Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:06:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.35.187] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 608828 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 02:54:31 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.4.35.187; envelope-from=gary21sn@hotmail.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:54:00 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: from 67.42.59.100 by BAY12-DAV13.phx.gbl with DAV; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:53:53 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [67.42.59.100] X-Originating-Email: [gary21sn@hotmail.com] X-Sender: gary21sn@hotmail.com From: "Gary Edwards" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: Another LNC2 Down X-Original-Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:53:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C4FB5D.77608100" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0009.2900 Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:53:52 -0800 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2005 07:54:00.0662 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A495F60:01C4FBA0] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C4FB5D.77608100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We'll likely never know what happened for certain. That doesn't mean you = can't take what you think may have happened in this accident, compare it = to=20 what you habitually do, and make changes, if appropriate. Worst case scenario in my mind is a familiar scene of a pilot using a = very=20 shallow approach angle to make the flare easier (I suppose that's why so = many make shallow approaches -- don't know for sure). Anyway, If that is = your habit, there but for fortune went you. There is no good excuse for = a=20 dragged in approach. I've also heard pilots talk of using a shallow final as a means of = making a=20 spot landing. Don't know how that works, but I know a picture book = landing=20 can be made from a normal or steeper than normal approach angle. I know this may not be a correct analysis of what happened in this = accident,=20 but it doesn't matter. If we can become better pilots from a discussion = of=20 what may have, or probably happened, we win. One item to consider is the type of prop which may be on the plane. = Since the plane is a 235 airframe, it is a great possibility that it may = have a fixed pitch prop. If that is so, the pilot does not have the = luxury of the benefits of a constant speed prop which helps slow the = plane down on final and allows for a steeper rate of decent. That fixed = pitch prop is always pulling the plane along on final, and throughout = the roll out. I would suggest that a good percentage of fixed pitch = prop Lancair pilots engage is slightly shallower approaches on final on = a regular basis than Lancair pilots with controllable props. Any constant speed prop Lancair pilots flown a fixed pitch prop plane = lately? How about a fixed pitch prop Lancair? Gary Edwards LNC2 N21SN ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C4FB5D.77608100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We'll likely never know what happened for certain. That doesn't = mean=20 you
can't take what you think may have happened in this accident, = compare it=20 to
what you habitually do, and make changes, if = appropriate.

Worst=20 case scenario in my mind is a familiar scene of a pilot using a very =
shallow=20 approach angle to make the flare easier (I suppose that's why so =
many make=20 shallow approaches -- don't know for sure). Anyway, If that is
your = habit,=20 there but for fortune went you. There is no good excuse for a =
dragged in=20 approach.

I've also heard pilots talk of using a shallow final as = a means=20 of making a
spot landing. Don't know how that works, but I know a = picture=20 book landing
can be made from a normal or steeper than normal = approach=20 angle.

I know this may not be a correct analysis of what happened = in this=20 accident,
but it doesn't matter. If we can become better pilots from = a=20 discussion of
what may have, or probably happened, we = win.

One item to consider is the type of prop which may be on the=20 plane. Since the plane is a 235 airframe, it is a great = possibility that=20 it may have a fixed pitch prop. If that is so, the pilot does = not=20 have the luxury of the benefits of a constant speed prop which helps = slow the=20 plane down on final and allows for a steeper rate of decent. That = fixed=20 pitch prop is always pulling the plane along on final, and throughout = the roll=20 out. I would suggest that a good percentage of fixed pitch prop = Lancair=20 pilots engage = is slightly shallower approaches on final=20 on a regular basis than Lancair pilots with controllable = props.

Any constant speed prop Lancair pilots flown a fixed pitch prop = plane=20 lately? How about a fixed pitch prop Lancair?

Gary Edwards

LNC2 N21SN

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C4FB5D.77608100--