Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:45:41 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3088378@logan.com>
Subject: Accidents
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: rwolf99@aol.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
 boundary="--------MB_8CAD211108FBAD0_AC4_2C2A_webmail-md07.sysops.aol.com"


----------MB_8CAD211108FBAD0_AC4_2C2A_webmail-md07.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

1)? Poor behavior at high angles of attack is a design problem, and one of the risks that we accept (knowingly or unknowingly) when we buy an experimental airplane rather than a Part 23 certified airplane.? And even if kitplane A airplane stalls nicely, that does not mean that kitplane B will stall the same way.? Lancair has made a step towards commonality by having no structural joint at the leading edge, but the twist in the wing can easily be different from airplane to airplane.

2)? Flying into a thunderstorm, on the other hand,?has nothing to do with aircraft design.? It's pure stupidity.

As evidence, the Lancair factory had to do a lot of investigation and modification to get their kitplane (the ES) certified as the Columbia.? Remember when the Columbia crashd during spin testing?? That wasn't because of a failed spin chute -- it was because of an unrecoverable spin mode.? And then we have the Piper Traumahawk, which obtained certification on one airframe, but produced an ever-so-slightly different airplane which had significantly different stall recovery characteristics (although this is the exception rather than the rule in the certified world.)

Certified airplanes are usually safer at high angles of attack, and that seems to be the case with the Lancair.? Accept it and move on.? I still bought one nd am very happy about it.? But don't fly *any* airplane into a thunderstorm...?

- Rob Wolf

----------MB_8CAD211108FBAD0_AC4_2C2A_webmail-md07.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

1)&nbsp; Poor behavior at high angles of attack is a design problem, and one of the risks that we accept (knowingly or unknowingly) when we buy an experimental airplane rather than a Part 23 certified airplane.&nbsp; And even if kitplane A airplane stalls nicely, that does not mean that kitplane B will stall the same way.&nbsp; Lancair has made a step towards commonality by having no structural joint at the leading edge, but the twist in the wing can easily be different from airplane to airplane.<br>
<br>
2)&nbsp; Flying into a thunderstorm, on the other hand,&nbsp;has nothing to do with aircraft design.&nbsp; It's pure stupidity.<br>
<br>
As evidence, the Lancair factory had to do a lot of investigation and modification to get their kitplane (the ES) certified as the Columbia.&nbsp; Remember when the Columbia crashd during spin testing?&nbsp; That wasn't because of a failed spin chute -- it was because of an unrecoverable spin mode.&nbsp; And then we have the Piper Traumahawk, which obtained certification on one airframe, but produced an ever-so-slightly different airplane which had significantly different stall recovery characteristics (although this is the exception rather than the rule in the certified world.)<br>
<br>
Certified airplanes are usually safer at high angles of attack, and that seems to be the case with the Lancair.&nbsp; Accept it and move on.&nbsp; I still bought one nd am very happy about it.&nbsp; But don't fly *any* airplane into a thunderstorm...&nbsp;<br>
<br>
- Rob Wolf<div id='u8CAD211108D5870-AC4-19A9' class='aol_ad_footer'><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px"><A title="http://mapquest.com/toolbar?ncid=mpqmap00050000000010" href="http://mapquest.com/toolbar?ncid=mpqmap00050000000010" target="_blank">Get the MapQuest Toolbar</A>. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More!</FONT> </div>

----------MB_8CAD211108FBAD0_AC4_2C2A_webmail-md07.sysops.aol.com--