Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:27:10 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1294308@logan.com>
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Subject: stalls
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

I read with great interest all the comments about stalls and found them to
be extremely valuable.  I see that as one of the few things that really set
an "experimental" apart from the certified - all the other risks can be
resolved.  Some comments were less helpful than others:

<<The reason most pilots on this list are afraid to stall their Lancairs is
because what they know about flying doesn't amount to d___. Dropping a wing
in a stall does not lead to a spin.>>

Fearing a stall seems to me a healthy thing, not a sign of ignorance.  The
two statements above also don't exactly match - the fact that the aircraft
"drops" a wing is an indication that one wing stalled before the other.
Last I heard a spin is DEFINED as one wing stalled and the other not and
therefore a wing dropping is a precursor to a spin.  The reason to fear such
a thing is that a spin is maybe one of two conditions that are perfectly
stable (sitting on the ramp is the other).  I read that the original mail
pilots used to spin down through cloud layers as that was known as a stable
flight condition.  Therefore, it takes positive action to recover.  One
reason I opted for an ES is that it has a sister ship that is certified and
anything really bad would presumably be corrected on both.  Then I learned
that the certified version has a completely different airfoil, making stall
and spin information non-transferable.  Further I learned that the IV and ES
(and the 320/360?) share the same airfoil - the ES just has a lot more of
it.  With the same size vertical tail I would think that the ES would be
inherently LESS stable about the yaw axis and LESS recoverable from a spin
as the leverage of the wing holding it into a spin is greater.

The comments from the experienced ES drivers is very reassuring - I am more
happy than ever with my choice.  One more question - I assume that the stall
strips to be added go on both wings in the same locations? I think that's
what the instructions say.  One more comment and question:  The recent fatal
ES crash appears to be a classic low altitude stall/spin event, maybe right
after a power failure - is there any more information about this?  As far as
I can tell, if you include the Columbia, that makes two, the other one being
the standard IFR "descent below minimums" accident.

Gary Casey
ES project, one of those not-too-experienced 1500-hour, not too bold and
apparently not too bright pilots as I have a well-developed fear of
stalls/spins.

ps:  Regarding the Glasair crash while S-turning on final, a maneuver often
taught and used:  Flying a heading 20 degrees either side of the intended
path only increases the distance traveled by 6 percent.  Doing an S-turn by
turning through 40 degrees will increase the path length by way LESS than 6
percent as very little time is spent at 20 degrees off course.  The
conclusion to be made is that S-turns are a very, very poor way of
lengthening the distance to the runway.  You do a lot of turning for very
little effect, and all these unstabilized movements are creating
opportunities for error.  I make it a practice of either making a 90-degree
turn (one huge half-S turn....) if there is room or going around.  Most
"S-turns" I observe are little more than rocking the wings, just creating
drag, slowing the airplane and....end of story.