Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:00:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 1980816 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:08:21 -0500 Received: from Billhogarty@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.1c0.340c698 (16930) for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:08:11 -0500 (EST) From: Billhogarty@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1c0.340c698.2b519b6b@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:08:11 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Wing Loading mysteries X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1c0.340c698.2b519b6b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10625 --part1_1c0.340c698.2b519b6b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For Scott Krueger - Dont understand why you are using 24,000 lbs in your calculations. Since wing failed at 12,000 lbs, wouldnt that be the figure to use? Lancairs original specifications set maximum gross weight at 2900 lbs so if you use that figure, 12,000/2900 = 4.14 which I thought was the original "G" limitation. I realize that Lancair has increased the max gross weight to 3200 lbs, so if you use those figures, wouldnt the max "G" limitation (12,000/3200) be reduced to 3.75 ? Obviously, there is something I dont understand here, Thanks Bill Hogarty --part1_1c0.340c698.2b519b6b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
For Scott Krueger - Dont understand why you are using 24,000 lbs in your calculations. Since wing failed at 12,000 lbs, wouldnt that be the figure to use?

Lancairs original specifications set maximum gross weight at 2900 lbs so if you use that figure, 12,000/2900 = 4.14 which I thought was the original "G" limitation. I realize that Lancair has increased the max gross weight to 3200 lbs, so if you use those figures, wouldnt the max "G" limitation (12,000/3200) be reduced to 3.75 ?

Obviously, there is something I dont understand here, Thanks Bill Hogarty --part1_1c0.340c698.2b519b6b_boundary--