Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:57:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.8.50.175] (HELO mta1.adelphia.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 1981443 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:44:50 -0500 Received: from library ([216.227.164.227]) by mta1.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.25 201-253-122-126-125-20021216) with SMTP id <20030112164616.OUWB12021.mta1.adelphia.net@library> for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:46:16 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <005d01c2ba59$eb9bb0e0$e3a4e3d8@library> From: "Doug Pohl" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Experimental Stretching X-Original-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:44:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 I've read with great interest the discussion concerning wing loading. It is not apparent to me what has prompted this recent discussion but my suspicion is that it is linked to the introduction of the turbine, its very high fuel burn, and therefore the necessity to carry more fuel that increases gross weight. Having built one of the very first Lancair IVs, I have watched the gross weight of the plane inch up over a decade. The first increase was in response to pressurization that added weight to the airframe (3200 lbs). Then the extended fuel tank option appeared and the gross weight increased again (3400 lbs). Then people began to realize this four seater aircraft was really a two - three seater (3600 lbs). Now the airplane is being packed with more fuel in belly tanks, new wing bays etc and it has been suggested that it can be flown at 4000 lbs. I'm not suggesting that it can or can't and I'm not an engineer but some of the more learned in the group have raised the more obvious issues of wing loading, structural integrity, flight characteristics, etc. Having flown one of these things to the ground without a working engine, I'd just like to wave a flag of caution. Most accidents don't occur when everything is working right, they occur as a sequence of things that went wrong. Take a 4000 lb airplane on a hot day at high density altitude, throw in a loss of power, and your margin for safety sinks quickly to zero. These planes may be experimental, and you are free to do what you want with them, but they're still airplanes subject to the same issues as "certified" aircraft. While the plane may structurally fly at a high gross weight, is this a safe thing to do? Please be careful. We've buried too many of our group this past year. Doug Pohl Lancair IV-P