|
Jeff, We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. :) I'm a proponent of training and applaude what you are doing w/ LOBO. Obviously training is having an impact, all good [great] stuff! I would agree that using the plane for basic training would be suicidal but that doesn't mean the planes shouldn't be tested in these regions of speed etc under the proper conditions.
I'm still off the opinion [and will remain so] that an owner needs to test his plane to the nescesary limits of the airframe as it applies to slow flight. The same should be done w/ bump tests and flutter in the high speed region of the envelope. We all know that just because these aircraft are all from the same set of molds, doesn't mean they fly the same. My plane isn't going to fly the same as my buddie's [who happens to be a master craftsman, built it using a caliper to place all the ribs and leveled the wings w/ an Autocollimater] ok I'm kidding about his skills or his patience [anyone who's ever used an Autocollimator will understand] but the fact remains, they are all individual's [the airframes and their builders] so they are all going to fly differently, it's the testing phase of things that should be bringing them all back to as close to the 'standard' as we can.
If all of the new or potential owners of Lancairs had pushed the company [10+ yrs ago [20yrs??]] to improve the stall/spin safety of the aircraft the lack of sales [or pressure due to the lack] would/could have prompted the company to fix this issue from the start. The fact that everyone wanted a Lancair due primarily to it's cruise speed [dang the torpedo's for anything else that matters] was our own undoing in part.
I can agree that we're not test pilots but if we can't or are not will or we're scared to fly the airframe [or we know areas that are outside our skill level] in all regions of the normal category envelope, then it is my opinion that we shouldn't be flying the airframe, period. If you don't know where the demons lurk, how can you conclusively avoid them? Wouldn't be better to find them during flight testing [even it it means hiring a test pilot and installing a spin chute], rather than just pretend we can avoid them at will by using extra speed? The nagging question in my mind would always be ; At what point does the airframe become unglued ?[pun intended] Does it stall straight ahead as long as it's corrdinated? What if it's corrdinated but in 10deg of bank, how does CG effect these points. 'I dunno, I'm just gonna fly fast and avoid all that' doesn't present a valid solution, nor promote the level of safety that CAN be obtained w/ the proper proceedure
s and steps during flight testing. Does that perspective work [just use speed]? Sure, for a time but all it takes is one time where you don't have the speed and your goose is cooked.
Anyway, as I said last time.. PETA is threatening me w/ handcuffs over this dead horse so.. I guess I'll pipe down..
Jarrett Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: vtailjeff@aol.com
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:59 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...
> If you do not know how to recognize and recover from a stall
> condition then you should not be figuring this out in a IV. One
> reason the IV community has not had any more loss of control
> accidents is in part because we keep preaching it. Please do not
> encourage anyone to go out and stall a IV. This is the work of a
> true test pilot like Len Fox or Dave Morss-- not the builder. We
> are NOT test pilots.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 1:55 PM, H & J Johnson <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>
> wrote:
> > Agreed, approach to stall is not the same as an all out stall.
> However, if its a required proceedure on an aircraft that is
> concidered a 'slick' [certified] airframe then shouldn't it be
> done on any aircraft? The answer in my mind is, yes. Then comes
> the question of.. what is the stall?[what speed, in what
> configuration, at what weight, with what identifiable indicators?
> etc] In the case of the certified a/c I fly, there is an aural
> Warning [first indicator for us] at that point it's max power,
> maintain pitch and fly out of the stall. Alot of people in this
> conversation are saying.. " I don't know at what speed it stalls
> at" or " I'm not going to try and find out" etc. So in effect,
> they cannot perform this training proceedure [approach to stall]
> to a similar standard since it's never been tested on their
> airframe, sure you can slow to 110-115knts and recover but what
> does that 'learn' you? Zilch.. nadda.. nothing.. The approach to
> stall is a 'reactionary' training proceedure required observance
> of a changing flight condition and 'action' to initial a recovery,
> slowing down and then speeding up is not the same proceedure.
> >
> > As I see it, the reality of experimental Aviation is that it is
> 'Experimental' in nature. IF you start building a plane w/ the
> intent of flying it yourself, you KNOW with a certainty that at
> some point either you or someone you designate, is going to become
> a test pilot. If the certified world was to take the same
> approach as is going on here in regards to stalling [avoidance of
> the required testing] don't you think the FAA would decline to
> certify the airframe? Yet it seems to be the accepted norm for a
> large part of the Lancair community to do this very thing while
> certifying their aircraft [yes flight testing is infact a step in
> the certification process, the airframe is signed off after the
> flight testing is complete]. The fact that 'they are killers at
> slow speed, and thats ok.' {Just don't fly slow and it won't be a
> problem, [until at some point it is and you can't avoid it]} is
> tantamount to 'kicking the can down the road'. Fly fast is all
> fine and dandy until you the day you can't or inadvertantly don't
> and aren't able to recognise the signs of impending doom. Because
> you've never tested in that region of the envelope, now your a
> test pilot w/ the wife and kids onboard.
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf
> is good reading. Infact, as listed there, hrs 10-20 have a large
> part dedicated to stalls and stability tests.
> >
> > WE as the original test pilots are responsible to certify that
> the aircraft is safe to fly in all corners of the envelope [to
> define the envelope]. This is why they mandate 25 or 40 hrs of
> TEST FLYING in a restricted area! Most see this as just a
> temporary limitation to hold them back from enjoying the new
> plane. Something they just have to 'fly off' so they can start
> going places w/ their new 'ride'. The fact that the general
> concensus is to take a red marker and highlight the region of the
> envelope where lost of lift occurs as 'danger do not enter' is
> kinda ridiculous [in my opinion]. There are people [on list I
> believe] who have put efforts into taming the stall on their
> aircraft and have done so successfully. Someone mentioned having
> plans for stalls strips which produce buffet upon approach to
> stall. Others have tested their airframes and made wing incidence
> or rigging adjustments and now are not uncomfortable w/ slower
> flight speeds. It's n ot that they fly slow all the time but they
> KNOW where the limitations are and how the airframe behaves on
> approach to stall.
> >
> > Honestly, if these airframes are that dangerous in the slow
> speed region of the envelope, I'd think there would be a concerted
> effort to address it [maybe that was what the FAA was getting at
> there a couple years back.. or whom-ever it was that had started
> to push for some form of a limitaion against Lancairs]. Heck,
> someone should put together a plan for a temporary spin chute
> attachment used for flight testing and send it around like was
> done w/ the rudder cable lubricator. Lets be honest w/ ourselves
> and realize that 'yes, as factory new [just built] airframes they
> are a bit of a handful' and address the issue such that they
> become 'less of a handful after flight testing and airframe
> adjustments'.>
> > I've not looked for an answer to this but I'm curious to know.
> How many crash's or deaths have been marked as 'due to loss of
> control while flight testing' vs ' simply loss of control'? I'm
> thinking the answer is the latter number is the larger of the two.
> Doesn't that tell us something? Or were they all just 'poor
> pilots', unlike 'me', cause that will never happen to 'me' ? [I'm
> speaking figuratively here, I know I'm not Scott Crossfield, hence
> why I train as much as I do ] I can't think 'poor skills' is the
> only answer. Poor planning and decision making in regards to
> testing of [and knowing] the airframe limits? Maybe. Poor
> pilotages skills..? It just doesn't seem likely.
> >
> > Bottom line, in my opinion, avoidance of a problem is not a
> solution.>
> > Ok, I see PETA's at the door.. I'll stop beating this dead horse
> now...>
> > Jarrett Johnson
> >
> > 235/320 55% [and holding]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sky2high@aol.com
> > Date: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:00 am
> > Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs,
> Vortex Generators for L...
> > > Approach to stall is not Stall.
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 6/19/2011 6:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight
> Time,
> > > hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes:
> > >
> > > Grayhawk, I've got my own opinion of topic but it's been beat
> > > enough that I
> > > heard PETA is looking into this 'dead horse'.. I will correct
> > > one thing
> > > however, in the high performance world you still have to
> > > demonstrate
> > > approach to stall and recovery. I'm flying a Corporate Jet A
> > > burner and have done
> > > approach to stalls in the Sim AND the actualy a/c. Infact I
> have
> > > to do it
> > > every 6months.
> > > Fwiw
> > >
> > > Jarrett Johnson
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Sky2high@aol.com
> > > Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:30 am
> > > Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs,
> Vortex
> > > Generators for Lanca...
> > > > Wolfgang,
> > > >
> > > > It is not disturbing. Lancairs demand respect. High
> > > performance
> > > > sometimes requires a tradeoff in low speed controlability.
> > > Every
> > > > amateur built has
> > > > different flight characteristics (actually spam cans may
> differ
> > >
> > > > somewhat
> > > > also). High performance jets don't require stall training
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Stalls should be avoided because slick airplanes speed
> response
> > > is
> > > > very
> > > > quick. These airplanes generally don't stall in cruise -
> only
> > > in
> > > > the slow
> > > > flight regime around the stinking airport. Why drag these
> in
> > > > during approach
> > > > and close to stall when turbulence, microbursts or sudden
> wind
> > > > shifts
> > > > (shear) leave you in the lurch. If it goes wrong, it goes
> > > wrong
> > > > very fast. It
> > > > is the uninformed pilot that can lose control because of
> slow
> > > > speed
> > > > maneuvering that has led the way to distressing accident
> stats.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It is always interesting to look at the speed range of
> standard
> > >
> > > > aircraft.
> > > > Most span cans have a minimal range. Lancairs and their
> ilk
> > > have
> > > > a rather
> > > > broad range (max cruise to landing) and, as such, require
> > > > compromises. I
> > > > like to fly at max speeds and am willing to respect the
> > > > limitations at
> > > > lower speeds. This ain't no Cub (or LSA).
> > > >
> > > > Grayhawk
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 6/18/2011 7:34:40 P.M. Central Daylight
> > > Time,
> > > > Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:
> > > >
> > > > Is it just me or does anyone else find it just a bit
> disturbing
> > > > that the
> > > > Lancairs have such "fearsome" stall characteristics ?
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: _Sky2high@aol.com_ (Sky2high@aol.com)
> > > > To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (lml@lancaironline.net)
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:46 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex
> > > > Generators for
> > > > Lancair 4p
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce,
> > > >
> > > > Au contraire, mon ami......
> > > >
> > > > The Advanced Systems AOA does not require stalling the
> > > aircraft.
> > > > Read for
> > > > theory and calibration:
> > > > _http://www.advanced-flight-
> > > > systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf_
> > > > (http://www.advanced-flight-
> > > > systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf)
> > > >
> > > > Grayhawk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 6/17/2011 12:07:47 P.M. Central Daylight
> > > Time,
> > > > _BGray@glasair.org_ (BGray@glasair.org) writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Every single AOA I know of requires you to stall the
> aircraft
> > > to
> > > > calibrate
> > > > the AOA.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > > WWW.Glasair.org
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On
> Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > Bob
> > > > Rickard
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:24 PM
> > > > To: lml@lancaironline.net
> > > > Subject: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex
> Generators
> > > > for Lancair
> > > > 4p
> > > >
> > > > One of the main reasons all of us IV-P owners have a hell
> of a
> > > > time
> > > > getting insurance for our airplanes is because too many
> guys
> > > > "explored" the stall
> > > > characteristics of their airplane (and for many it was
> their
> > > last
> > > > flight).
> > > > I fly another airplane that can fly comfortably at 60
> degrees
> > > > AOA, and
> > > > have a good bit of time as an operational test pilot, but I
> will
> > >
> > > > never stall
> > > > my IV-P intentionally. Or even get close. Like Colyn and
> > > John,
> > > > I'm 120 on
> > > > downwind, 110 at the base turn and 100 on final until the
> > > runway
> > > > is
> > > > assured. Unless we fly the pattern at 8000 feet AGL, a
> stall
> > > > will probably be
> > > > fatal for any of us. Please don't be the next one to
> prove
> > > this
> > > > point !
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bob Rickard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For archives and unsub
> > > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
> > >
> > --
> >
> > For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|