Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:20:39 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-3493764@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.244; envelope-from=lalcorn@natca.net
Subject: RE: [LML] Legacy damaged
From: lalcorn@natca.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal

I will just add another 360 unlatched canopy experience for the records.  I=
 know there are differences in all aircraft and I will not debate the pitch=
 oscillation, be it cause aerodynamically or pilot induced, which are very =
easy to induce in these aircraft.=0A=0AI was pilot flying from the right se=
at, full fuel max gross 2 adults.  Running before takeoff checklist, left c=
anopy open because of an aircraft on final.  Took off, gear up, noticed noi=
se and instantly realized it was the canopy.  Simply, entered the downwind,=
 flaps and gear as normal and landed.  Closed canopy, re ran checklist and =
took off.  Did not notice any pitch oscillation or change in handling.  I w=
ill add this particular 360 do not have any pitch change when adding flaps.=
  It has the mkII tail.  Other 320's i've flown have a significant nose dow=
n pitch moment when adding flaps.  I do not know if this is because of the =
small tail or rigging.  The owner of this plane has also forgot the canopy =
once before, while solo and did not have any handling issues.  Each of thes=
e planes are built differently, so whether or not Pilot induced oscillation=
s could lead to a coupling of the canopy moving up and down and that leadin=
g to rapid changes in the airflow over the tail affecting pitch control, co=
uld possibly happen.  Just my story for the mix=0A=0ALuke Alcorn=0A=0A