X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:26:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp110-mob.biz.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([212.82.96.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5055086 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:07:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=212.82.96.167; envelope-from=n20087@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 76823 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2011 08:06:27 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:References:In-Reply-To:X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:X-Mailer:From:X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid:Subject:Date:To; b=GSBuo15bMW9YaVyqWqrsVMbfyuV94VpNjcuinEzRsltz+d6mZQ8j4ucCNWhrPwp0KUdH5NUGZKIHqttfaR/6hnmbbNBXdk8dlPHitxWKvoUWUtA22udpZKfSpgw+A0XWJ63Ad79mJRf8bIxfzXK5ytiygDsYAFbWdUoR+mzvsUM= ; Received: from [78.152.208.249] (n20087@78.152.208.249 with xymcookie) by smtp110-mob.biz.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2011 08:06:26 +0000 GMT X-Yahoo-SMTP: NQQt3c2swBAKSrExoA1eZuT7_w-- X-YMail-OSG: oUNnNHUVM1n7wmsWjv9_QYKP3BRQUs5wmwgzi2w1uS.v6Fe GS2IN3KauNh3MZFghfor0PD7YCg7b2Q5hSCrugVLgXYIcaPqh3QrJ_.YjhcI CANbZPh0xOgxNZomPg9a0vpITHm5xZ3uy3GaffyWG.omr9JC95GW4iAVx._F DwBDZhReNgQFYazZI5BF6DW6rHIljQA1eFj7EVJOueYg2so9v4m2qdclHAC. Z55nGyqijRqCfYwQRGdKC62Xv5GSBOUk28crRi9bncebPa6zCVZ86vAGy1tm UjyAeVVQkMks2jcjeMh8aI4x_kijT4I_nJ0Z9zwS.2n13us22BcNoiAY- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 References: In-Reply-To: X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: Inbox Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8J2) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--190776000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Original-Message-Id: <285F3928-40FD-4C23-AFB5-D7C97A0D8B7E@yahoo.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8J2) From: N20087 X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_11772625_APKkiGIAAJWoTiM3HwRX1UnxkY8 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: another Lancair X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:06:25 +0100 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-1--190776000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Has anybody videoed the simulated engine out glide to landing maneuver in a= n lnc2 If so, I think it would be a wonderful training aid to post to the fo= rum Tom Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2011, at 8:25 PM, "Taylor, David" wrot= e: > Mike =E2=80=93 good to hear somebody talking about this and actually PRACT= ICING. Lancairs require a commitment to training and/or practice and buildi= ng of one=E2=80=99s flight skills ON A REGULAR BASIS. If you don=E2=80=99t t= hink that=E2=80=99s fun, you probably should be flying a Cirrus or something= . The number of times you have personally practiced a =E2=80=9Cglide to lan= ding=E2=80=9D is inversely proportional to your odds of becoming a fatality s= tatistic in an engine out. >=20 > =20 >=20 > David T. >=20 > Legacy >=20 > =20 >=20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mik= eEasley@aol.com > Sent: 07-17-11-Sun 10:11 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair >=20 > =20 >=20 > Gliding your airplane to the ground and trying to hit your aim point about= 1/3 down the runway is a very unnatural looking exercise, especially in an a= irplane with high wing loading and a high stall speed. In my ES, it's somew= hat of a "non-event" with the big wings and no gear to deal with. I still f= ind it a challenge with my average pilot skills and only about 300 hours in m= y ES to have it feel comfortable. Combine that with the stress and IQ drop o= f a real emergency and I figure I need to be really good at it during traini= ng to be even close to competent in a real engine out, dead stick landing. D= uring my training, I'm glad I have an ES, not a IV! >=20 > =20 >=20 > The FAA in its infinite wisdom, set the stall speed for single engine cert= ified aircraft at a slow enough speed for average pilots to put the plane do= wn off-airport and have that event be survivable. (You don't often hear the w= ords FAA and wisdom in the same sentence) I'm sure they figured that single e= ngine aircraft are more likely to lose all power compared to twins. That's a= tradeoff they felt was wise for safety, even though it sacrifices some sign= ificant performance in cruise speed. Designs have gotten better over the ye= ars and now you can have a relatively fast airplane and still have a slow st= all speed. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I believe the ES and the IV have the same wing design, but the ES is 40% l= arger. They use a very high lift airfoil at the root and a more benign airf= oil at the tip. The root airfoil has a very quick change from high lift to s= tall with a small change angle of attack. The airfoil transitions linearly f= rom the root to the tip with 2 degrees of washout on the ES. (not totally su= re about the washout on the IV). The theory is you would never put the inboa= rd airfoil into a stall because the tips would stall first. As the stall mo= ved inward the whole wing would stall before the nasty stall characteristics= of the root ever came into play. So in a typical training stall, Lancairs a= re pretty manageable, but in an emergency where you might stretch a glide, n= ot drop the nose quickly enough, or attempt a 180 back to the runway, a deep= stall could occur and that's a different story. >=20 > =20 >=20 > The IV and the rest of the Lancair fleet are examples of aircraft that lea= n more towards performance by sacrificing the stall speed and stall characte= ristics in exchange for cruise speed. Less wing area, choice of airfoil, wa= shout, empennage area, etc. can really increase the performance in cruise, b= ut it comes at a price on the slow end of the performance envelope. Too man= y pilots transitioning from single engine certified aircraft to a Lancair do= n't take that difference seriously enough. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Mike Easley >=20 > Colorado Springs --Apple-Mail-1--190776000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Has anybody videoed the  simulated= engine out glide to landing maneuver in an lnc2 If so, I think it would= be a wonderful training aid to post to the forum

Tom

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 17, 2011, at 8:25 PM= , "Taylor, David" <dtaylor@cr= escentpark.com> wrote:

Mike =E2=80=93 good to hear somebody talking about this and actual= ly PRACTICING.  Lancairs require a commitment to training and/or practi= ce and building of one=E2=80=99s flight skills ON A REGULAR BASIS.  If y= ou don=E2=80=99t think that=E2=80=99s fun, you probably should be flying a C= irrus or something.  The number of times you have personally practiced a= =E2=80=9Cglide to landing=E2=80=9D is inversely proportional to your odds o= f becoming a fatality statistic  in an engine out.

 

David T.

Legacy

 

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of= MikeEasley@aol.com
Sent= : 07-17-11-Sun 10:11
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject:<= /b> [LML] Re: another Lancair

 

Gliding your airplane to the ground and trying to hit your aim point ab= out 1/3 down the runway is a very unnatural looking exercise, especially in a= n airplane with high wing loading and a high stall speed.  In my ES, it= 's somewhat of a "non-event" with the big wings and no gear to deal with.&nb= sp; I still find it a challenge with my average pilot skills and only about 3= 00 hours in my ES to have it feel comfortable.  Combine that with the s= tress and IQ drop of a real emergency and I figure I need to be really good a= t it during training to be even close to competent in a real engine out, dea= d stick landing. During my training, I'm glad I have an ES, not a IV!

 = ;

The FAA in its infinite wisdom, set the stall speed for single engine cer= tified aircraft at a slow enough speed for average pilots to put the plane d= own off-airport and have that event be survivable. (You don't often hear the= words FAA and wisdom in the same sentence) I'm sure they figured that singl= e engine aircraft are more likely to lose all power compared to twins. = That's a tradeoff they felt was wise for safety, even though it sacrifices s= ome significant performance in cruise speed.  Designs have gotten bette= r over the years and now you can have a relatively fast airplane and still h= ave a slow stall speed.

 

I believe the ES and the IV have the same w= ing design, but the ES is 40% larger.  They use a very high lift airfoi= l at the root and a more benign airfoil at the tip.  The root airfoil h= as a very quick change from high lift to stall with a small change angle of a= ttack. The airfoil transitions linearly from the root to the tip with 2= degrees of washout on the ES. (not totally sure about the washout on the IV= ). The theory is you would never put the inboard airfoil into a stall becaus= e the tips would stall first.  As the stall moved inward the whole wing= would stall before the nasty stall characteristics of the root ever came in= to play. So in a typical training stall, Lancairs are pretty manageable, but= in an emergency where you might stretch a glide, not drop the nose quickly e= nough, or attempt a 180 back to the runway, a deep stall could occur an= d that's a different story.

 

The IV and the rest of the Lancair= fleet are examples of aircraft that lean more towards performance by&n= bsp;sacrificing the stall speed and stall characteristics in exchange for cr= uise speed.  Less wing area, choice of airfoil, washout, empennage area= , etc. can really increase the performance in cruise, but it comes at a= price on the slow end of the performance envelope.  Too many pilots tr= ansitioning from single engine certified aircraft to a Lancair don't take th= at difference seriously enough.

 

Mike Easley

Colorado Springs<= /o:p>

= --Apple-Mail-1--190776000--