Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:02:16 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 609133 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:41:45 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.137; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id q.a1.5654027a (3310) for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:41:09 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:41:09 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Another LNC2 Down X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1105897269" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5000 -------------------------------1105897269 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/16/2005 11:06:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, gary21sn@hotmail.com writes: One item to consider is the type of prop which may be on the plane. Since the plane is a 235 airframe, it is a great possibility that it may have a fixed pitch prop. If that is so, the pilot does not have the luxury of the benefits of a constant speed prop which helps slow the plane down on final and allows for a steeper rate of decent. That fixed pitch prop is always pulling the plane along on final, and throughout the roll out. I would suggest that a good percentage of fixed pitch prop Lancair pilots engage is slightly shallower approaches on final on a regular basis than Lancair pilots with controllable props. Gary, That's fine.................But, it's VFR, approach over a superhighway, clearly marked (?) displaced threshold, 5000x100 runway, 4.5 degree PAPI and a passenger. Those that fly alone and occasionally with a passenger know that the sink rate is different for light or heavy - all other things being equal. I do not do pattern work any more - it is monotonous and too predictable - especially at my towered airport. But, I do experiment with approaches and landings - like start higher, pull off more power, full flaps, keep the AOA in the same place as well as the runway position in the window, leave the prop in "cruise" pitch and always remember that stopping the rate of descent is very important. I have recently noted that this results in little float and shorter un-braked rollouts. One of the reasons (as Bill Kennedy mentioned) that I wonder about unusual accidents in high-powered high-performance airplanes is that the chain of errors is never explained by the NTSB. Suppose this is finally noted as "pilot error, loss of control in landing phase." What will be learned? Regardless of the performance with fixed pitch props, low shallow approaches limit options. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Fair and Balanced Opinions at No Charge! There is an oxymoron in that, somewhere... -------------------------------1105897269 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 1/16/2005 11:06:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 gary21sn@hotmail.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DVerdana color=3D#000000 siz= e=3D2>

One item to consider is the type of prop which may be on the=20 plane. Since the plane is a 235 airframe, it is a great possibility=20= that=20 it may have a fixed pitch prop. If that is so, the pilot does n= ot=20 have the luxury of the benefits of a constant speed prop which helps slow=20= the=20 plane down on final and allows for a steeper rate of decent. That fi= xed=20 pitch prop is always pulling the plane along on final, and throughout the=20= roll=20 out. I would suggest that a good percentage of fixed pitch prop Lanc= air=20 pilots engage is slightly shallower approaches on= =20 final on a regular basis than Lancair pilots with controllable=20 props.

Gary,

That's fine.................But, it's VFR, approach over a superhighway= ,=20 clearly marked (?) displaced threshold, 5000x100 runway, 4.5 degree PAPI and= a=20 passenger.

Those that fly alone and occasionally with a passenger know that the si= nk=20 rate is different for light or heavy - all other things being=20 equal. I do not do pattern work any more - it is monotonous and t= oo=20 predictable - especially at my towered airport. But, I do experiment w= ith=20 approaches and landings - like start higher, pull off more power, full flaps= ,=20 keep the AOA in the same place as well as the runway position in the=20 window, leave the prop in "cruise" pitch and always remember that stopping t= he=20 rate of descent is very important. I have recently noted that this res= ults=20 in little float and shorter un-braked rollouts.

One of the reasons (as Bill Kennedy mentioned) that I wonder about unus= ual=20 accidents in high-powered high-performance airplanes is that the chain=20= of=20 errors is never explained by the NTSB. Suppose this is final= ly=20 noted as "pilot error, loss of control in landing phase." What will be= =20 learned?

Regardless of the performance with fixed pitch props, low shallow=20 approaches limit options.=20

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Fai= r=20 and Balanced Opinions at No Charge!
There is an oxymoron in that,=20 somewhere...

-------------------------------1105897269--