Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:17:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.233.170.200] (HELO mproxy.gmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 360690 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:08:20 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.170.200; envelope-from=dane.jasper@gmail.com Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 78so320705rnl for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.78.1 with SMTP id a1mr1857687rnb; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:07:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <6dfe4dec04081100072c4b2474@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:07:49 -0700 From: Dane Jasper Reply-To: dane@sonic.net X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thoughts on BRS parachute system In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Lancair sales says that they're in discussions on this potential feature option, and that it would require airframe modifications to the kit itself, and would not likely be something that could be a retrofit to an existing kit. That said, the system is available for the Cessna 172 and others as a retrofit, but perhaps the semi-monaque construction lends itself better to this type of retrofit. -Dane On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:53:05 -0400, Marvin Kaye wrote: > Posted for "Art Bertolina" : > > Dane > from the reports the system has mixed reviews. The idea > is great but before I made a dramatic change in my near > complete L IV I would like to more history > Regards > Art > > > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/ >