"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
|
Pile on to the fighter comment:
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).
Bob R
One has to choose between stall strips and a heated leading edge.
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
|
Wolfgang states: "If the airframe can't get back in the
envelope, then the airframe needs to be
fixed."
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.
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.
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 -----
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 | |
|