| Randy,
You are correct, we ARE all individuals who make our own choices. We are also, however, members of a community. This particular community has borne more than it's share of casualties of late; I would recommend you forgive the membership for looking out for one of its own.
There's making a point, and there's making a point. While some folks are certainly more abrasive than others, in light of the current dynamic in the community, I would encourage you to assume the best intentions of all who offer comments about safety.Although some have made it seem as though they are more worried about their bottom line when it comes to their insurance premium; I would be willing to bet if asked, ALL of them would tell you the idea of you (or someone following in your footsteps) getting hurt or bending an aircraft poses their greatest concern -- at least it does for me.
Below, I've copied a few comments from your previous posts on the subject of Vne. I would encourage you to review these and consider how they might be taken by a relatively new, inexperienced or impressionable pilot, perhaps one who did not build his or her aircraft, but believes they have a perfect specimen. You've used many terms like 'I believe,' 'it would be my guess,' etc, which tells us you are posting your opinion, but you've added the word 'stats' more than once suggesting your opinion is based on relevant data. The long and the short of it is you've made several definitive statements suggesting the Vne published by the factory is too conservative and can be safely ignored.
I think if you are honest with yourself you will agree that while not necessarily encouraging dangerous attitudes and ideas, they certainly don't make a case for erring on the side of caution. Again, given the numbers of recent Lancair accidents -- many fatal -- caution and prudence seem the safest bet, especially when discussing a subject such as limitations.
I would ask how you might feel to discover a brand new LNC-2 purchaser had hurt him/herself -- or a pax -- based on your advice.
I don't mean to offend you, and I don't pose the above hypothetical to be nasty or flippant; I'm trying to show how I (and perhaps a few others who've expressed their concerns) view the situation. I would also ask that you take a step back and reconsider your reaction to the community's concern. I for one am glad beyond words to know that if others in my tribe believe I am doing something that could be considered dangerous they are not afraid to speak up -- even if they believe it might offend me.
Respectfully,
Mark Sletten
--Original Messages-----
From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com>
To: lml
Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number
This is a forum about Lancair's, geared to a Lancair community. We are not all gray, we are all individuals, we all make our own choices. Not to be judged.
I believe Lance, like other designers, always sets the safe limits to the lowest common denominator. They take into consideration the worst builders that cut corners, use to much resin, build heavy or not straight, etc. Under these conditions Vne would be an unsafe speed, but a light quality built, straight aircraft would be safe beyond the published limits. Again, these are published numbers in a POH that covers multiple models of aircraft. Not from the "Builder" but the kit maker. I wonder what the Vne was on the actual test plane Lance built? It would be my guess the Vne was much higher then the POH.
Lance designed and manufactured a very strong very advanced kit, if built right, as intended, it will far exceed your expectations. And the only flutter you'll get is when your heart flutters from the performance Lance designed for pilots that are willing to enjoy it.
LNC-2's have safely flown faster then mine as well as raced far beyond the arbitrary published limits in the Lancair owners manual. These are for reference.
|