----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...
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
>