X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:18:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm15-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5048893 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:17:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.91.208; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.91.64] by nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2011 03:16:54 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.51] by tm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2011 03:16:54 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1051.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2011 03:16:54 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 868668.80609.bm@omp1051.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 62196 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jul 2011 03:16:54 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SxzXn4AwtNuAmai6GUOMTQbTdsEfynAfob6Lpu4SRQsQ6aQw886bexMliKJjpzMMKhDZhoe9BcDuO0Gf07FSGdr0n/EItF6AabB6uK5wCY6tJDWragiwv49kDN1WzjbrMm/e8LwUrlesh2XvScoZvnTp25DwJnEv+BDUByeRjcA=; X-YMail-OSG: 4JFZvvQVM1m_CaZUgO0uh04mF_MHcQl6q_ENoQrlAlAst.9 Mz.gco.VyFZztR90L36HxmtlK.va0JPnnxOSPRQIQyOH4M_SyTpUQEIynjeq NdZYeEv5e7ufkHXSZZkFf_3LgAOYCHoN1qO2ieXG5DuXne3UiiK4a_V1NnHW B9a99wDqUrUqgWUCA84T4m6vdZQk35KApPIIXnP.w4VFZVNDNiqIlkdAfthl c8FtMG8YIwkud9C1Q8xsKc.pzbptj5LDJN8U.U9GJKX91YiLtuIBbKV9Jou. 77Vp2VrFD5AaiNdDVHf0kRxwSOfJ3Ww1KBJzv49elKRBaFheLqu1ZsAxb2YL zpMqwkOavcduSflIzqapg7WbHH16EVnq_xlgikkn0rJk_9Yl27xbxj.Jjann 4D23xlqdkI7YNwA-- Received: from [76.8.220.21] by web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:16:54 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/14.0.3 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 X-Original-Message-ID: <1310440614.57005.YahooMailClassic@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:16:54 -0700 (PDT) From: randy snarr Subject: Re: [LML] Re: another Lancair X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-368595404-1310440614=:57005" --0-368595404-1310440614=:57005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting stats. One factor I did not see is the amount of flying each group does. I have a = plane in each group and the certified model in my 2 plane fleet does 1/20th= of the flying as my experimental model. Most owners do not have 2 planes h= owever, I believe there are more flight hours per plane for experimentals t= hat certifieds... That is a complete guess but I would like to see this comparrison based on = flight hours... Thanks for sharing.. Randy Snarr N694RS 235/320 N4442U Cessna 150 in the hangar with dust on it... "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if n= ot utterly impossible" -Simon Newcomb, 1902 --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: From: Sky2high@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 7:44 AM =0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0AJeff,=0A=C2=A0=0AI couldn't find anything useful either= in a scan of news letters or under =0Athe button "safety".=C2=A0 The Safet= y Wire article was too small to read and is =0Amissing page 3.=C2=A0 How ri= diculous that the EAA reserved safety info=C2=A0only =0Afor=C2=A0counselors= .=C2=A0 Oh well.........=0A=C2=A0=0AI have attached Lee Metcalf's Lancair a= ccident analyses thru 2005 and the =0Acopy of an article I had laying aroun= d that points out why=C2=A0one should be =0Asuspicious=C2=A0of "experimenta= l" accident stats.=C2=A0 Perhaps the community =0Awill find these interesti= ng.=0A=C2=A0=0AScott=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AIn a message dated 7/10/2011 2:18:42 P.M= . Central Daylight Time, =0Avtailjeff@aol.com writes:=0A=0A Scott,=0A =20 =0A The summary and white paper is on the web site. lobo is now deeply =0A= involved in other EAA and FAA aviation safety projects.=C2=A0=0A =20 =0A Best regards,=0A =20 =0A Jeff Sent from my iPad=0A =20 On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: =0A =0A =0A =0A Jeff,=0A =C2=A0=0A Any analysis is of interes= t to all - especially those that can't make =0A your session at OSH.=C2= =A0 Perhaps some summary at the LOBO site?=0A =C2=A0=0A Scott Krueger= =0A =C2=A0=0A =0A In a message dated 7/8/2011 7:40:41 A.M. Central= Daylight Time, vtailjeff@aol.com writes:=0A =0A Mark,=0A =C2= =A0=0A Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been to Oshkosh = =0A Airventure? These accidents are discussed in detail there. Based o= n your =0A comments about the engines you would be surprised. In many = cases it was =0A not the engine.=0A =C2=A0=0A Jeff Edwards =0A =20 =0A -----Original =0A Message----- From: Mark Steitle To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: =0A Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair =0A Steve,=C2=A0 =0A =20 =0A I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy. =C2=A0Even if= he =0A was a jerk, we still need to solve this riddle. =C2=A0Is LOBO = following up =0A on each of these crashes to learn what the experts de= termine to be the =0A cause(s)? =C2=A0If not, we'll continue to be hav= ing these conversations =0A until we eventually run out of pilots, or = airplanes.=0A =20 =0A Mark=C2=A0 =0A On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steve Colwell =0A wrote: =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =C2=A0=0A =0A = I would sure would like to know why all of these =0A "certifie= d engines" are quitting on takeoff. =0A =C2=A0=0A =0A = =C2=A0=0A =0A Mark =0A S.=C2=A0=0A Maybe the en= gine driven fuel =0A pump is failing.=C2=A0 We are running low boost= continuously in case the =0A engine pump fails and to address fuel = pressure issues at altitude, hot =0A fuel, vapor lock and other prob= lems. =C2=A0=0A I understand the engine will not =0A make ful= l power on low boost (reduce manifold pressure and settle for =0A le= ss power?)=C2=A0 =C2=A0=0A Or, it might quit if high boost =0A = is on and the mixture is not adjusted.=C2=A0 =0A =C2=A0=0A = Since engine driven pump =0A failure, heat and altitude all affect f= uel delivery, it would seem using =0A the low boost continuously cou= ld solve or make these problems =0A manageable. =C2=A0=0A Dr.= Lyle Koen did our last two =0A physicals.=C2=A0 He was a very likea= ble guy who built one of the early =0A IV=E2=80=99s and had over 100= 0 hours on it.=C2=A0 We talked to him about joining =0A LOBO and com= ing to the Branson Fly-In.=C2=A0 =0A Given the more knowledgeable = =0A than usual witness account, could training have changed this =0A= outcome?=0A Steve=C2=A0 Legacy =0A IO550=0A = =C2=A0 =3D -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --0-368595404-1310440614=:57005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Interesting stats.
One factor I did not se= e is the amount of flying each group does. I have a plane in each group and= the certified model in my 2 plane fleet does 1/20th of the flying as my ex= perimental model. Most owners do not have 2 planes however, I believe there= are more flight hours per plane for experimentals that certifieds...
Th= at is a complete guess but I would like to see this comparrison based on fl= ight hours...
Thanks for sharing..
Randy Snarr

N694RS
235/3= 20

N4442U Cessna 150 in the hangar with dust on it...

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpract= ical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible"
-Simon Newcomb= , 1902

--- On Mon, 7/11/11, Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.= com> wrote:

From: Sky2high@aol.com <= ;Sky2high@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair
To: lml@lanc= aironline.net
Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 7:44 AM

=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A
Jeff,
=0A
 
= =0A
I couldn't find anything useful either in a scan of news letters or= under =0Athe button "safety".  The Safety Wire article was too small = to read and is =0Amissing page 3.  How ridiculous that the EAA reserve= d safety info only =0Afor counselors.  Oh well.........=0A
 
=0A
I have attached Lee Metcalf's Lancair accident= analyses thru 2005 and the =0Acopy of an article I had laying around that = points out why one should be =0Asuspicious of "experimental" acci= dent stats.  Perhaps the community =0Awill find these interesting.=0A
 
=0A
Scott
=0A
 
=0A
=0AIn a message dated 7/10/2011 2:18:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =0Avtail= jeff@aol.com writes:
=0A
=0A
Scott,
= =0A

=0A
The summary and white paper is on the web sit= e. lobo is now deeply =0A involved in other EAA and FAA aviation safety pr= ojects. 
=0A

=0A
Best regards,
=0A
=0A
Jeff

Sent from my iPad
=0A

On = Jul 9, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Jeff,
=0A
 
= =0A
Any analysis is of interest to all - especially those that can'= t make =0A your session at OSH.  Perhaps some summary at the LOBO s= ite?
=0A
 
=0A
Scott Krueger
=0A  
=0A
=0A
In a message dated 7/8/2011 7:40:41 A= .M. Central Daylight Time, vtailjeff@aol.com writes:
=0A =0A =
Mark,
=0A =
 
=0A
Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have yo= u ever been to Oshkosh =0A Airventure? These accidents are discussed i= n detail there. Based on your =0A comments about the engines you would= be surprised. In many cases it was =0A not the engine.
=0A =
 
=0A
Jeff Edwards

=0A


=0A
-----Original =0A Message-----From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: =0A Thu,= Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair

=0A =
S= teve,  =0A

=0A
I agree, the pilot commun= ity lost another great guy.  Even if he =0A was a jerk, we still = need to solve this riddle.  Is LOBO following up =0A on each of t= hese crashes to learn what the experts determine to be the =0A cause(s= )?  If not, we'll continue to be having these conversations =0A u= ntil we eventually run out of pilots, or airplanes.
=0A

=
=0A
Mark 

=0A
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steve Colwell = <mcmess1919@yahoo.com> =0A = wrote:
=0A
= =0A
=0A
=0A
=0A <= div class=3D"yiv862283632MsoNormal"> 
=0A =
=0A
I would sure wo= uld like to know why all of these =0A "certified engines" are quitti= ng on takeoff. =0A  
=0A =0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
=0A
Mark =0A S. =
=0A
Maybe the engine= driven fuel =0A pump is failing.  We are running low boost con= tinuously in case the =0A engine pump fails and to address fuel pres= sure issues at altitude, hot =0A fuel, vapor lock and other problems= .  
=0A
I understand the engine will not =0A make full power on low= boost (reduce manifold pressure and settle for =0A less power?)&nbs= p;  
=0A
Or, it might quit if high boost =0A is on and the mixture = is not adjusted.  =0A  
=0A =
Since engine driven pump =0A = failure, heat and altitude all affect fuel delivery, it would seem using = =0A the low boost continuously could solve or make these problems = =0A manageable.  
=0A
Dr. Lyle Koen did our last two =0A phy= sicals.  He was a very likeable guy who built one of the early =0A = IV=E2=80=99s and had over 1000 hours on it.  We talked to him abou= t joining =0A LOBO and coming to the Branson Fly-In. 
=0A
Given th= e more knowledgeable =0A than usual witness account, could training = have changed this =0A outcome?
=0A =
Steve  Legacy =0A IO550
=0A
 

=3D
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
--
For archives and unsub http://= mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--0-368595404-1310440614=:57005--