Rienk Ayers,

Are you the same Rienk that is/was the spokesperson for the Envoy (a
competitive turbine aircraft)?  Seems you left that tit of relevant info off
your message (a recurring theme).

What else aren't you telling us????  Really makes me wonder if you're on the
up and up and or/if your post is biased - seems very very fishy.

My experiences with folk who display similar behavior has been pretty much
all bad.  Seems you're always getting yourself into trouble here on the LML
- what's up with that?

Rick Titsworth, Detroit
Cell 313-506-5604
Please call if I'm missing something


-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Rienk
Ayers
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] IVP - turbine vs recip?

Well said Craig. I love turbines!
Having had several King Airs, and now with three single engine turbine
planes (two with Walters), I can't speak well enough of them (and as many
know, I am helping develop a turbine plane).

However, there is a point of diminishing returns. In my opinion, the Lancair
4P reached its zenith with the TIO-550; it has incredible performance
numbers and acceptable useful load. Though the reliability and "cool" factor
of the turbine cannot be questioned, putting a turbine on a 4P seems to be
defeating the purpose of the finely balanced flight mission the aircraft was
designed for. Burning twice the fuel with half the payload at virtually the
same speed does not seem like a great tradeoff. Practically speaking,
putting a turbine in a 4P gets you a fast Legacy with a large baggage space
(rear seat).

I have visited John Cook's 4P through almost all the phases of construction,
and his mission criteria are quite specific: he has/had a turbine engine
company and prefers to fly them, and really only needs two seats - the main
reason he sold his Turbine Legend to build the 4PT was simply because he and
his wife prefer side by side seating.

Is the 4PT a neat plane? Without a doubt.
Does it have as wide a mission profile as the standard 4P? Of course not.
If you must have four seats, go with the piston. If you only need two and like the smell of kerosene, go with the Turbine.

My first plane (which I still have) is an old Comanche 180... Like many
designs, it succumbed to the power addiction, and went from 180 hp to 250
hp, and then somehow up to 400 hp. Can it fly with this much power? Yes.
Does it make sense? Not in my book.
If a larger/faster airplane is called for, it should be designed as such -
just like the move from the original Lancairs to the L4, and the development
of the Legacy.

Thus, the recip is probably the "wiser"  AND  "better" choice.

(but I still prefer Jet A).

RA



-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:37 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP - turbine vs recip?




Posted for "cblitzer" <cblitzer@triad.rr.com>:

Not to  say anything bad about the turbine IV-P's but if you had read Charlie K's home pages. you would have found out that a recip is the wiser
choice.
Not necessarily the better choice, just the wiser.
How's that for lawyering Joe !!
Craig B.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.3/423 - Release Date: 8/18/2006




--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/