X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5033058 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:43:06 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.123; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=PfPQ8rIoTcZsncbPZjVSZ7K0hy8Zc4hmL68r4VPNpKE= c=1 sm=0 a=DwSz2rMgKogA:10 a=ttCsPuSJ-FAA:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:17 a=-QidQ3XyAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=C_IRinGWAAAA:8 a=APgS5Adk3sPE4VKwHWAA:9 a=2jNSHOmVdxqwQPZ_VNcA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=A0LnVcZjDxIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=XiB-MRnYVs9QJEwG:21 a=AONoazIx9SsXQZm5:21 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=ttQiaASIrpAUxxNeQuYA:9 a=6hKzoEuZTMxEj7UaU50A:7 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=hUswqBWy9Q8A:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:2572] helo=lobo) by hrndva-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 22/B3-01023-59D770E4; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:42:29 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <000901cc3430$ca6f0610$6401a8c0@lobo> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L... X-Original-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:42:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC340F.432DA380" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC340F.432DA380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "I flew F16s for 18 years and now fly the F-22. Both of those planes = are easier to land than my IV-P." - - interesting, to me that says the IV-P could stand to be "fixed". The technology and techniques are available to implement a "fix" that = leaves the performance essentially in tact. When I was riding bike regularly, I never had the desire to enter the = Iron Butt Rally just to prove how macho I am. My regular ride was a Gold = Wing. I preferred the comfort offered by technology. It made the Detroit = to Cherokee, NC on a whim trip pleasant. Wolfgang From: Bob Rickard =20 Sender: =20 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Airplane needs to be "fixed," = Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...=20 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:13:17 -0400=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 =20 Pile on to the fighter comment: =20 I flew F16s for 18 years and now fly the F-22. Both of those = planes are easier to land than my IV-P. I have flown a lot of slow = speed stuff in those planes, and I don't Intend to explore the stall = characteristics of my plane, ever. If you are learning to fly, then = yes, do so in a plane than can stall and was designed for it. Do all of = that, get 1000 hours, and THEN get a IV-P, and quality training on how = to fly it. Personally I get weary of the repeated " You need to see how = it stalls if it ever happens" attitude. If you stay ahead of the = airplane and don't take it where it doesn't need to be, you will never = be there. It's never going to happen in this plane unless it's = unintentional, and unless you are 10,000' up you are going to hit the = ground and it isn't going to be pretty- period! The IV-P was designed = to fly fast and efficient over long distance. Not to do acrobatics, = stalls, anything else. It doesn't need to be fixed, it does exactly = what it was intended to do! And pilots who wanna fix the IV-P or stall = it should fly something else ( in my opinion). =20 Bob R On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM, John Hafen = wrote: One has to choose between stall strips and a heated leading = edge.=20 For me personally, stall strips would be more applicable for my = Cub, which doesn't need them at all. And I have been in inadvertent = icing conditions in the IVP and watched the ice curl up like potato = chips and blow away. I'll keep the heated leading edge, thank you, = rather than a stall strip that I would never use. And as far as a larger tail??? A. Who is going to spend the additional money to make their = IVP look stupid? B. The IVP is tail heavy already -- no one wants to load = extra weight aft of the CG. C. Challenged pilots should perhaps fly a different plane. I love the IVP the way it is. I have never crashed and died. I = understand the envelope, and like it;) John (On military pilots and "training" to fly unstable air craft -- = I don't think you are accurate on this one. The F-16 is so unstable = that it requires 20+ inputs per second to maintain straight and level = flight. It is computerized. No human being on earth, no matter how = highly trained, can manually fly an F-16 straight and level. The "fly = by wire" F-16 is way easier to fly than my IVP. The original side stick = didn't move at all, but responded to pressure. Pilots hated it so it = was redesigned to move slightly. And the pilots wishes to go a computer = that controls the flight surfaces. There is no direct manual connection = from the stick to the flight control surfaces. Even in the old F4, the = flight control "feel" was artificial -- based on springs, as the = hydraulic system supplied 3,000 psi to the flight control surfaces, = which came in really handy over about mach 1.1. You don't need a = million dollars worth of training to fly a IVP safely. HPAT, yes.) On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Wolfgang wrote: Military aircraft are unstable to allow better agility. Military pilots get over a million dollars worth of training = each to be able to handle their "unstable" aircraft. I don't see that happening for IVP drivers. There are a couple of things that can be done that don't = adversely affect performance or handling. Stall strips and larger tail feathers come to mind. Wolfgang From: John Hafen =20 Sender: =20 Subject: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall = Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...=20 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:05:59 -0400=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 =20 Wolfgang states: "If the airframe can't get back in the = envelope, then the airframe needs to be fixed."=20 There are lots of historical examples to the contrary, = like the F4 Phantom. Once in a flat spin, the plane was unrecoverable = from any altitude. "Stick Forward, Ailerons and Rudder Neutral, If not = Recovered, Maintain Full Forward Stick and Deploy Drag Shoot" were not = enough. =20 Yet the F4 was the work horse fighter for the Navy, Air = Force, Marines, and hosts of allies for decades. And it was fast, over = Mach II. Yet, you stayed far far away from "departing" -- high = angle of attack, stick one way and the rudder the other..... Most advanced stalls in IVP are recoverable, given 10,000 = feet or so. But unlike the F4, most of our IVPs are not equipped with = Martin-Baker ejection seats. The F4 never got fixed. The IVP got "fixed." It's called = the "ES," with larger differently shaped wings and fixed gear, that = became the Columbia/Cessna. The "fix" was a series of tradeoffs that IMHO made it a = less desirable plane -- slower, fixed gear, non-pressurized. I'll happily keep the un-fixed version of the IVP myself, = thank you. =20 John Hafen On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Wolfgang wrote: I, for one, want to be able to recover from an "adverse" = condition should I ever find myself in one. Knowing where the edges of the envelope are and how to get = beck in the envelope should be required. If the airframe can't get back in the envelope, then the = airframe needs to be fixed. Wolfgang ----- Original Message ----- From: Karen Farnsworth To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex = Generators for L... David, I have no problem with anyone who wants to explore the = "envelope" of his/her airplane. However, I take great exception to you = grounding me because I might choose to not get as near to the edge as = you. Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Powered Reno Race #44 Mmo .6 I agree 100% also. If you don't know what the incipient stall feels like in = the stick and the airframe you should not be flying the Legacy or 320's. = (Not knowing this is the single biggest killer of = Lancair pilots.) David T. Legacy =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC340F.432DA380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"I flew F16s=20 for 18 years and now fly the F-22.  Both of those planes are easier = to land=20 than my IV-P."
- - interesting, to me that says the IV-P could stand to be = "fixed".
 
The technology and techniques are available to implement a "fix" = that=20 leaves the performance essentially in tact.
 
When I was riding bike regularly, I never had the desire to enter = the Iron=20 Butt Rally just to prove how macho I am. My regular ride was a Gold = Wing. I=20 preferred the comfort offered by technology. It made the Detroit to = Cherokee, NC=20 on a whim trip pleasant.
 
Wolfgang
 
 
lml@lancaironline.net
From: Bob Rickard=20 <r.rickard@rcginc-us.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Airplane needs = to be=20 "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators = for=20 L...
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:13:17 = -0400
To:
Pile on to the fighter comment:   

I flew F16s for 18 years and now fly the F-22.  Both of = those=20 planes are easier to land than my IV-P.  I have flown a lot = of slow=20 speed stuff in those planes, and I don't Intend to explore the = stall=20 characteristics of my plane, ever.  If you are learning to = fly, then=20 yes, do so in a plane than can stall and was designed for it. =  Do all=20 of that, get 1000 hours, and THEN get a IV-P, and quality training = on how=20 to fly it.  Personally I get weary of the repeated " You need = to see=20 how it stalls if it ever happens" attitude.  If you stay = ahead of the=20 airplane and don't take it where it doesn't need to be, you will = never be=20 there.  It's never going to happen in this plane unless it's=20 unintentional, and unless you are 10,000' up you are going to hit = the=20 ground and it isn't going to be pretty- period!  The IV-P was = designed to fly fast and efficient over long distance.  Not = to do=20 acrobatics, stalls, anything else.  It doesn't need to be = fixed, it=20 does exactly what it was intended  to do!  And pilots = who wanna=20 fix the IV-P or stall it should fly something else ( in my = opinion).=20  

Bob R



On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM, John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net> wrote:

One has to choose between stall strips and a heated leading = edge.=20

For me personally, stall strips would be more applicable = for my=20 Cub, which doesn't need them at all.  And I have been in=20 inadvertent icing conditions in the IVP and watched the ice curl = up like=20 potato chips and blow away.  I'll keep the heated leading = edge,=20 thank you, rather than a stall strip that I would never = use.

And as far as a larger tail???
  A.  Who is going to spend the additional = money to=20 make their IVP look stupid?
  B.  The IVP is tail heavy already -- no = one wants=20 to load extra weight aft of the CG.
  C.  Challenged pilots should perhaps fly a = different plane.

I love the IVP the way it is.  I have never crashed = and died.=20  I understand the envelope, and like it;)

John

(On military pilots and "training" to fly unstable air = craft -- I=20 don't think you are accurate on this one.  The F-16 is so = unstable=20 that it requires 20+ inputs per second to maintain straight and = level=20 flight.  It is computerized.  No human being on earth, = no=20 matter how highly trained, can manually fly an F-16 straight and = level.=20  The "fly by wire" F-16 is way easier to fly than my IVP. =  The=20 original side stick didn't move at all, but responded to = pressure.=20  Pilots hated it so it was redesigned to move slightly. =  And=20 the pilots wishes to go a computer that controls the flight = surfaces.=20  There is no direct manual connection from the stick to the = flight=20 control surfaces.  Even in the old F4, the flight control = "feel"=20 was artificial -- based on springs, as the hydraulic system = supplied=20 3,000 psi to the flight control surfaces, which came in really = handy=20 over about mach 1.1.  You don't need a million dollars = worth of=20 training to fly a IVP safely.  HPAT, yes.)

On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
Military aircraft are unstable = to allow=20 better agility.
Military pilots get over a = million dollars=20 worth of training each to be able to handle their "unstable"=20 aircraft.
 
I don't see that happening for = IVP=20 drivers.
 
There are a couple of things = that can be=20 done that don't adversely affect performance or = handling.
Stall strips and larger tail = feathers come=20 to mind.
 
Wolfgang
 
From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Airplane needs to be = "fixed,"=20 Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators = for=20 L...
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 = 06:05:59=20 -0400
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Wolfgang states: =  "If the airframe can't get back in = the=20 envelope, then the airframe needs to be=20 fixed."=20

There=20 are lots of historical examples to the contrary, like the = F4=20 Phantom.  Once in a flat spin, the plane was = unrecoverable=20 from any altitude.  "Stick Forward, Ailerons and = Rudder=20 Neutral, If not Recovered, Maintain Full Forward Stick and = Deploy=20 Drag Shoot" were not enough. =  

Yet the F4 was the work horse = fighter for=20 the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and hosts of allies for = decades.=20  And it was fast, over Mach II.

Yet, you stayed far far away from = "departing" -- high angle of attack, stick one way and the = rudder=20 the other.....

Most advanced stalls in IVP are=20 recoverable, given 10,000 feet or so.

But unlike the F4, most of our = IVPs are not=20 equipped with Martin-Baker ejection = seats.

The F4 never got fixed.  The = IVP got=20 "fixed."  It's called the "ES," with larger = differently=20 shaped wings and fixed gear, that became the=20 Columbia/Cessna.

The "fix" was a series of = tradeoffs that=20 IMHO made it a less desirable plane -- slower, fixed gear, = non-pressurized.

I'll happily keep the un-fixed = version of=20 the IVP myself, thank you.  

John Hafen
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Wolfgang wrote:

I, for one, want to be = able to=20 recover from an "adverse" condition should I ever find = myself in=20 one.
Knowing where the edges = of the=20 envelope are and how to get beck in the envelope should be = required.
If the airframe can't get = back in the=20 envelope, then the airframe needs to be = fixed.
 
Wolfgang
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen=20 Farnsworth
Sent: Wednesday, = June 22,=20 2011 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: = Stall=20 Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...

David,

I=20 have no problem with anyone who wants to explore the = =93envelope=94=20 of his/her airplane. However, I take great exception to = you=20 grounding me because I might choose to not get as near = to the=20 edge as you.

Lynn=20 Farnsworth

Super Legacy #235

TSIO-550 Powered

Reno Race #44

Mmo=20 .6

I agree 100% also.

If you don=92t know what the = incipient stall=20 feels like in the stick and the airframe you should not = be=20 flying the Legacy or 320=92s. 

(Not knowing this is the single = biggest=20 killer of Lancair pilots.)

David T.

Legacy

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC340F.432DA380--