X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:06:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m16.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.206] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1916404 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:45:47 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.206; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id q.d23.1c87515 (41812) for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:46 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: "enough already!" runway length shorts X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1173703486" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5358 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1173703486 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/11/2007 10:05:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, billhogarty@hughes.net writes: As one who has survived a L-IVP gear retraction during take-off, I have to say that you guys are beginning to scare me with your talk of over-riding the squat switch and retracting the gear during a bad takeoff as a means of slowing down.??? Since one gear always breaks free first, what would prevent the plane from cartwheeling and would it be possible to survive??? I really doubt it.....so I hope that this discussion is all tongue-in-cheek. Maybe a drag chute would be preferable....It might fit inside the new "strake" mod??? Any other options???? Bill, At last, a voice of sanity. However, you cannot mentally chew on food-for-thought ideas with tongue-in-cheek discussions. I'm sure you see the dilemma. Did you complete the takeoff or can you report on the braking action? I'm afraid that IVx's are now in the same category as ES's - for them, the boat anchor is looking like a better option since you have noted that main gear collapses may not be symmetric, perhaps resulting in unintended consequences. How about a strake mod that drops a plow-share blade - Hmmm, maybe that would only work on a grass strip? The strip owner might be angry with a plowed furrow down the middle, unless the aircraft operator owns the strip. The 300 and Legacy series with forward opening canopies do indeed have another option - Charged gas struts, electronically switched to force open the canopy on command. Think of the drag that would create and with no damage to the engine, prop or cowl - sort of super speed brakes that are effective at almost any speed. However, one should not utilize this option in a tail wind situation since many have already experienced the "spinnaker" effect in such conditions. Of course, one would have to wear goggles or glasses to prevent FOD from damaging one's eyes - or, just shut them and hope for the best. Because of recent LML discussions, one would not want such a switch on the stick, especially on the passenger side (Dom, take note). Another benefit of this device would be to assist exiting the aircraft whilst in an unrecoverable spin or the aircraft is found to be missing a control surface or wing. This assumes a desire to actually depart the craft when airborne and where each occupant is firmly attached to a personal parachute. Goggles are recommended for this scenario also (remember to remove headsets, ear-bud types in particular). There may be peculiar additional aerobatic maneuvers entered as a result of "popping" up the canopy during any flight regime and the effect of flap deployment would be unknown until some survivor(s) could provide a report. Grayhawk (Had to jump into this discussion because the instigator is being confined to his cell with added meds)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1173703486 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 3/11/2007 10:05:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 billhogarty@hughes.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>As one=20 who has survived a L-IVP gear retraction during take-off, I have
to sa= y=20 that you guys are beginning to scare me with your talk of
over-riding=20= the=20 squat switch and retracting the gear during a bad
takeoff as a means o= f=20 slowing down.???  Since one gear always breaks
free first, what w= ould=20 prevent the plane from cartwheeling and would it
be possible to=20 survive???  I really doubt it.....so I hope that this
discussion=20= is=20 all tongue-in-cheek.
Maybe a drag chute would be preferable....It might= fit=20 inside the new
"strake" mod???  Any other=20 options????
Bill,
 
At last, a voice of sanity.  However, you cannot mentally che= w=20 on food-for-thought ideas with tongue-in-cheek discussions.  I'm s= ure=20 you see the dilemma.
 
Did you complete the takeoff or can you report on the braking action?
 
I'm afraid that IVx's are now in the same category as ES's - for them,=20= the=20 boat anchor is looking like a better option since you have noted that main g= ear=20 collapses may not be symmetric, perhaps resulting in unintended=20 consequences.  How about a strake mod that drops a plow-share blade - H= mmm,=20 maybe that would only work on a grass strip?  The strip owner might be=20 angry with a plowed furrow down the middle, unless the aircraft=20 operator owns the strip.
 
The 300 and Legacy series with forward opening canopies do indeed have=20 another option - Charged gas struts, electronically switched to force o= pen=20 the canopy on command.  Think of the drag that would create and=20 with no damage to the engine, prop or cowl - sort of super speed brakes= =20 that are effective at almost any speed.  However, one should not=20 utilize this option in a tail wind situation since many have=20 already experienced the "spinnaker" effect in such conditions.  Of= =20 course, one would have to wear goggles or glasses to prevent FOD from=20 damaging one's eyes - or, just shut them and hope for the best.
 
Because of recent LML discussions, one would not want such a switc= h on=20 the stick, especially on the passenger side (Dom, take note).
 
Another benefit of this device would be to assist exiting the airc= raft=20 whilst in an unrecoverable spin or the aircraft is found to be missing a con= trol=20 surface or wing.  This assumes a desire to actually depart the=20 craft when airborne and where each occupant is firmly attached to a=20 personal parachute.  Goggles are recommended for this scenario also=20 (remember to remove headsets, ear-bud types in particular).  There may=20= be=20 peculiar additional aerobatic maneuvers entered as a result=20 of "popping" up the canopy during any flight regime and the effect= of=20 flap deployment would be unknown until some survivor(s) could provide a=20 report.
 
Grayhawk
(Had to jump into this discussion because the instigator is being confi= ned=20 to his cell with added meds)



AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free f= rom AOL at AOL= .com.
-------------------------------1173703486--