X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:19:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail38c8.megamailservers.com ([69.49.106.188] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTPS id 1915487 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:16:54 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.49.106.188; envelope-from=jhk@clearwire.net X-POP-User: jhk.clearwire.net Received: from hoben59c2e82ed (66-233-50-89.bel.clearwire-dns.net [66.233.50.89]) by mail38c8.megamailservers.com (8.13.6.20060614/8.13.1) with SMTP id l2BMG5GP028781 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:16:06 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <001801c7642a$dd6f2040$0201a8c0@hoben59c2e82ed> From: "James H. Keyworth" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: enough runway" X-Original-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:16:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C763F0.2E1ECDA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 Disposition-Notification-To: "James H. Keyworth" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C763F0.2E1ECDA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff: Agreed, weight, space & repacking would be downsides, but wouldn't prop replacement and an engine rebuild cost more than a chute installation? Also, if you're on the roll-out, power off, expecting to stop and find that you're running out of runway, are you really going to try a go-around? I envisage this method only as an emergency measure to avert disaster if one has to land on too short a field or too slick a surface (or, Grayhawk, experience brake failure). Preventing overrun is optimal, but even reducing overrun impact speed could reduce injuries and damage. JHK ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C763F0.2E1ECDA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jeff:

Agreed, weight, space & repacking = would be=20 downsides, but wouldn't prop replacement and an engine rebuild cost more = than a=20 chute installation?

Also, if you're on the roll-out, power=20 off, expecting to stop and find that you're running out of runway, = are you=20 really going to try a go-around?

I envisage this method only as an = emergency measure=20 to avert disaster if one has to land on too short a field or too slick a = surface=20 (or, Grayhawk, experience brake failure). Preventing overrun is optimal, = but=20 even reducing overrun impact speed could reduce injuries and=20 damage.

JHK

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C763F0.2E1ECDA0--