X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4070574 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:43:00 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o09JgFps026956 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:42:15 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.cc6.62d8e04b (37174) for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-me01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-me01.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.102]) by cia-ma05.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA051-b2b44b48dc0f243; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:42:12 -0500 Received: from webmail-stg-d15 (webmail-stg-d15.sim.aol.com [205.188.185.231]) by smtprly-me01.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYME016-b2b44b48dc0f243; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:42:07 -0500 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids X-Original-Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:42:07 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 72.14.0.207 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC5F7AF62CC244_2FE0_F2C4_webmail-stg-d15.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 30361-STANDARD Received: from 72.14.0.207 by webmail-stg-d15.sysops.aol.com (205.188.185.231) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:42:07 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC5F7AF6233CBC-2FE0-7650@webmail-stg-d15.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CC5F7AF62CC244_2FE0_F2C4_webmail-stg-d15.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" over 2000 kits sold; approx 1000 flying; 200 members (20% of the flying fl= eet) -----Original Message----- From: Jim Nordin To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 6:27 pm Subject: [LML] 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids So a reasonable question is: What percentage of Lancairs are LOBO affiliat= ed? Jim =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of fre= yas.favored@gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:43 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids =20 Or could it be that more people who fly aren't members of LOBO so the odds= are with you. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500 To: Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids =20 Matt,=20 =20 The important part is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty significant when= not a single LOBO member joins the NTSB club in 2009 -- a better question= would be why are LOBO members "safer" than the general Lancair community?= You probably only have to look at the recent LML discussions to answer th= at question for yourself.=20 =20 Best Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards =20 -----Original Message----- From: Matt Reeves To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 3:15 pm Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in 2009 compared to 2008? = Or any airplane for that matter? Just a few years ago, I'd see and hear= planes fly all the time. Now, I'm lucky to hear one a month and never se= e them. Sadly, GA is dying. In Rochester, it's $80 to land a small plane= - $40 ramp fee plus $40 landing fee. Less planes fly, less planes crash= but I'm not sure that should be interpreted as an improvement. --- On Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:16 AM Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair acciden= ts last year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatalities)= in 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO member. Th= is parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it up! =20 Jeff Edwards President, LOBO =20 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Mitchell To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning Some random experiences in Fuel (mis)management. =20 Gotcha #1. Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold front= in a C-180 ambhibian. Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank= - appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladd= er! On way to Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-State= expressway. Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the old style cover.= Landed without incident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete being laid.) =20 Gotcha #2. In a T-6. Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks ever= y 1/2 hour. Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on third swit= ch attempt the selector handle broke off. Now unable to fly on fuller tan= k, so diverted to alternate airport and landed. No passenger in back seat= as there is a second selector there. Henceforth carried a vicegrip as do= about 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6 pilots. =20 Gotcha #3. In a twin comanche with tip tanks. Heated hangar in N. Wisc.= Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twins peculiar= low point central drain. Left for Florida, with full mains, full aux and= full tips. My proceedure is to taxi out on the mains, switch to aux for= run up then back to mains for take off. Uneventfull cruise at 8500'. Fu= ll aux and tips showing on the gauges. At cruise I swith to left Aux tank,= engine quites, back to main everything ok. Same with rt engine. Analysi= s frozen water in both aux tanks. After landing and over night in heated= hanger drain over a gallon of water from sump. A/c always hangared! =20 Gotcha#4. I was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it= had a fuel system not unlike a Lnc-2. Header tank, 2 wing tanks that grav= ity feed to the header. The CFI "student" checks the fuel. " half full= header, half full wing aux tanks". We were only going to do touch and go= es in Sedona, AZ. After 2-3 landings we turned on the aux which drains in= to the mains so as to continue circuits and the 4th landing was "dead stic= k".=20 =20 Moral of the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the= tanks and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers an= d hopefully no more GOTCHA'S.=20 =20 Bob Mitchell L320 =20 =20 Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning I rely heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity. On refueling, it is= invariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but there= is one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you in the lurc= h, and a bad one at that. If a leak develops upstream of the fuel totaliz= er sensor, or you leave a fuel cap off, you can be draining or vacuuming= a large fraction of your fuel overboard, but the fuel totalizer does not= recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the totalizer. =20 =20 Accordingly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the fuel= left in the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss and th= at we can rely on the fuel totalizer. Chuck Jensen=20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CC5F7AF62CC244_2FE0_F2C4_webmail-stg-d15.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" over 2000 kits sold; approx 1000 flying; 200 members (20= % of the flying fleet)



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Nordin <panelmaker@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 6:27 pm
Subject: [LML] 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids

So a reasonable questio= n is: What percentage of Lancairs are LOBO affiliated?
Jim
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On= Behalf Of freyas.f= avored@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, January 08,= 2010 2:43 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 La= ncair Accidents factoids
 
Or could it be that more people who fly aren't member= s of LOBO so the odds are with you.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Date: Fri, 08= Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500
Subject: [LML= ] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
 
Matt,
 
The important par= t is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty significant when not a single= LOBO member joins the NTSB club in 2009 -- a better question would be why= are LOBO members "safer" than the general Lancair community? You probably= only have to look at the recent LML discussions to answer that quest= ion for yourself.
 
Best Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves@y= ahoo.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 3:15 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in 2009= compared to 2008?  Or any airplane for that matter?  Just a few= years ago, I'd see and hear planes fly all the time.  Now, I'm lucky= to hear one a month and never see them.  Sadly, GA is dying. = In Rochester, it's $80 to land a small plane - $40 ramp fee plus $40 land= ing fee.   Less planes fly, less planes crash but I'm not sure that= should be interpreted as an improvement.

--- On Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com> wrote:

From: vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:16 AM

Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair acciden= ts last year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatali= ties) in 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO membe= r. This parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it= up!
 
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mitchell <rmitch1@hu= ghes.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning
Some rand= om experiences in Fuel (mis)management.
 
Gotcha #1= .  Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold front in= a C-180 ambhibian.  Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank= - appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladd= er!  On way to Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-S= tate expressway.  Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the old styl= e cover.  Landed without incident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete= being laid.)
 
Gotcha #2= .  In a T-6.  Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks eve= ry 1/2 hour.  Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on thir= d switch attempt the selector handle broke off.  Now unable to fly on= fuller tank, so diverted to alternate airport and landed.  No passen= ger in back seat as there is a second selector there.  Henceforth car= ried a vicegrip as do about 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6 pilots.
 
Gotcha #3= .  In a twin comanche with tip tanks.  Heated hangar in N. Wisc.=   Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twins pecu= liar low point central drain.  Left for Florida, with full mains, ful= l aux and full tips. My proceedure is to taxi out on the mains, switc= h to aux for run up then back to mains for take off.  Uneventfull cru= ise at 8500'.  Full aux and tips showing on the gauges. At cruise I= swith to left Aux tank, engine quites, back to main everything ok. = Same with rt engine.  Analysis frozen water in both aux tanks. = After landing and over night in heated hanger drain over a gallon of wate= r from sump.  A/c always hangared!
 
Gotcha#4.=  I was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it had= a fuel system not unlike a Lnc-2. Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity= feed to the header.  The CFI "student" checks the fuel.  " half= full header, half full wing aux tanks".  We were only going to do to= uch and goes in Sedona, AZ.  After 2-3 landings we turned on the= aux which drains into the mains so as to continue circuits and the= 4th landing was "dead stick". 
 
Moral of= the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the tanks= and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers and hope= fully no more GOTCHA'S.
 
Bob Mitch= ell
L320
 
 

Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Pl= anning
I rely he= avily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity.  On refueling, it is inv= ariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but there = ;is one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you in the lurc= h, and a bad one at that.  If a leak develops upstream of the fuel to= talizer sensor, or you leave a fuel cap off, you can be draining or vacuum= ing a large fraction of your fuel overboard, but the fuel totalizer does= not recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the totalizer.=  
 
According= ly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the fuel left in= the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss and that we ca= n rely on the fuel totalizer.

Chuck Jensen=
 
 
----------MB_8CC5F7AF62CC244_2FE0_F2C4_webmail-stg-d15.sysops.aol.com--