X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 02:32:10 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc3-s20.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.190.158] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6302535 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Jun 2013 01:30:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.190.158; envelope-from=peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Received: from BAY152-W60 ([65.54.190.187]) by bay0-omc3-s20.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 1 Jun 2013 22:29:30 -0700 X-TMN: [kArUjpaAWOaFGqfRrRMJSZMKfSxSogf+] X-Originating-Email: [peterpawaviation@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_cca4939b-7d79-4721-abf3-03383acd0165_" From: PETER WILLIAMS X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] IV P flying X-Original-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 01:29:29 -0400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2013 05:29:30.0432 (UTC) FILETIME=[280E8400:01CE5F52] --_cca4939b-7d79-4721-abf3-03383acd0165_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable jack i did not install AOA and VGs to fly slowly. i installed them to increase m= y margin of safety i come across the fence at 100 knots. once or twice i have crossed at 95 kn= ots but that is the limit of my flying without further instruction. i do use speed brakes to be able to maintain a 3 degree glideslope at 100 k= nots. the airplane is too slick at that speed otherwise i get a very stable approach and it is very controllable peter williams > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Fri=2C 31 May 2013 13:26:45 -0400 > From: jmorgan1023@comcast.net > Subject: [LML] IV P flying >=20 > This will probably stir some controversy but I think it is important to s= tay safer in a IV. >=20 > There is recent discussion about AOA and vortex generators with the IV an= d I will leave that to owners preferences. I believe the real issue with th= e IV is the rapidly increasing sink rate below 95 knots. Like all really hi= gh performance aircraft=2C slowing results in very significant power off si= nk rates well above stall. The high wing loading inherent in these aircraft= is the reason for the speed/efficiency and the trade off is the sink. For = pilots not used to this class of aircraft when slow=2C pulling back hoping = to climb results in a very unfamiliar rapid loss of speed with no change in= descent rate. Unless back pressure is relaxed quickly the remaining speed = above stall dissipates very quickly. Once the departure comes=2C adding pow= er just aggravates the spin. >=20 > The main thought is to stay above 100 knots so as to stay high enough on = the speed curve to give a normal feel/result to the controls. The recommend= ed 120 knots in the pattern and 100 knots over the fence meets this demand.= If you have an AOA in your IV and can get it to blow the whistle at 95 kno= ts I suggest you do so. >=20 > Those who would add vortex generators or an AOA so they can purposely ope= rate the IV near stall are venturing into a potentially very dark place wit= h little to be gained. Most aircraft in this class are turbines/jets and th= e operating manuals don't allow stalls or very slow flight. >=20 > Jack Morgan > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml = --_cca4939b-7d79-4721-abf3-03383acd0165_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jack

i did not install AOA and VGs to fly slowly. i installed them to increase my = margin of safety

i come across the fence at 100 knots. once or twice i have crossed at 9= 5 knots but that is the limit of my flying without further instruction.

i do use speed brakes to b= e able to maintain a 3 degree glideslope at 100 knots. the airplane is too = slick at that speed otherwise

i get a very stable approach and it is very controllable

peter williams


<= div>>=3B To: lml@lancaironline.net
>=3B Date: Fri=2C 31 May 2013 13:= 26:45 -0400
>=3B From: jmorgan1023@comcast.net
>=3B Subject: [LML= ] IV P flying
>=3B
>=3B This will probably stir some controversy= but I think it is important to stay safer in a IV.
>=3B
>=3B Th= ere is recent discussion about AOA and vortex generators with the IV and I = will leave that to owners preferences. I believe the real issue with the IV= is the rapidly increasing sink rate below 95 knots. Like all really high p= erformance aircraft=2C slowing results in very significant power off sink r= ates well above stall. The high wing loading inherent in these aircraft is = the reason for the speed/efficiency and the trade off is the sink. For pilo= ts not used to this class of aircraft when slow=2C pulling back hoping to c= limb results in a very unfamiliar rapid loss of speed with no change in des= cent rate. Unless back pressure is relaxed quickly the remaining speed abov= e stall dissipates very quickly. Once the departure comes=2C adding power j= ust aggravates the spin.
>=3B
>=3B The main thought is to stay a= bove 100 knots so as to stay high enough on the speed curve to give a norma= l feel/result to the controls. The recommended 120 knots in the pattern and= 100 knots over the fence meets this demand. If you have an AOA in your IV = and can get it to blow the whistle at 95 knots I suggest you do so.
>= =3B
>=3B Those who would add vortex generators or an AOA so they can = purposely operate the IV near stall are venturing into a potentially very d= ark place with little to be gained. Most aircraft in this class are turbine= s/jets and the operating manuals don't allow stalls or very slow flight.>=3B
>=3B Jack Morgan
>=3B --
>=3B For archives and unsu= b http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= = --_cca4939b-7d79-4721-abf3-03383acd0165_--