Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:51:42 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1337825@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.83.119.58; envelope-from=cjensen@dts9000.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: IVP - turbine vs recip?
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: IVP - turbine vs recip?
Thread-Index: AcbDBvwqen71o/VVROWdY5f2G1caYQAATxyg
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>

Rick,

Mr. Ayers did slip in notification in the first paragraph, though it was
not as obvious as some may wish:

"Well said Craig.=20

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)."

So, better notice, if not perfect notice, was given.

Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive=20


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On=20
> Behalf Of rtitsworth
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:42 PM
> To: Lancair Mailing List
> Subject: [LML] Re: IVP - turbine vs recip?
>=20
>=20
> Rienk Ayers,
>=20
> Are you the same Rienk that is/was the spokesperson for the=20
> Envoy (a competitive turbine aircraft)?  Seems you left that=20
> tit of relevant info off your message (a recurring theme).
>=20
> What else aren't you telling us????  Really makes me wonder=20
> if you're on the up and up and or/if your post is biased -=20
> seems very very fishy.
>=20
> My experiences with folk who display similar behavior has=20
> been pretty much all bad.  Seems you're always getting=20
> yourself into trouble here on the LML
> - what's up with that?
>=20
> Rick Titsworth, Detroit
> Cell 313-506-5604
> Please call if I'm missing something
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On=20
> Behalf Of Rienk Ayers
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM
> To: Lancair Mailing List
> Subject: [LML] IVP - turbine vs recip?
>=20
> Well said Craig.=20
>=20
> I love turbines!
> Having had several King Airs, and now with three single=20
> engine turbine planes (two with Walters), I can't speak well=20
> enough of them (and as many know, I am helping develop a=20
> turbine plane).
>=20
> However, there is a point of diminishing returns. In my=20
> opinion, the Lancair 4P reached its zenith with the TIO-550;=20
> it has incredible performance numbers and acceptable useful=20
> load. Though the reliability and "cool" factor of the turbine=20
> cannot be questioned, putting a turbine on a 4P seems to be=20
> defeating the purpose of the finely balanced flight mission=20
> the aircraft was designed for. Burning twice the fuel with=20
> half the payload at virtually the same speed does not seem=20
> like a great tradeoff. Practically speaking, putting a=20
> turbine in a 4P gets you a fast Legacy with a large baggage=20
> space (rear seat).
>=20
> I have visited John Cook's 4P through almost all the phases=20
> of construction, and his mission criteria are quite specific:=20
> he has/had a turbine engine company and prefers to fly them,=20
> and really only needs two seats - the main reason he sold his=20
> Turbine Legend to build the 4PT was simply because he and his=20
> wife prefer side by side seating.
>=20
> Is the 4PT a neat plane? Without a doubt.
> Does it have as wide a mission profile as the standard 4P? Of=20
> course not. If you must have four seats, go with the piston.=20
> If you only need two and like the smell of kerosene, go with=20
> the Turbine.
>=20
> My first plane (which I still have) is an old Comanche 180...=20
> Like many designs, it succumbed to the power addiction, and=20
> went from 180 hp to 250 hp, and then somehow up to 400 hp.=20
> 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=20
> designed as such - just like the move from the original=20
> Lancairs to the L4, and the development of the Legacy.
>=20
> Thus, the recip is probably the "wiser"  AND  "better" choice.
>=20
> (but I still prefer Jet A).
>=20
> RA
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:37 PM
> To: Lancair Mailing List
> Subject: [LML] Re: IVP - turbine vs recip?
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Posted for "cblitzer" <cblitzer@triad.rr.com>:
>=20
> Not to  say anything bad about the turbine IV-P's but if you had read=20
> Charlie K's home pages. you would have found out that a recip=20
> is the wiser choice. Not necessarily the better choice, just=20
> the wiser. How's that for lawyering Joe !! Craig B.
>=20
> --=20
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.3/423 - Release=20
> Date: 8/18/2006
> =20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>=20