Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:20:45 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [198.36.178.141] (HELO stoel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.3) with ESMTP id 431985 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:05:11 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com Received: from PDX-SMTP.stoel.com ([172.16.1.137]) by gateway1.stoel.com with ESMTP id <334115>; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:08:02 -0700 Received: from PDX-MX6.stoel.com ([172.16.2.64]) by PDX-SMTP.stoel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:04:34 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4A308.95FAAC5F" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: AOA, stalls etc X-Original-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:04:34 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB6072198059@PDX-MX6.stoel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: AOA, stalls etc Thread-Index: AcSjCJXq6SP0s+eWTRq9zdMYZ56Vcw== From: "Halle, John" X-Original-To: X-Original-Cc: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Return-Path: JJHALLE@stoel.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2004 14:04:34.0699 (UTC) FILETIME=[96206DB0:01C4A308] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4A308.95FAAC5F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You're right. Age does things to memory. According to the T-2B/C = NATOPS, the stall speed is 88 kts. with 2K# of fuel and 0 degrees of = bank. Same setup at 30 degrees of bank, stall speed is 94. Fifteen = units AOA with 2K# of fuel is 103 kts. Difference is 9 kts in the = approach and 15 on final. Still a long way from what anyone should be = using for a Lancair approach speed. Most importantly, 15 units AOA is = equivalent to a speed at which sink rate cannot be reduced with stick. = The only way to do it is with power and in some of the a/c I flew, power = response was a lot less than instantaneous. AOA picked up sink much = quicker than an airspeed indicator and allowed quicker, and therefore = smaller power adjustments. =20 Lancair teaches a 100 kt. approach speed all the way to flare. With 300 = hrs + in the airplane, I now use 90 on short final in smooth air and, if = I am going into a short strip, 85. In rough air, I am at 100 the whole = way. That's 41 kts. over my stall speed. I could easily pull 2G on = flare and not stall. For that kind of approach, an airspeed indicator = works fine. -----Original Message----- From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com [mailto:VTAILJEFF@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [LML] Re: AOA, stalls etc In a message dated 9/23/2004 12:19:28 PM Central Standard Time, = marv@lancaironline.net writes: Comments from a former nasal radiator: we used AOA for approaches flown = so as to be able to land on aircraft carriers. Approach speed was = two-three knots above 1G stall speed and was the speed at which ANY elevator input increased sink rate. =20 Perhaps your memory is a little off... but "on speed" AOA was not 2 to 3 = knots above 1 G stall speed. If that was the case, I would have had to = use the Martin Baker alternate landing device many times. :) =20 Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards A-6 bomardier/ navigator ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4A308.95FAAC5F Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You're right. Age does = things to=20 memory. According to the T-2B/C NATOPS, the stall speed is 88 kts. = with=20 2K# of fuel and 0 degrees of bank. Same setup at 30 = degrees of=20 bank, stall speed is 94. Fifteen units AOA with 2K# of fuel is 103 = kts. Difference is 9 kts in the approach and 15 on final. = Still a=20 long way from what anyone should be using for a Lancair approach = speed. =20 Most importantly, 15 units AOA is equivalent to a speed at = which sink=20 rate cannot be reduced with stick. The only way to do it is with = power and=20 in some of the a/c I flew, power response was a lot less than = instantaneous. AOA=20 picked up sink much quicker than an airspeed indicator and allowed = quicker, and=20 therefore smaller power adjustments.

Lancair teaches a 100 kt. approach = speed all=20 the way to flare. With 300 hrs + in the airplane, I now use 90 on = short=20 final in smooth air and, if I am going into a short strip, 85. In = rough=20 air, I am at 100 the whole way. That's 41 kts. over my stall = speed. =20 I could easily pull 2G on flare and not stall. For that kind of = approach,=20 an airspeed indicator works fine.

-----Original Message-----
From: = VTAILJEFF@aol.com=20 [mailto:VTAILJEFF@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 = 2:59=20 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: AOA, stalls = etc

In a message dated 9/23/2004 12:19:28 PM Central Standard Time,=20 marv@lancaironline.net writes:
Comments from a former nasal radiator: we used = AOA for=20 approaches flown
so
as to be able to land on aircraft = carriers. =20 Approach speed was two-three
knots above 1G stall speed and was = the speed=20 at which ANY elevator input
increased sink rate. =20

Perhaps your memory is a little off... but "on speed" AOA was not = 2 to 3=20 knots above 1 G stall speed. If that was the case, I would have had to = use the=20 Martin Baker alternate landing device many times. :)

Regards,

Jeff Edwards

A-6 bomardier/ navigator

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4A308.95FAAC5F--