these stats as if they mean something germane to this discussion. Are= you implying LNC-2 pilots exceed Vne regularly?
I have two thoughts about the= se stats:=A0
First, without knowing the nu= mber of times the published Vne has been exceeded in LNC-2 aircraft, whethe= r the airframe has been modified, the flight conditions, altitude, KIAS/KTA= S, etc, this 'stat' means nothing. Anecdotal evidence is not data.<= /span>
Second, the fact that Lancair= hasn't issued a bulletin regarding flutter on a certain model of aircr= aft tells me the Vne chosen for it appears to be appropriate -- it says not= hing about the prudence of exceeding it.

What this info says to me more t= han anything else is that most LNC-2 pilots have a healthy respect for the = published Vne.
--Mark Sletten


Randy Stewart said:=A0
3D"Message

3D"Undecoded
The stats are: Not one LNC-2 has come apart= from exceeding Vne. There are no service bulletins from Lancair regarding = high speed flutter on a small tail=A0LNC-2.
--0016e6d77e3c810208047a053840--