X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:00:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from artemis.email.starband.net ([148.78.247.125] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 671864 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:44:37 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=148.78.247.125; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net Received: from starband.net (vsat-148-64-23-255.c050.t7.mrt.starband.net [148.64.23.255]) by artemis.email.starband.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7H7V3UK027166 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:31:05 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4302EA7E.3030309@starband.net> X-Original-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:42:54 -0700 From: "Hamid A. Wasti" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Torqued to death References: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/1015/Sat Aug 13 07:30:52 2005 clamav-milter version 0.80j on artemis X-Virus-Status: Clean Dave,

Having re-read your original post and having read your post below, I restate that your statement that Lancair's are tough enough to survive thunderstorms is one of the most irresponsible comments I have read on the LML.

Any amount of speed control, attitude control or pilot technique is not going to help you make it through the aerodynamic forces and conditions you can encounter in a thunderstorm. That statement comes from seeing the second by second data from fatal accidents. You can prefix your statement with whatever you want, but the claim that a Lancair is tough enough to stand up to a thunderstorm is an asinine statement, coming out of either ignorance or arrogance.

What I had not considered when I made my initial statement, and what has since been pointed out by Terrence, is the effect of hail and lightning on the airframe.

Regards,

Hamid

YoSamuel@aol.com wrote:

I believe you either did not read my entire statement or you totally miss understood it. I am emphatically not in favor of intentionally flying into convective activity. Did you read about attitude control and airspeed control? Did you read about the 180 degree turn? You think it irresponsible to relate an experience so that if another pilot got into a similar situation inadvertently there might be something to be ready for? Reread it before you make comments on irresponsibility.

Dave.