Return-Path: Received: from [161.88.255.139] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.2b5) with HTTP id 145929 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:26:44 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Unsafe in any plane - Wake up! To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2b5 Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:26:44 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <104.4886376c.2df8841a@aol.com> References: <104.4886376c.2df8841a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for Sky2high@aol.com: While the discussion of Lancair's aerodynamic warts was of great interest, we should all remember that those at the controls of experimental, amateur built heavier-than-air machines are always test pilots. In any event, I found that: 1. Lee Metcalf's compilation of crash stats, 2. Mark Ravinski's descriptions of unusual attitudes and 3. Skip Slater's aft CG discussion most valuable. So, 1. It was amazing to read so many accidents are loss-of-control. Always remember that we have a small (to some, teeny even) rudder. 2. These babies demand that you pay attention and understand the craft's characteristics even if you aren't capable of (or confident in) testing the extremes of the flight envelope. Geez Mark, any more sky tricks? 3. I have included Skip's comments so that I may comment specifically on the 320/360 Lancairs. A. It is interesting to note that I have never heard of anyone parachuting out of a forward-hinge canopied Lancair (built to plans without a jettison ability). Although I have no direct knowledge, it would seem that the canopy would open no further than a few inches in flight - perhaps a tail slide could get it open - perhaps. I just dont' know and I don't wear a parachute. B. Changing CG by lowering Gear. Try this calculation - compute a cruise GC and then add 500 (approximate change in nose gear weight moment) to the aircraft moment and re-divide by the weight. Note that the CG moves aft by 1/4 to 1/2 inch. If you are in a flat spin due to rear CG, put out the gear resulting in added drag and the CG moving forward - of course, you may have to make new gear doors especially after the nose gear door tries to act like a ventral fin but that is much better than the damage caused by smacking the terra firma. C. Using flaps to change the center of lift. In Jan-Feb 2003, I performed some experiments at 155 KIAS by taking the flaps out of reflex (-7* to 0*). Besides slowing the aircraft by 12-15 Kts, the Longeron angle came down (nose down) 2.5* and the AOA indicator changed 17 points (1.7*?). One should remember that the flap reflex position (if properly built) is to reduce drag with a minimum pitching moment - Hah! How many of you have surprised a passenger with the dramatic pitch change as you lowered the flaps (or, by raising them after takeoff)? I don't know if the 320/360 flaps can take even partial deployment in a flat spin, but it may be one way out. I understand that the 235 POH says that their flaps must be in the reflex position above 197 Kts. Also, I used the flaperons in my tube & fabric Challenger to trim the craft in pitch. Even a "heavily loaded towards the rear" 320/360 could benefit from taking the flaps slightly out of full reflex. Also remember that the long engine mount moved the CG forward 1.5 inches with no adverse effects. Recently, I have thought that Lancair miscalculated the CG limits - maybe because it was done for the wing with 0* reflex................ D. P-Factor. We just don't have enough rudder to compensate for the throttle being slammed to the firewall. Remember that most spam cans are underpowered and we are not. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Sky2high@aol.com II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) LML, where ideas collide and you decide! PS. I am not a military pilot but I read a lot.