|
|
Alright Kevin! Cannot wait to hear your test plan, as I am sure everyone
else is, that has a Legacy on this list! Iıll supply the GoPro to
document your in flight testing. Please keep us up to date on any
developments.
Thanks,
David Williams
On 4/29/14, 6:12 AM, "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:
>I have to add my support to this post. I appreciate the time put into
>the report. But there are a number of conclusions that are drawn without
>corresponding test data. This concerns me. There are even some diagrams
>of airflow over the airplane in some configurations, do we have wind
>tunnel data that supports this?
>
>I feel strongly enough that the airplane is fully controllable during
>flight that I have on my own agenda to put together some tests to either
>show or disprove this idea that the airplane is or is not controllable
>(with the help of knowledgeable people I might add).
>
>To put blame on the airplane and its design for the fatal accidents that
>have occurred seems too easy of an out. I understand that people have
>killed themselves, but we need to fully identify the reason and this
>report (however well meaning) isn't backed by real data or testing.
>
>I don't mind calling it a collection or repository of information and
>experiences, but to call it a report wherein specific action is outlined,
>I'm just not comfortable with it.
>
>The legacy is a fantastic airplane, I really need hard data if I am going
>to take any action to change its design. Having extra locks and things
>on the canopy could result in unintended consequences....
>
>Thanks
>Kevin
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jon
>Socolof [jsocolof@ershire.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:37 PM
>To: lml@lancaironline.net
>Subject: [LML] Legacy White Paper
>
>The Legacy canopy design is not unsafe or inadequate and does the job
>exactly as Lancair intended. In all my training in the Legacy, attention
>to the canopy has always been stressed. Itıs a check list item and as in
>my military jet, a verification item by pushing on the canopy prior to
>takeoff. After the tragic Lakeland accident Lancair incorporated an
>additional canopy safety warning into the design. If a builder wants to
>change the design, thatıs a judgment call.
>
>I donıt believe there is a case of a ³secured² canopy opening in flight
>and it has been demonstrated here, the plane can be flown with the canopy
>open. These are high performance airplanes, deserve respect and require
>skill to operate. Yes, some pilots failed to secure their canopies before
>fight. Some recovered their airplanes and some had lesser results.
>
>Human factors are the issue here and unfortunately, failures will occur.
>Failure to use checklists or missing items, rushing, complacency and
>non-standard procedures, continuing takeoffs with the canopy unsecured,
>operating on runways with insufficient Accelerate Stop Distances, etc.
>
>I am concerned how a paper like this may be perceived. Will it scare off
>potential builders and buyers or be interpreted to indicate a design
>flaw? I donıt believe this paper presents anything new or unknown. As
>far as I know, there is no record of an in-flight breakup or failure of a
>Legacy, yet the airframe has developed a certain reputation by biting a
>few unwary pilots, but just how does this paper help?
>
>FWIW
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>--
>For archives and unsub
>http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|