X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.78] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4003160 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:18:28 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.78; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP71 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:17:54 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [99.163.235.11] X-Originating-Email: [randystuart@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from laptop ([99.163.235.11]) by BLU0-SMTP71.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:17:52 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: Subject: Fw: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:17:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0091_01CA74FD.57A61310" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2009 00:17:53.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[62F04270:01CA7540] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0091_01CA74FD.57A61310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert, I think the only one "assuming" anything here is you.=20 In your first post regarding me exceeding Vne, your comments were rude = and insulting.=20 You claim "I'm dangerous, you hope I never fly over your house, I should = never take passengers".... "YOU will foot the bill for my insurance = claim".... You don't me, you've never seen my aircraft, you have no idea my = experience, abilities, ratings, degrees, anything! =20 I never said you didn't have knowledge, I just said you have no = experience with Lancair's. You have no basis for your claims. You have = no statistics what so ever.=20 All your statements and assumptions from a man that still has his kit in = the garage?? That's my point.=20 A productive forum discussion regarding the various aspects of Lancair's = is more then welcome, there's a wealth of knowledge here, but blindly = insulting another builder / pilot, when you yourself have not done your = research, is not productive at all.=20 The stats are: Not one LNC-2 has come apart from exceeding Vne. There = are no service bulletins from Lancair regarding high speed flutter on a = small tail LNC-2.=20 I'm not on this forum to insult builders / pilots. I'm here to share in = the wealth of knowledge and experience. Each person can take what they = want from it. Some learn, some dispute, some read from the sidelines, = some contribute and some just laugh. It's all for a common cause.=20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: rwolf99@aol.com=20 To: lml=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:39 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number Well, I certainly ignited a firestorm! Good. Getting people talking = is a good thing. Randy is right in one respect -- as builders of an airplane we are = entitled to set whatever limits we want, as we are legally the = manufacturer. I'm also pleased that his loyal passenger paints a = picture of an otherwise very cautious pilot. I still won't fly with = him, but then, it's hardly likely that an invitation would be = forthcoming, eh? However, as I tried to say before, there many factors which influence = the selection of a never exceed speed. Sometimes it is flutter (that's = a for-real, don't-screw-with-this limit, but does not appear to be the = limiting factor on the 320/360 airframe), sometimes it is loading = imposed by an FAA-specified gust (that's a somewhat artificial limit = because there is no guarantee that you'll see that gust -- you might get = more or you might get less), sometimes it is loading imposed by a fully = deflected aileron at Vne (if that's the case then you might go faster = safely if the controls are not fully deflected), sometimes it's a = stability or controllability issue caused by Mach-induced = center-of-pressure shift (not gonna happen on an LNC2, but it might on = an LNC4). And those are just the more common reasons why a particular = Vne speed might be chosen. Certified airplane manufaturers have to prove to the FAA that the = vehicle is safe in all respects up to Vne. Experimental aircraft are = not subject to these constraints -- we can pull numbers from wherever we = choose in order to set our placard limits. Myself, I have simply = assumed that Lance and company used a methodology similar to that used = by certified airplane manufacturers in establishing their placard = limits. I suspect that they actually used the identical methods, but = were not obligated to prove it with FAA-approved and DER-witnessed = analyses and tests. No, I don't know that for sure. In that respect, = no, I have not done any research to convince myself that the Lancair = factory limits are safe, either. But Lancairs have not been breaking up = in flight with any regularity (except in thunderstoms) so the = established limits, which most pilots observe, are probably okay. I think it is interesting that Randy and his loyal passenger have = assumed that I don't know what I'm talking about simply because my = Lancair is not yet flying. In fact, it is not complete because I was = way too busy for several years as a professional aircraft designer, = serving as Chief Engineer on an aircraft that was to be certified under = FAR Part 23, and later teaching a class on designing aircraft so that = they may become certified. And yes, conducting structural loading tests = on wings, fuselages, and vertical tails. Aircraft engineering is what I = do for a living -- building them in my garage is what I do for a hobby. = But this is not a "mine is bigger than yours" contest, so I'll stop = there. =20 Jeff Edwards has suggested that I prepare a posting fully explaining = how Vne is determined. He said, and I agree, that many people reading = this list would enjoy an educational posting of this nature. Someday I = may do that, but it's not a short subject and I don't have time right = now. Consider that a cop-out if you must. Fly safe. - Rob Wolf ------=_NextPart_000_0091_01CA74FD.57A61310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Robert,
I think the only = one=20 "assuming" anything here is you.
In your first post = regarding=20 me exceeding Vne, your comments were rude and insulting.=20
You claim "I'm = dangerous, you=20 hope I never fly over your house, I should never take passengers".... = "YOU will=20 foot the bill for my insurance claim"....
You don't me, = you've never=20 seen my aircraft, you have no idea my experience, abilities, ratings, = degrees,=20 anything!  
 
I never said you = didn't have=20 knowledge, I just said you have no experience with Lancair's. You have = no basis=20 for your claims. You have no statistics what so ever.=20
All your = statements and=20 assumptions from a man that still has his kit in the garage??  = That's my=20 point.
 
A productive forum = discussion=20 regarding the various aspects of Lancair's is more then welcome, there's = a=20 wealth of knowledge here, but blindly insulting another builder / pilot, = when=20 you yourself have not done your research, is not productive at all.=20
The stats are: Not = one LNC-2=20 has come apart from exceeding Vne. There are no service bulletins from = Lancair=20 regarding high speed flutter on a small tail LNC-2.=20
 
I'm not on this = forum to=20 insult builders / pilots. I'm here to share in the wealth of knowledge = and=20 experience. Each person can take what they want from it. Some learn, = some=20 dispute, some read from the sidelines, some contribute and some = just laugh.=20 It's all for a common cause.
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 rwolf99@aol.com=20
To: lml
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, = 2009 6:39=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a = meaningless number

Well, I certainly ignited a firestorm!  Good.  Getting = people=20 talking is a good thing.
 
Randy is right in one respect -- as builders of an airplane = we are=20 entitled to set whatever limits we want, as we are legally the=20 manufacturer.  I'm also pleased that his loyal passenger paints a = picture=20 of an otherwise very cautious pilot.  I still won't fly with him, = but=20 then, it's hardly likely that an invitation would be forthcoming, = eh?
 
However, as I tried to say before, there many factors which = influence the=20 selection of a never exceed speed.  Sometimes it is flutter = (that's a=20 for-real, don't-screw-with-this limit, but does not appear to be the = limiting=20 factor on the 320/360 airframe), sometimes it is loading imposed by an = FAA-specified gust (that's a somewhat artificial limit because there = is no=20 guarantee that you'll see that gust -- you might get more or you might = get=20 less), sometimes it is loading imposed by a fully deflected aileron at = Vne (if=20 that's the case then you might go faster safely if the controls are = not fully=20 deflected), sometimes it's a stability or controllability issue caused = by=20 Mach-induced center-of-pressure shift (not gonna happen on an LNC2, = but it=20 might on an LNC4).  And those are just the more common reasons = why a=20 particular Vne speed might be chosen.
 
Certified airplane manufaturers have to prove to the FAA that the = vehicle=20 is safe in all respects up to Vne.  Experimental = aircraft=20 are not subject to these constraints -- we can pull numbers from = wherever we=20 choose in order to set our placard limits.  Myself, I have simply = assumed=20 that Lance and company used a methodology similar to that used by = certified=20 airplane manufacturers in establishing their placard limits.  I = suspect=20 that they actually used the identical methods, but were not obligated = to prove=20 it with FAA-approved and DER-witnessed analyses and tests.  No, I = don't=20 know that for sure.  In that respect, no, I have not done any = research to=20 convince myself that the Lancair factory limits are safe, = either.  But=20 Lancairs have not been breaking up in flight with any regularity = (except in=20 thunderstoms) so the established limits, which most pilots = observe, are=20 probably okay.
 
I think it is interesting that Randy and his loyal passenger have = assumed=20 that I don't know what I'm talking about simply because my Lancair is = not yet=20 flying.  In fact, it is not complete because I was way too busy = for=20 several years as a professional aircraft designer, serving as Chief = Engineer=20 on an aircraft that was to be certified under FAR Part 23, and later = teaching=20 a class on designing aircraft so that they may = become certified. =20 And yes, conducting structural loading tests on wings, fuselages, and = vertical=20 tails.  Aircraft engineering is what I do for a = living --=20 building them in my garage is what I do for a hobby.  But this is = not a=20 "mine is bigger than yours" contest, so I'll stop there. 
 
Jeff Edwards has suggested that I prepare a posting fully = explaining how=20 Vne is determined.  He said, and I agree, that many people = reading this=20 list would enjoy an educational posting of this nature.  Someday = I may do=20 that, but it's not a short subject and I don't have time right = now. =20 Consider that a cop-out if you must.
 
Fly safe.
 
- Rob Wolf
 
 
 ------=_NextPart_000_0091_01CA74FD.57A61310--