X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:49:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <5zq@cox.net> Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3483047 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:53:54 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.46; envelope-from=5zq@cox.net Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090208205315.YJGA3752.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:53:15 -0500 Received: from newness ([72.219.212.112]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id DYtF1b00N2S3sm002YtF4m; Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:53:16 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=1mr4wh6a1eCsPRYvIOwA:9 a=jtc2KrYETiBZyCgGb84A:7 a=x3bbDR1AYu8mfEAIaBAfC7JRqmYA:4 a=C35D7iIojSgA:10 a=GkaGUB8PdJEECOA38RcA:9 a=IxIhnRhTSJaFKqqkFzMA:7 a=WLG47LBzyYnj8SdGZSqGB20i2pQA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Bill" <5zq@cox.net> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Legacy damaged X-Original-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:53:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C98A05.5B0BF670" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C98A05.5B0BF670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris, I concur with your assessment of the open canopy situation. I have taken = off in the 320 with the canopy open and found it to be absolutely NO = problem as far as controllability. It was noisy and distracting, but = definitely not a control or performance problem. I seriously doubt that = the Legacy is much different. I strongly agree with your advice to fly a = normal pattern, using normal procedures, and land. Probably the only = truly dangerous thing about an open canopy is if you are attempting to = close it in flight. Make the decision now, that when your canopy opens = in flight that you will fly the plane... normally... and close it on the = ground.=20 Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1,600 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction "This is the second incident that I know of with the Legacy canopy = open in flight where the plane was pretty much uncontrollable in such a = condition." Were the two planes uncontrollable or uncontrolled. The 360 is fully = controllable with the canopy unlatched (forward hinging variety). It is = a non-event if, and this is a big if, you fly the plane first. The = canopy hovers cracked open about an inch and a half - much like the = position in that takeoff photo of the Legacy that circulated after the = Florida crash. When the canopy pops open, it is very loud and very = distracting. Distractions have caused many accidents in aviation. = Lancairs are not unique in this regard. Right before the Legacy crashed = in Florida it slowed to the point that it was being over-taken by RVs = that took off behind it. A quote from this recent news article is = interesting: "...doing the best I could to get it landed in a = hurry,..." Why rush the landing. Fly a normal pattern. Another quote = indicates the gear was not extended until very late. I don't see any = evidence pointing to the Legacy being uncontrollable give these two = particular incidents, only that the outcome of the event wasn't good.=20 Let's all be careful out there Chris ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C98A05.5B0BF670 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris,
 
I concur with your assessment of the = open canopy=20 situation. I have taken off in the 320 with the canopy open and found it = to be=20 absolutely NO problem as far as controllability. It was noisy and = distracting,=20 but definitely not a control or performance problem. I = seriously doubt=20 that the Legacy is much different. I strongly agree with your advice to = fly a=20 normal pattern, using normal procedures, and land. Probably = the only=20 truly dangerous thing about an open canopy is if you are attempting to = close it=20 in flight. Make the decision now, that when your canopy opens = in=20 flight that you will fly the plane... normally... and close it on the = ground.=20
 
Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 1,600 hrs
N6ZQ  IV under = construction
 
 
 
 

"This is the second incident that I know of with the Legacy = canopy open=20 in flight where the plane was pretty much uncontrollable in such a=20 condition."
 
Were the two planes uncontrollable or uncontrolled.  The 360 = is=20 fully controllable with the canopy unlatched (forward = hinging=20 variety).  It is a non-event if, and this is a big if, = you fly=20 the plane first.  The canopy hovers cracked open about an = inch and a=20 half - much like the position in that takeoff photo of the Legacy that = circulated after the Florida crash.  When the canopy pops open, = it is=20 very loud and very distracting.  Distractions have caused many = accidents=20 in aviation.  Lancairs are not unique in this regard.  = Right=20 before the Legacy crashed in Florida it slowed to the point that it = was being=20 over-taken by RVs that took off behind = it.  A quote from=20 this recent news article is interesting:  "...doing the best = I could=20 to get it landed in a hurry,..."  Why rush the landing.  Fly = a=20 normal pattern.  Another quote indicates the gear was not = extended=20 until very late.  I don't see any evidence = pointing=20 to the Legacy being uncontrollable give these two particular = incidents, only that the outcome of the event wasn't = good. 
Let's all=20 be careful out there
Chris
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C98A05.5B0BF670--