Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:16 AM - Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II (johnjoyes)
2. 06:14 AM - Re: Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II (Jeremy Casey)
3. 06:33 AM - Help with level flight attitude for Mark II (boyd)
4. 07:03 AM - W&B cg (boyd)
5. 07:03 AM - W&B (boyd)
6. 07:36 AM - Re: Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II (Richard Girard)
7. 08:16 AM - Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II (henry.voris)
8. 08:22 AM - Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II (jb92563)
9. 09:16 AM - Re: W&B (Mike Welch)
10. 04:41 PM - Cracking in tubing and welds? (grantr)
11. 05:56 PM - Re: Cracking in tubing and welds? (Richard Girard)
12. 09:26 PM - Re: Flight safety question - chutes (JetPilot)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II |
Of course those who have replied that the CG does not change with attitude are
right ! Those who have (correctly) observed that the tail weight changes as you
lift the tail are getting confused -it does not mean that the CG is moving!
The weight and balance check should be done with the lower wing surface set at
9 degrees to the horizontal. On my machine, the tailwheel is 9 inches off the
ground to achieve this.
What would be MUCH MORE INTERESTING is what other MkII owners use for the position
of the Pilot/passenger CG,, as it makes a big difference in the calculation.
Previous owners of my plane have used a figure of 4 inches forward if datum
(the front wing edge), but I reckon it is more like 2 inches. Are there any
other opinions?
Interestingly, in the UK, the CG range allowed by the powers-that-be is much lower
than in the Kolb manual, 16.8 to 24 inches aft of datum. When flying solo,
it is necessary for even a heavyweight pilot like me to add ballast weight of
6kg in the nose ahead of the pedals.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144103#144103
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II |
<snip>
What would be MUCH MORE INTERESTING is what other MkII owners use for
the position of the Pilot/passenger CG,, as it makes a big difference in
the calculation. Previous owners of my plane have used a figure of 4
inches forward if datum (the front wing edge), but I reckon it is more
like 2 inches. Are there any other opinions?
<snip>
One option is to use the exact position of the pilot CG for the calcs.
The easiest way is to do a weight with the pilot sitting in the plane.
Assuming you have already done the EMPTY weighing and calculated the CG
you can work the whole "weight x arm = moment" thing in reverse, since
you have the empty CG and then you get the CG with the pilot in the
plane (from weighing) that can be extrapolated out since you know the
change in CG position and the weight of the pilot...just solve for the
ARM.
I hope that is clear as mud...would have to dig up an example to explain
further...
Jeremy
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Help with level flight attitude for Mark II |
Let me add my 2 cents worth.... before you start you know it is worth what
it cost.
Basically in an aircraft we are concerned with the cg in the for and aft
position.... you could also figure it in a top to bottom,, and a left to
right moment...... that would give you the center of mass for the plane as
a whole.....
Now unless there is movement on fuel in the tank,,,, or people or objects
move while in flight,,,, the Center of Mass will not move....
Now lifting the tail plot...
Lifting the tail will change the weight of the tail, only because the
center of mass has changed reference in relation to the wheels... and if
you lift the tail high enough that the center of mass moves in front of the
wheel axels.... the tail will show a negative weight,,, the center of mass
of the plane has not moved, only the relationship with other members , the
wheels for example, has moved....
Ok the question comes up... why do we have to have the plane at the
correct attitude when measuring the cg.... let me over emphasize with the
following examples....
1: plane in the proper attitude and the cg is at 21 inches from the leading
edge.... the center of mass cg would line up with say the top center of
the fuel cap.... draw a vertical line from the fuel cap to the bottom of the
wing and will intersect at 31 % of the wing cord..... all ok!!!!
2 same plane,,,, rotate the nose down till the nose cone touches the
ground:
The center of mass has not moved,,,, but if you draw a vertical line from
the center of the fuel cap to the bottom of the wing it may be at 85% of
the wing cord ok or not ok!!!!
3: pitch the nose up.... again the center of mass has not moved.... and
draw a vertical line from the fuel cap to the wing..... it may be exactly
at the leading edge... or 0% of wing cord..... again ok or not ok!!!!
Or are the examples 2 and 3 ok or not!!!! The center of mass has not
moved.... the plane would be safe.... but if the manufacture instructs
that the wing cord % cg limits should be from x to y if measured at z
angle.... then follow the instructions and you will know that it is within
limits... it is a paperwork issue....
Now if the manufacture changed the angle... he would also have to change the
limits of the % of wing cord at that angle. Rotate it too far... say 90
Deg.. and you could not get results that are helpful.
If you do the cg work according to the plans the results are predictable...
if you come up with your own angles say tail wheel on the ground,,, or
the bottom of the wing level... you will have to come up with your own
limits that are acceptable in % wing cord... and do the testing to make
sure your results are acceptable.... and it can be done... but why reinvent
the wheel.
Ok maybe that has been 3 cents worth....
Boyd
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One option is to use the exact position of the pilot CG for the calcs.
The easiest way is to do a weight with the pilot sitting in the plane.
Assuming you have already done the EMPTY weighing and calculated the CG
you can work the whole "weight x arm = moment" thing in reverse, since
you have the empty CG and then you get the CG with the pilot in the
plane (from weighing) that can be extrapolated out since you know the
change in CG position and the weight of the pilot...just solve for the
ARM.
I hope that is clear as mud...would have to dig up an example to explain
further...
Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have built a spreadsheet to do this if anyone would like.
Boyd
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I guess I had thought things through a bit more and was not going to send
the last email until I had changed things a bit...... SORRY
Unless things move inside an aircraft,, or fuel is burnt.. the cg does not
change by changing the pitch or attitude of the aircraft..... what we
need to do is make sure our planes fit into the same model that the factory
has set... examples.
If you were to raise the tail till the bottom of the wing was level,,,,
then drop a plum bob from the leading edge to the seat. Measure the cg of
the pilot using the belly button method. The results would be greatly
different than,,, with the tail wheel on the ground, drop a plum bob from
the leading edge and using the belly button method of obtaining the pilot
cg....
The aircraft kit manufacture, KOLB, had determined a method of obtaining
the cg in a manner that ALL that follow their instructions will have a
plane with predictable results. If you do it some other way,,, your results
may vary.
I think this is what I was going to change things to before I hit the send
receive button.
Boyd
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II |
Ray, It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help
you understand why your idea that it makes no difference the position in
which the airplane is weighed is mistaken.
Rather than doing trig problems as I suggested earlier, just look at what
happens to the relative position of the datum between setting on the ground
and level flight position.
Notice the tailwheel position changes very little.
Look at how the cg of the major components, wing, empenage, pilot, and
engine, move.
Now, compare the arm from the datum to the tailwheel contact SHORTENS when
you measure it. while setting on the ground. This mismeasurement of the arm
is why you will get a total CG that appears to be forward of where it is
actually when the airplane is in flight.
Hope this helps.
Rick
On 11/5/07, Russ Kinne < russ@rkiphoto.com> wrote:
>
> Weeeeel, this is MY opinion and everyone is welcome to ignore it. CG does
> NOT change unless weights are shifted on or within the airplane. IMHO it is
> a constant, when in the air! -- unless you move baggage, lean way
> forward, shift weight around. In any case the aircraft's ATTITUDE will not
> move the CG, has nothing to do with it.
> This is a serious and potentially dangerous area. if you're confused,
> forget the amateur experts and consult a knowledgable person. May take some
> work to find one but your life is worth it. Ignore any advice that sounds
> questionable.
> IMHO; feel free to ignore if you wish.
> Russ Kinne
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>
> >
>
> Ray
>
> The CG does shift aft when in a climb and with the tail on the ground,
> just denying that fact doesn't change anything. Anyone that has ever lifted
> the tail of their airplane knows that the tail is lighter when lifted to the
> specified W&B position. Lift it high enough and the tail will keep on going.
> Now maybe where ever your head is at it doesn't do that but it does here in
> the Midwest. The CG ranges are calculated based on a specific attitude. If
> they were calculated with the tail wheel on the ground they would be
> different. The CG ranges are given with the idea that the plane will be
> flown in allot of flight attitudes and not get us in trouble. You can do
> your weight and balance your way but please don't try to advise others this
> way. Also please if you do your W&B your way don't take anyone up in your
> plane or fly over populated areas.
>
> It is obvious you think you know more than than everyone else and that is
> fine. Just keep it to yourself and keep flying. Some day when the grim
> reaper comes calling your bad advise will stop once and for all.
>
> As usual this is just my opinion and worth what was paid for it.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jb92563" < jb92563@yahoo.com>
> To: < kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:08 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II
>
>
>
> Hey Rick,
>
> I did advise them to do it both ways and satisfy themself(not take my word
> for it).
>
> However, what it it you are telling me about the "CG being aft" in the
> ground position, (similar to a climb attitude)?
>
> If what you say is true then it means that initiating a climb attitude
> makes your CG go aft and would be rather alarming if true.... right?
>
> That implies that upon initiating a climb the CG goes way aft and SHOULD
> result in uncontrolable spin as the CG goes beyond the aft limit.
>
> We all know that CG does NOT change from a simple pitch change...right?!
>
> How many of us are spinning in on takeoff?
>
> So there is something else going on here....and I am going to illustrate
> with an example as soon as I can so people can understand what I am telling
> them.
>
> Perhaps they are not using one of the correct methods for determining CG,
> but I'll straighten that out with my example.
>
> People can then choose to use which ever method they feel most
> comforatable with.
>
> They should all continue to use the W&B method THEY have proven works for
> them and their particular aircraft.
>
> --------
> Ray
> Riverside County, CA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=143986#143986
>
>
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
> this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts!
> List Contribution Web Site:
> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> Thank you for your generous support!
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> - The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> --> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> *
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II |
Cristal,
If I were in you position I believe I would:
First... I would assume that most of the Kolb flying have had their W&B done according
to the manual... So, I'd do my W&B according to the photos that were kindly
sent by Brother Possum. Those are photos of the pages of the construction
manual, and they show how the Factory expects the W&B to be performed (9 degrees
deviation of the bottom of the wing from horizontal, is the expected attitude
of the plane...).
Second... To do a W&B balance by the book requires that that you have scales and
other measuring devices in position... So... it wouldn't be a big deal to run
a second set of measurements with the tailwheel on the ground.
Then you could inform us (your buddies on the list) if there is a significant deviation
between the two methods of measurement.
Again... I would expect the factory method and expected CG numbers to be correct.
I would do the W&B by the book first use that data as a baseline, then experiment
with other methods...
Good Luck...
--------
Henry
Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144158#144158
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help with level flight attitude for Mark II |
Folks, I'm going to have to concede on this whole point about the attitude not
mattering.
I did the calculations and found that it is true that you CAN derive the same CG
point no matter what the attitude is, BUT you have to figure out the difference
in attitude between the level flight attitude and the angle you are measuring
and do a bunch of extra calculations to get the answer.
Its just not worth all that extra math(and potential errors) when you can just
block the plane up for level flight attitude and measure it that way and do the
plain simple method of weights, arms and moments.
I do agree that simple is the BEST method of doing a weight and balance.
However, the CG does NOT change in flight unless weight is moved, say from fuel
burn, a passenger leaving the aircraft, or your bowling ball rolling to the front
of the plane.
You Voodoo guys can also lift the hexes and grim reaper curses as I have given
in to practical conventional practice in this case.....(even though I was theoretically
right :P )
I do want to thank the contructive comments made by a bunch of you in helping me
understand THE POINT of the question!
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144160#144160
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kolber Guys,
Hey!! I'm back (from my visit to Alabama) What a beautiful state! And the highways.
I've never seen such great highways. I'd like to take this opportunity
to thank all of you that took the time to respond to my "where to retire"
question. Thank you, guys.
If I'm not too late to join this W & B party, I'd like to clear things up a bit.
This is an apples and oranges thing.
Here is the apples:
First of all, Boyd's response is the most accurate (along with a couple of others),
so far. It is a fact. The center of gravity (or mass) does NOT change,
if nothing else has moved. By taking various weight measurements, and picking
an arbitrary datum, a person can calculate the "center of gravity". And you
can twist and turn the object all you want, it doesn't alter its center of gravity".
This is where Ray is correct, but that's all we know at this point. But we need
more information. We also want to "balance" our object. And it has been
decided by others (Homer?) a long time ago that IF the wing is held at 9 degrees
, AND we could suspend the airplane by a string (attached to our specific c.o.g.),
then we will come up with the specific balance point. And they say this
balance point should be located at a particular percentage of the main wings
chord. Let's say....28-32% from the leading edge of the main wings.
So here is the oranges:
In physics, this imaginary string is known as the "NORMAL" force. It is a line
at which 100% of the weight of an object is pulling down, with respect to gravity.
It is "normal" to the earth's gravity. Now, if you can picture our imaginary
string supporting our airplane, with all loads correctly in place.....and
this string goes up through the main wings at a point between 28% and 32%
(I don't know actual percentages at this moment), then we can say we are "balanced".
...."you're good to go!!"
Now, if we drop the tail down to rest on the ground (but not touch, because remember,
our imaginary string is supporting the entire weight of the plane).
And we still want 28-32% to be our "normal" force, we would see the iimaginary
string roll forward toward the leading edge. Obviously we are rotating the
plane backwards, there fore the supporting string is lining up with a "more forward"
point.
So, with our tail end low, we see our new string support position is way ahead
of the 28-32%. But we want 28-32%. We have to have 28-32%! That's not going
to change. And you have the tail-end almost touching the ground, right?
The only resolution now is to add lots of weight to the back end of the airplane.
This will shift our imaginary line more rearward (travelling rearward parallel
from where it was) And now, we finally have finally our center of gravity
that lines up with 28-32% of chord, WITH THE TAIL-END LOW!!! Now, even
though we have achieved the 28-32% balance point, the plane is concidered incredibly
TAIL HEAVY!!
This revised scenario of weight and balance may take off and land only one time!!!
The reasons are obvious. When calculating weight & balance for you aircraft,
you are furnished certain "GIVENS". One of these givens is that the plane
be put in a certain configuration (main wing 9 degrees up). This is not a
variable. Another "given" is the final balance point must be within 28-32% of
chord. This also not a variable. The next factor is the "NORMAL" force (our
balance point).
If you go and lower the tail, then you will need a NEW point to call your final
balance point. You can NO longer use 28-32% of chord. That is someone else's
figures, not your's. You need to find out what the new "GIVEN" is with tail
low. It may be the leading edge. Who knows? You'd have to experiment, if
you live to tell about it. In other words, you are coming up with your own criteria
to do a weight and balance. But, then don't get to go back and grab someone
else's "GIVENS". It doesn't work that way!!!
As Boyd said. "Why reinvent the wheel??" For a KOLB AIRCRAFT, there is only
one prescribed correct process to calculate weight and balance and have it be
reliable, and that is with the main wing held to 9 degrees flight attitude.
Best to all, Mike Welch
BTW. Did you know, the center of gravity in a banana is not even in the banana?
It is out somewhere in the middle, in mid-air, inside the curve. (Does this
make this an apples, oranges, & bananas comparison? Hmmm?)
> From: by0ung@brigham.net
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: W&B
> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:02:33 -0700
>
>
> I guess I had thought things through a bit more and was not going to send
> the last email until I had changed things a bit...... SORRY
>
> Unless things move inside an aircraft,, or fuel is burnt.. the cg does not
> change by changing the pitch or attitude of the aircraft..... what we
> need to do is make sure our planes fit into the same model that the factory
> has set... examples.
>
> If you were to raise the tail till the bottom of the wing was level,,,,
> then drop a plum bob from the leading edge to the seat. Measure the cg of
> the pilot using the belly button method. The results would be greatly
> different than,,, with the tail wheel on the ground, drop a plum bob from
> the leading edge and using the belly button method of obtaining the pilot
> cg....
>
> The aircraft kit manufacture, KOLB, had determined a method of obtaining
> the cg in a manner that ALL that follow their instructions will have a
> plane with predictable results. If you do it some other way,,, your results
> may vary.
>
> I think this is what I was going to change things to before I hit the send
> receive button.
>
> Boyd
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cracking in tubing and welds? |
> My main concern for safely in our aluminum and chromoly tube structures is cracking
of tubes and welds.
>
> They unusually occur in those hidden areas that are hard to inspect.
>
>
I saw this posted under the chutes thread. Is this something to be overly concerned
with?
Do motorcycles have the same issues? Ive just never heard of this in cycles. I
thought metal fatigue was not that prevalent in our light non aerobatic planes.
My plane does not have a chute and my instructors challenger does not have a chute..
I do plan on finding a used one to put on it later just in case.
Thanks,
Grant
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144248#144248
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cracking in tubing and welds? |
Grant, My Mk III is serial number 43. I've had it down for quite awhile to
rebuild the electrical and fuel system and do a thorough inspection. I've
found three spots worth checking.
1. If your fuel tank taps come out of the bottom of the plastic tanks, as
mine did, check the rubber grommets for cracking. Mine were just about
cracked through to the hole. How they didn't leak was just pure luck. Newer
Mk III's have the taps on the top of the tank. Still a good idea to check
the grommets.
2. Check how the trim system is hooked up. Mine had a cable that went from
the spring all the way back to the elevator bell crank and then back forward
again to the cockpit bell crank. When the trim lever was pulled back it
caused the return cable to go slack and bang around inside the tail boom and
the connection from the pedals went through the trim spring. The current
system goes from the trim spring to a tab on the fwd side of the cockpit
bell crank, then separate cables go from the cockpit bell crank to the
elevator bell crank.
3. Water can gather at the low point of the cockpit right where there is a
weld cluster. Mine was rusty and a pain to clean up. I used thin strips of
emery cloth and put a matching strip of duct tape on the cloth side so the
edges wouldn't abrade the cloth as I pulled it back and forth to get the
rust off the bottom of the cluster. Otherwise a Dremel Tool with their
little wire wheel took off all the rust on the top, sides and back. Work a
piece of plastic between the cluster and the cloth, then space the cloth
away from the cluster with something thin, I used tongue depressors, and
slobber on some anti rust paint. Let dry and remove the spacers and the
plastic.
Install the aileron counter weights, really important. Someday I'll figure
out how to upload that few seconds of video I have of the ailerons flapping
up and down as I did a fly by of the strip.
I guess that was really four things. No cracked welds, though.
Rick
On 11/6/07, grantr <grant_richardson25@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My main concern for safely in our aluminum and chromoly tube structures
> is cracking of tubes and welds.
> >
> > They unusually occur in those hidden areas that are hard to inspect.
> >
> >
>
>
> I saw this posted under the chutes thread. Is this something to be overly
> concerned with?
>
> Do motorcycles have the same issues? Ive just never heard of this in
> cycles. I thought metal fatigue was not that prevalent in our light non
> aerobatic planes.
>
> My plane does not have a chute and my instructors challenger does not have
> a chute..
>
> I do plan on finding a used one to put on it later just in case.
>
> Thanks,
> Grant
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144248#144248
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight safety question - chutes |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> If one hadn't come on my Mk III I don't think I would buy one. I didn't on my
Trike. The problem, IMHO, is a false sense of security they give. Once they're
deployed, you're just a passenger along for the ride.
> Rick
>
>
I have to disagree with Rick on this one. I absolutely would not fly either my
MK-III or trike without a BRS. In experimental aircraft, schit happens, and
BRS chutes have an excellent record for saving lives. I do not take any extra
chances because I have a BRS, nor do I preflight less because of my BRS, but
that is more of an issue of using good judgement than having a BRS or not.
Ricks reasoning is just so wrong. If I thought like Rick, I would not wear a seatbelt,
because it would make me take more chances in my car... Do you drive
in a reckless manner because you have an airbag ? Only a fool would not take
every safety advantage he can get.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144293#144293
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|