X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta21.charter.net ([216.33.127.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4025961 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:27:14 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.81; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from imp10 ([10.20.200.10]) by mta21.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.02.04 201-2219-117-106-20090629) with ESMTP id <20091217162641.ZEZQ21519.mta21.charter.net@imp10> for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:26:41 -0500 Received: from Farnsworth ([75.139.158.86]) by imp10 with smtp.charter.net id JGSg1d00M1s7vFP05GSgGE; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:26:41 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Gq5U22Tt0EEA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=ODYUCj1jdHWvaeBsa7IA:9 a=HT-l1tTHf6lbrQlzPwQA:7 a=TyZtmIL_gy8qGxPdhRqblNpWchQA:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=hUswqBWy9Q8A:10 a=XwrGT8eJx703dOtH:21 a=NegZ2UnrSXVKLjnn:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=-9KNJVaMKM1iGO95AYIA:7 a=ykMwP8MsIuCf-K-lrQsmhGo2FbsA:4 From: "farnsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville? X-Original-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:26:51 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EB_01CA7F0B.D45D1BC0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acp/JnKAnn9Z6uCrRsqPE+yPs/SPGwADhOGQ This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00EB_01CA7F0B.D45D1BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, Did the pilot in question actually spin in? I agree that proper "glide" ability is good, but, if I have a choice, I will take the one that gives me a longer glide every time. There is no question that a feathering prop will out glide a non feathering prop. All I was doing is suggesting a couple of ways that the incident might have had a better outcome. (: Regards, Lynn _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Kennedy Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:37 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville? If you really want cheap insurance, learn how to glide and make a power off landing. Glide performance in a spin is really poor and the landing is no better (always fatal as far as I know). The kind of prop doesn't really matter. The pilot should be able to tell pretty quickly whether he can make a field or not, certainly 7,000 feet gives you plenty of time to analyze your glide. If you can't make it to the spot you want, land in a field. Airmanship is the best insurance I can think of. > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:33:59 -0500 > From: farnsworth@charter.net > Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville? > > > > It is my understanding that the crash occurred close to the airport. I think > I read it was about 1 mile. If that is true I think that the glide range > difference between a standard constant speed prop and a feathering prop > would have made the difference between making the airport and not. > > I believe it was reported that the pilot said he was at 7,000' when the > problem occurred. The fact that he made it to within 1 mile of a safe > landing with a standard prop (I don't know if he pulled his prop control > back of not. I think the engine was not turning at the time of ground > contact.)is evidence that the higher glide ratio of the feathering prop > would have extended his range enough to land at the airport. With loss of > oil pressure the feathering prop I have in my plane feathers automatically. > It does not require me to pull the prop control back. > > Three years ago, at the Reno Air Races, Lee Behel was flying his Legacy in > the valley to the West of Stead when he had an engine failure. It was touch > and go on whether he would have an off airport landing or not. The > difference was the feathering prop on his plane. If he had had a standard > prop he would not have made the airport for an uneventful landing. > > I just think a feathering prop is cheap insurance. > > > > > Lynn Farnsworth > > Super Legacy #235 > > TSIO-550 Powered > > Race #44 > > Mmo .6 Mach > > Feathering Prop > > > -- > > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_00EB_01CA7F0B.D45D1BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,

 

Did the pilot in question actually = spin in? I agree that proper “glide” ability is good, but, if I = have a choice, I will take the one that gives me a longer glide every time. There is no question that a feathering prop will out glide a non feathering prop. =

 

All I was doing is suggesting a = couple of ways that the incident might have had a better outcome. = (:

 

Regards,

 

Lynn

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, December = 17, 2009 9:37 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy = Crash Watsonville?<= /p>

 

If you really want cheap insurance, learn how to = glide and make a power off landing. Glide performance in a spin is really poor and = the landing is no better (always fatal as far as I know). The kind of prop doesn't = really matter. The pilot should be able to tell pretty quickly whether he can = make a field or not, certainly 7,000 feet gives you plenty of time to analyze = your glide. If you can't make it to the spot you want, land in a field. = Airmanship is the best insurance I can think of.

> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:33:59 -0500
> From: farnsworth@charter.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville?
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that the crash occurred close to the = airport. I think
> I read it was about 1 mile. If that is true I think that the glide = range
> difference between a standard constant speed prop and a feathering = prop
> would have made the difference between making the airport and = not.
>
> I believe it was reported that the pilot said he was at 7,000' when = the
> problem occurred. The fact that he made it to within 1 mile of a = safe
> landing with a standard prop (I don't know if he pulled his prop = control
> back of not. I think the engine was not turning at the time of = ground
> contact.)is evidence that the higher glide ratio of the feathering = prop
> would have extended his range enough to land at the airport. With = loss of
> oil pressure the feathering prop I have in my plane feathers automatically.
> It does not require me to pull the prop control back.
>
> Three years ago, at = the Reno Air Races, Lee Behel was flying his Legacy in
> the valley to the West of Stead when he had an engine failure. It = was touch
> and go on whether he would have an off airport landing or not. = The
> difference was the feathering prop on his plane. If he had had a = standard
> prop he would not have made the airport for an uneventful landing. =
>
> I just think a feathering prop is cheap insurance.
>
> >
> > Lynn Farnsworth
> > Super Legacy #235
> > TSIO-550 Powered
> > Race #44
> > Mmo .6 Mach
> > Feathering Prop
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

------=_NextPart_000_00EB_01CA7F0B.D45D1BC0--