Grayhawk, The reason I say that is I see a lot of certified birds collecting dust at the field. Rows and rows of planes that rarely fly. Plenty of experimentals sitting in hangars when fuel is bloody $6 per gallon too I guess. Still, the experimental world has a pulse, the certified ships seem to be sitting more... Just one mans observation .. I am a pilot and airplane builder so any opinion from me is suspect at all levels... Randy Snarr "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible" -Simon Newcomb, 1902 --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com> wrote: From: Sky2high@aol.com <Sky2high@aol.com> Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 2:25 PM Randy,   Flying time is an incredibly inaccurate measure. Your situation is a perfect example. If I wanted to build x-country time I would use the 150.  A 100 NM trip might take an hour in the 150, only 30 minutes in the 320 and merely a 15 minute ballistic arc in a IV-P.  The crash speed of the 320 is probably twice that of the 150.  Hmmm, I could probably land the un-powered 150 on the flat roof of the Menard's Distribution Center - but I would need a bit more room for the 320.   There are many more opportunities for "Oops!" in a retractable gear high performance aircraft than in a slow, error forgiving trainer.  Uh, the Malibu had quite a kill rate (Doc killer) when operated by, uh, pilots whose education and training focused on gall bladders, rectums, etc. rather than upset recovery, thunderstorm avoidance, yada, yada.   Grayhawk     In a message dated 7/12/2011 9:30:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time, randylsnarr@yahoo.com writes: 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 however, I believe there are more flight hours per plane for experimentals that 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 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@lancaironline.net Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 7:44 AM Jeff,   I couldn't find anything useful either in a scan of news letters or under the button "safety".  The Safety Wire article was too small to read and is missing page 3.  How ridiculous that the EAA reserved safety info only for counselors.  Oh well.........   I have attached Lee Metcalf's Lancair accident analyses thru 2005 and the copy of an article I had laying around that points out why one should be suspicious of "experimental" accident stats.  Perhaps the community will find these interesting.   Scott   In a message dated 7/10/2011 2:18:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vtailjeff@aol.com writes: Scott, The summary and white paper is on the web site. lobo is now deeply involved in other EAA and FAA aviation safety projects.  Best regards, Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: Jeff,   Any analysis is of interest to all - especially those that can't make your session at OSH.  Perhaps some summary at the LOBO site?   Scott Krueger   In a message dated 7/8/2011 7:40:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, vtailjeff@aol.com writes: Mark,   Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been to Oshkosh Airventure? These accidents are discussed in detail there. Based on your comments about the engines you would be surprised. In many cases it was not the engine.   Jeff Edwards -----Original Message----- From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com> To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair Steve,  I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy.  Even if he was a jerk, we still need to solve this riddle.  Is LOBO following up on each of these crashes to learn what the experts determine to be the cause(s)?  If not, we'll continue to be having these conversations until we eventually run out of pilots, or airplanes. Mark  On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steve Colwell <mcmess1919@yahoo.com> wrote:   I would sure would like to know why all of these "certified engines" are quitting on takeoff.     Mark S.  Maybe the engine driven fuel pump is failing.  We are running low boost continuously in case the engine pump fails and to address fuel pressure issues at altitude, hot fuel, vapor lock and other problems.   I understand the engine will not make full power on low boost (reduce manifold pressure and settle for less power?)    Or, it might quit if high boost is on and the mixture is not adjusted.    Since engine driven pump failure, heat and altitude all affect fuel delivery, it would seem using the low boost continuously could solve or make these problems manageable.   Dr. Lyle Koen did our last two physicals.  He was a very likeable guy who built one of the early IV’s and had over 1000 hours on it.  We talked to him about joining LOBO and coming to the Branson Fly-In.  Given the more knowledgeable than usual witness account, could training have changed this outcome? Steve  Legacy IO550   = -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html