X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:28:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from misav08.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.172] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 3113053 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:34:20 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.172; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.72.22]) by misav08 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:33:45 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0K6M004FDZS9VIC0@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:33:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.24] (Forwarded-For: [24.72.101.251]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:33:45 -0600 X-Original-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:33:45 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thoughts on accidents - Flying slow is not ....- Sims. X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal

Scott, no worries, it's an open and thought provoking/expanding discussion.. nothing more... nothing personal. :-)

While I would agree that the Lancair community is one of the 'lucky crowds' to be flying at the upper end of the speed envelope. Experiance in emergencies [NTSB reports] would lead me to believe that this thinking may be partly to blame for the rate of accidents in the first place. 'I don't need to practice slow flight, because I have a fast airplane'. Meanwhile, the accident rate's of stall spin type pilot errors [sorry Jeff, I deleted your email w/the graphs so I can't pull actual numbers] is high enough to indicate this is a huge problem. If we could eliminate all 'loose of control' occurances whether it's due to hotdogging, emergency/pilot overload, poor pilotage etc.. just be learning to fly the airplane.. fly the airplane.. fly the airplane.. we'd be making a significant impact on the accident rate.

While the 414 isn't nearly as slippery as the fast glass, I understand your comment of speed. I regularly break 250knt over the ground on decent from high level. My personal record is 307 going WEST into McCarran [weird upper winds that day]. I am used to planning ahead and flying the airframe.

We've completed the reduced throw on the rod attachemnt bracket. Our trim system as of yet, is undetermined. I'm not sure if the Reichel system is still available, it would be our prefered method of trim.We also have the bob weight option for the system.

Training on type will be completed prior to my ever setting foot in it w/ the intent of flying it.

The 150 experiance I'd sited, pales in comparison to flying the Lancair, this I know for a certaintly. I mentioned it only as an indication of back ground experiance in unusual attitudes and my thought process when approaching the method I use to stay current, how I see the need for currency and continual training, nothing more.

Our journey building or plane as been slow and currently is moving none at all. [Due to medical issues w/ my father who is my co-builder in the project]

Some day I hope to have it completed and if it even comes close to the bird you fly [in both appearance and performance], I'll be a happy man. [Btw, we met in '03 at Redmond.. So I've had the privilage of a first hand look at your machine :-) ]

Best

Jarrett

> Jarrett,
>
> Please don't think that I am picking on you - it is just very easy
> for me to
> respond to the issues you raise. I hope the dialogue is useful to
> you and
> other low time 200/300 series Lancair pilots.
>
> The "green arc" contains no magic for a Lancair - if you have
> built your
> Lancair with efficiency in mind you will find that you are
> frequently flying in
> the yellow arc and you will have to think about the power setting
> on a descent
> in order not to pass the Vne line (my God the GPS ground speed
> can really
> wind up!). To me, every flight is a learning experience,
> especially its
> termination in successfully landing.
>
> I agree that one should be able to feel the airplane, especially
> at low
> speeds. The AOA has helped me greatly to associate those feeling
> with air speeds
> and performance. I am no longer totally dependent on it.
> However, while a
> total electrical failure has a remote possibility, my airplane is
> equipped
> with an Essential Bus system and the complete range of electrical
> system
> monitoring devices including a red light should the alternator
> fail and a dedicated
> backup battery for the Electronic Ignition. One must consider
> single point
> failures in aircraft systems and their backups in order to avoid
> using those
> finely honed superior pilot skills. The construction of such
> protections is
> precisely one of the great advantages available to those that
> build their own
> airplane.
>
> DOn't worry, "mushy" means different things to different people
> but these
> Lancairs all get mushy at slower speeds - the difference is where
> the CG is
> located. The CAFE report dealt with only one custom built
> Lancair. Their
> comments are generally valid but lets look at the variations in
> pitch management
> that you haven't even thought about. The easy one is the change
> brought about
> installing the bigger horizontal, although there are differences
> since not
> all of those airplanes installed the long engine mount that
> addressed the
> rearward CG issue. The first change made by many (not all) 300
> builders was to
> shorten the elevator bell crank from 4" to 3". This reduced the
> stick throw
> 25%, increased the sensitivity (less stick movement, same
> elevator movement)
> and increased the force necessary to move the elevator (a
> benefit). Of course
> this had an effect on the spring biased trim system requiring
> stiffer
> springs. Then there are those of use that use the Reichel geared
> trim wheel in that
> environment rather than the Lancair supplied crucifix/friction
> system.
> The there are those that use electric servo operated trim tabs
> instead of the
> spring system. Why do I mention these variations? Because they
> all mean
> differences in controlling the pitch in different flight regimes.
> The spring
> system is exerting force in one direction and that makes it easy
> to move the
> stick in the opposite direction. I don't know if tabs have that
> same feel.
> Also remember there is a bob weight to increase the force
> required as the
> effective G's increase. Which of these options have you chosen?
>
> Yes, one should know how the approach to stall feels so that you
> don't go
> there. Make sure you have plenty of altitude when training to get
> this feeling.
>
> There are not enough Lancair experienced trainers, especially in
> the midwest
> (Jeff, are you the only one?). Better you use much of the flyoff
> 40 hours
> to learn how to land the powered lawn dart.
>
> Your C150 experience will do you no good in a Lancair. Your
> Lancair should
> be placarded against intentional spins. There is no terminal
> velocity in a
> Lancair (unlike the underpowered draggy C150). Please don't do
> this with a
> "passenger", no one has successfully jumped from a Lancair (at
> least that I know
> of).
>
> Jarrett, good luck with the building and flying your future Lancair.
>
> Scott Krueger