X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:40:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5045228 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:20:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.164; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p67MK5Q9032727 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:20:05 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.11f8.1bdf14d (55761) for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-dd03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dd03.mx.aol.com [205.188.84.131]) by cia-md05.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD052-d40a4e16310d162; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:20:00 -0400 Received: from webmail-m134 (webmail-m134.sim.aol.com [149.174.9.14]) by smtprly-dd03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDD036-d40a4e16310d162; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:19:57 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: another Lancair X-Original-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:19:57 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 75.62.75.10 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_8CE0B0B23729A93_16C0_E1914_webmail-m134.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33912-STANDARD Received: from 75.62.75.10 by webmail-m134.sysops.aol.com (149.174.9.14) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:19:57 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE0B0B235D2E2A-16C0-68234@webmail-m134.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CE0B0B23729A93_16C0_E1914_webmail-m134.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mark, Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been to Oshkosh Airventure?= These accidents are discussed in detail there. Based on your comments abo= ut the engines you would be surprised. In many cases it was not the engine= . Jeff Edwards -----Original Message----- From: Mark Steitle To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair Steve,=20 I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy. Even if he was a jer= k, we still need to solve this riddle. Is LOBO following up on each of th= ese crashes to learn what the experts determine to be the cause(s)? If no= t, we'll continue to be having these conversations until we eventually run= out of pilots, or airplanes. Mark=20 On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steve Colwell wrote= : =20 I would sure would like to know why all of these "certified engines" are= quitting on takeoff. =20 =20 Mark S.=20 Maybe the engine driven fuel pump is failing. We are running low boost co= ntinuously in case the engine pump fails and to address fuel pressure issu= es at altitude, hot fuel, vapor lock and other problems. =20 I understand the engine will not make full power on low boost (reduce mani= fold pressure and settle for less power?) =20 Or, it might quit if high boost is on and the mixture is not adjusted. = =20 Since engine driven pump failure, heat and altitude all affect fuel delive= ry, it would seem using the low boost continuously could solve or make the= se problems manageable. =20 Dr. Lyle Koen did our last two physicals. He was a very likeable guy who= built one of the early IV=E2=80=99s and had over 1000 hours on it. We ta= lked to him about joining LOBO and coming to the Branson Fly-In. =20 Given the more knowledgeable than usual witness account, could training ha= ve changed this outcome? Steve Legacy IO550 =20 ----------MB_8CE0B0B23729A93_16C0_E1914_webmail-m134.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Mark,
 
Yes, LOBO tracks these matters. Have you ever been to Oshkosh Airvent= ure? These accidents are discussed in detail there. Based on your comments= about the engines you would be surprised. In many cases it was not the en= gine.
 
Jeff Edwards



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 4:59 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair

Steve, 

I agree, the pilot community lost another great guy.  Even if he= was a jerk, we still need to solve this riddle.  Is LOBO following= up on each of these crashes to learn what the experts determine to be the= cause(s)?  If not, we'll continue to be having these conversations= until we eventually run out of pilots, or airplanes.

Mark 

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steve Colwell <mcmess1919@yahoo.= com> wrote:
 
I would sure would like to know why all of these= "certified engines" are quitting on takeoff.  
 
Mark S. 
Maybe the engine driven fuel pump is failing.&n= bsp; We are running low boost continuously in case the engine pump fails= and to address fuel pressure issues at altitude, hot fuel, vapor lock and= other problems.  
I understand the engine will not make full powe= r on low boost (reduce manifold pressure and settle for less power?) =  
Or, it might quit if high boost is on and the= mixture is not adjusted.   
Since engine driven pump failure, heat and alti= tude all affect fuel delivery, it would seem using the low boost continuou= sly could solve or make these problems manageable.  
Dr. Lyle Koen did our last two physicals. = He was a very likeable guy who built one of the early IV=E2=80=99s and ha= d over 1000 hours on it.  We talked to him about joining LOBO and com= ing to the Branson Fly-In. 
Given the more knowledgeable than usual witness= account, could training have changed this outcome?
Steve  Legacy IO550
 

 ----------MB_8CE0B0B23729A93_16C0_E1914_webmail-m134.sysops.aol.com--