|
|
--- J H Webb <airmale@bright.net> wrote:
Dave
Why were you exploring spins without a well
thought out and installed spin chute? This puts the aircraft and especially you gravely at risk. I have done thousands of stalls in both homebuilt and manufactured aircraft (including many experimental spins in single engine and 219 experimental spins in multiengine aircraft for a manufacturer) and they should be approached very carefully.
Jack,
I was not up there exploring spins. That's the whole point. I was doing a stall series and near the end of it taking the deep stall to the the point of wing drop. When I brought the stick forward and applied full opposite rudder, the Lancair not only did not recover, but fell into a fully developed 3 turn spin. When I do a flight test series in a homebuilt aircraft I do what is appropriate for that aircraft. When I'm done with it, I check out the owner and then he takes his family and friends up in it. Anytime you are doing a full stall series, you are getting close to spin entry. I have never had a spin chute installed for a typical experimental flight test 40 hour checkout. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't stall a experimental aircraft during it's flight test period without an aircraft spin recovery parachute installed on the airframe? I had a personal emergency parachute and am trained to use it. I always wear a chute and a helmet during the entire flight test program. I performed these stalls above 10,000'.
Jack sez:
Recovery should be initiated at the first sign of the stall. Under part 25 (light 12,500 aircraft are certificated under part 23) the stall is identified by loss of control on any axis (roll, yaw, or pitch). The stalls, except for the power on stall requirement under part 23, in the Lancair 320/360 or LIVP/IV can be made to be very satisfactory.
Dave sez:
The Lancair Columbia went throught the pt 23 standards. It was heavily modified and eventually certified (I believe) under the "spin resistant" loophole. They went this route because they couldn't get the airframe to recover from spins up to the pt 23 standards. As to the Lancair IV being very satisfactory in the stall/spin portion of the flight envelope, I'd say the accident rate speaks for it's self....
Jack wrote:
A good stall is a combination of good physics and aerodynamics. If both are correct the result is satisfactory. Much more complicated physics and aerodynamics are involved in a spin. If the stall is good it does not follow that the spin will be good and recoverable. I feel that it is very foolhardy to approach unknowns without proper precautions, your approach to the control surfaces and ground prep was good. Why than did you risk the airplane and your life? I have investigated many accidents for the manufacturer and others and unknowns should be approached very carefully. I thought your family was very attractive and although I am not trying to flame you, I recommend care and some thoughts about them. Some aviator said that the J-3 was so easy to fly and safe that it would only just barely kill you. Our airplanes are not cubs.
Dave wrote:
My life was never in danger. Again, I was sitting on a chute and had plenty of altitude. Ultimate safety can only be achieved by chaining all airplanes to the ground. Or outlawing automobiles, did you know that over 50,000 Americans were killed in car accidents last year? If you care about your family, how could you put them in one of those things? People even die with seatbelts and airbags!
_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win $1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
|
|