X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:51:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [205.186.160.203] (HELO server.rmcginc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPS id 5034156 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:38:05 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.186.160.203; envelope-from=r.rickard@rcginc-us.com Received: (qmail 7265 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2011 10:37:30 -0700 Received: from 24-107-105-58.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com (HELO ?192.168.1.132?) (24.107.105.58) by rmcomserver.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2011 10:37:26 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L... References: From: Bob Rickard Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-176563474 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8J3) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <2C9920B5-9502-454E-B93C-DC33D5DD154E@rcginc-us.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:37:19 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8J3) --Apple-Mail-2-176563474 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Jarrett I think this is a good discussion, and I'm not trying to boast about my fort= unate flying career or be pretentious in any way. Just being direct. First of all, let's define the difference between a stall and "out of contro= l". The F-16 flight control computer was designed to not allow an AOA (in p= ositive pitch) of above 25 degrees no matter what the pilot asks for with th= e stick. At that AOA limit, the wing is not flying anymore, but the plane h= andles just fine ( usually in a big sink rate unless you are low with the AB= cookin). We used this AOA to slow down and get nose authority for fighting= . Out of control is a different animal all together. If you overshoot the r= oll/pitch/yaw limiters and truly are not in control of the nose, it's an eme= rgency procedure. You really have to try hard to make this happen, but it d= oes happen every so often. So it is a misconception to say that the F-16 ha= s "super poor" stall recovery ability. In fact, a select few of us each yea= r get to go to Edwards and intentionally put an F16 out of control repeatedl= y, and practice recovering from it. As long as you have some altitude and t= he CG of the airplane is not intentionally mishandled, you can recover every= time with the proper technique. Bottom line, It's a very poor comparison t= o the 4P. =20 Additionally, I didn't say I was more comfortable in a fighter, I said the 4= P is harder to land, which it is. The F16 is still at flying speed when you= land, so its easy to handle near the runway ( long story offline about F16 l= anding technique). The HUGE wing on the F22 makes landing a piece of cake. = My very first landing in the F22 was better than my very best landing in th= e 4P, because there is so much more design differences (leading edge flaps, H= UD, digital flight control computer, 70,000 pounds of thrust if you need it,= etc) that aide landing. =20 =20 I will say it again, the 4p doesn't need fixed (the strake for a turbine 4P e= xcluded I guess). In my opinion, what needs fixed are some pilots attitude t= oward the airplane. Maybe the fact that this is an experimental aircraft gi= ves some people the idea that they can mess with it. I think there is a big= difference on whether you have sunshades in the cockpit or change the bagga= ge door locking mechanism vs. fooling with the aero design. There had to be= a thousand tradeoffs in the design process for this airplane. I for one th= ink Lance made the right choices for a plane that has very unique performanc= e characteristics. Takeoff, Go fast, cruise in a straight line a far distan= ce, land, Period. Faster and more efficient than anything else like it in t= he world. It wasn't designed to fly slow, do acro, stalls/spins, or anythin= g of the kind. If you "fixed" all of the perceived problems with the 4P, yo= u would end up with a Cessna or Bonanza. You can't have it both ways. Don= 't think that other airplanes ability to do these things safely is a reason t= hat you should try it in a 4P. If you can't stay ahead of the airplane in a= ll circumstances enough to avoid a stall, or if you must go practice a stall= for your own reasons, then don't get a 4P. Get a Cirrus so you can ride a p= arachute if you mess up. =20 Does a 737 or 747 need fixed because it can't stall and recover easily? No,= and airline pilots don't go there either, except in the simulator. It was d= esigned for cruise efficiency. Same story with the 4P,and we don't have a s= imulator to practice in either! I'm comfortable with my family in the airplane because I know the limits of t= he airplane. I know it won't act good in a stall so I'm not going there. I= 'm not saying you should not learn those skills in another airplane that was= designed for it, but I am saying that outside of the testing/certification p= rocess on this airplane it is a bad idea, no matter what your skill level is= . I accept the fact that my desire for high speed efficient cruising necess= itates a high landing speed and poor high AOA performance. When I was che= cked out in my aircraft, we slowed down to the onset for a demonstration of t= he aircraft performance, with plenty of altitude below us. Now I know where= the limit is, and to never go there. 4P pilots should not either, in my op= inion. =20 On Jun 27, 2011, at 11:16 AM, H & J Johnson wrote: > I swore I was just going to sit on my hands but.... darn-it I can't. =20 >=20 > Bob your saying your more comfortable in a fighter [which has known for it= s SUPER POOR stall recovery ability] in slow flight than you are in the IV? = I can't comment on the F22 as I never learned much about what it can or can= 't do in the stall. I can imagine w/ the vectored thrust that it's never goi= ng to be an issue unless your dead stick [at which time the plane would have= to fend for itself while you pulled the 'handle', I'm sure] but the F16 ha= s been known [since it was built] that it has NEARLY unrecoverble in a stall= . If you hit 10000' and your not recovered, just pull the handle. I've read= accounts of test pilots who stalled them and it took 15000+ft to recover an= d then just barely before the hard-deck. As I understand it, to recover you n= eed to use stick movement in the direction of the oscillations [rocking the p= lane in pitch to get it to 'unstall' at the apex of one of the down pitch os= cillations]. So it's established, the F16 is not one to be stalled, infact I= think there is a 'down pitch' command [built into the control software for t= he flight controls] that comes into play if the plane gets too slow. The onl= y way to actually stall the airframe is to override that 'down pitch command= '. >=20 > So your ok flying in slow flight w/ that type of plane but not in a IV, do= esn't that speak to the need for more testing of the airframe to 'get comfor= table'? I have no doubts in your skills, zero. You are as good a qualified p= ilot as we're going to find for the 'hands on, non-straight/level' stuff yet= you don't want to explore the lower end of the envelope on the plane you ca= rry family members in. Granted the IV doesn't have a 'seat' but it could hav= e a spin chute! I understand that the F16's and 22's have had extensive te= st flying and their pilots extensive training and this is why their pilots a= re ok w/ slow flight, this is exactly what the IV needs [and the 300 series a= lso] to 'tame' them. >=20 > Also it was mentioned about the F86 demonstration.... All I can say is 'e= xactly', he stayed inside the envelope, he also knew where the envelope was,= what the limitations w/ the airframe were and where he could push it and wh= ere he couldn't. He was also flying an airframe that was well tested and it= 's deficency's known. He obviously was also a very skilled pilot. Would a p= erson DARE try this in a Lancair? I'd hope not. That said, if you knew the a= irframe inside and out and it's limitations and how it behaved [was tamed??]= in extreeme edges of the envelope then maybe a person skilled enough could d= o something similar [no that's not an endorsement on my part to try it in an= y form]. >=20 > Bob Hoover showed a similar type of flying w/ his Shrike Commander back in= the day in a plane that was never intended to be flown thus. The bottom li= ne of all this [as I see it] is the 'amazing' flying that has been discussed= always occurs in an airframe that is well tested and adjusted, by skilled p= ilots who are well trained. If we were to apply those same criteria to the I= V and 300's [ok lets just say 'Lancairs'] then there could/would be the same= level of confidence in those airframes also. >=20 > Ok onto another endless topic... FORD or Chevy? [a topic as likely to b= e solved as this 'To Stall or Not to Stall' topic :) ] [or how about MAC o= r PC?] >=20 > Jarrett Johnson [ok back to sitting on my hand again..] > 235/320 55% and holding >=20 >=20 > > Pile on to the fighter comment: =20 > >=20 > > 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=20 > > slow speed stuff in those planes, and I don't Intend to explore=20 > > the stall characteristics of my plane, ever. If you are learning=20 > > to fly, then yes, do so in a plane than can stall and was designed=20 > > for it. Do all of that, get 1000 hours, and THEN get a IV-P, and=20 > > quality training on how to fly it. Personally I get weary of the=20 > > repeated " You need to see how it stalls if it ever happens"=20 > > attitude. If you stay ahead of the airplane and don't take it=20 > > where it doesn't need to be, you will never be there. It's never=20 > > going to happen in this plane unless it's unintentional, and=20 > > unless you are 10,000' up you are going to hit the ground and it=20 > > isn't going to be pretty- period! The IV-P was designed to fly=20 > > fast and efficient over long distance. Not to do acrobatics,=20 > > stalls, anything else. It doesn't need to be fixed, it does=20 > > exactly what it was intended to do! And pilots who wanna fix the=20 > > IV-P or stall it should fly something else ( in my opinion). =20 > >=20 > > Bob R=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM, John Hafen wrote:=20= > >=20 > > > One has to choose between stall strips and a heated leading edge.=20 > > >=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=20 > > up like potato chips and blow away. I'll keep the heated leading=20 > > edge, thank you, rather than a stall strip that I would never use.=20 > > >=20 > > > And as far as a larger tail???=20 > > > A. Who is going to spend the additional money to make their=20 > > IVP look stupid?=20 > > > B. The IVP is tail heavy already -- no one wants to load=20 > > extra weight aft of the CG.=20 > > > C. Challenged pilots should perhaps fly a different plane.=20 > > >=20 > > > I love the IVP the way it is. I have never crashed and died. I=20 > > understand the envelope, and like it;)=20 > > >=20 > > > John=20 > > >=20 > > > (On military pilots and "training" to fly unstable air craft --=20 > > I don't think you are accurate on this one. The F-16 is so=20 > > unstable that it requires 20+ inputs per second to maintain=20 > > straight and level flight. It is computerized. No human being on=20 > > earth, no matter how highly trained, can manually fly an F-16=20 > > straight and level. The "fly by wire" F-16 is way easier to fly=20 > > than my IVP. The original side stick didn't move at all, but=20 > > responded to pressure. Pilots hated it so it was redesigned to=20 > > move slightly. And the pilots wishes to go a computer that=20 > > controls the flight surfaces. There is no direct manual=20 > > connection from the stick to the flight control surfaces. Even in=20 > > the old F4, the flight control "feel" was artificial -- based on=20 > > springs, as the hydraulic system supplied 3,000 psi to the flight=20 > > control surfaces, which came in really handy over about mach 1.1. =20 > > You don't need a million dollars worth of training to fly a IVP=20 > > safely. HPAT, yes.)=20 > > >=20 > > > On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Wolfgang wrote:=20 > > >=20 > > > Military aircraft are unstable to allow better agility.=20 > > > Military pilots get over a million dollars worth of training=20 > > each to be able to handle their "unstable" aircraft.=20 > > > =20 > > > I don't see that happening for IVP drivers.=20 > > > =20 > > > There are a couple of things that can be done that don't=20 > > adversely affect performance or handling.=20 > > > Stall strips and larger tail feathers come to mind.=20 > > > =20 > > > Wolfgang=20 > > > =20 > > > From: John Hafen =20 > > > Sender: =20 > > > Subject: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs,=20 > > Vortex Generators for L...=20 > > > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:05:59 -0400=20 > > > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > > > Wolfgang states: "If the airframe can't get back in the=20 > > envelope, then the airframe needs to be fixed."=20 > > >=20 > > > There are lots of historical examples to the contrary, like the=20 > > F4 Phantom. Once in a flat spin, the plane was unrecoverable from=20 > > any altitude. "Stick Forward, Ailerons and Rudder Neutral, If not=20 > > Recovered, Maintain Full Forward Stick and Deploy Drag Shoot" were=20 > > not enough. =20 > > >=20 > > > Yet the F4 was the work horse fighter for the Navy, Air Force,=20 > > Marines, and hosts of allies for decades. And it was fast, over=20 > > Mach II.=20 > > >=20 > > > Yet, you stayed far far away from "departing" -- high angle of=20 > > attack, stick one way and the rudder the other.....=20 > > >=20 > > > Most advanced stalls in IVP are recoverable, given 10,000 feet=20 > > or so.=20 > > >=20 > > > But unlike the F4, most of our IVPs are not equipped with Martin-=20 > > Baker ejection seats.=20 > > >=20 > > > The F4 never got fixed. The IVP got "fixed." It's called the=20 > > "ES," with larger differently shaped wings and fixed gear, that=20 > > became the Columbia/Cessna.=20 > > >=20 > > > The "fix" was a series of tradeoffs that IMHO made it a less=20 > > desirable plane -- slower, fixed gear, non-pressurized.=20 > > >=20 > > > I'll happily keep the un-fixed version of the IVP myself, thank=20 > > you. =20 > > >=20 > > > John Hafen=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Wolfgang wrote:=20 > > >=20 > > > I, for one, want to be able to recover from an "adverse"=20 > > condition should I ever find myself in one.=20 > > > Knowing where the edges of the envelope are and how to get beck=20 > > in the envelope should be required.=20 > > > If the airframe can't get back in the envelope, then the=20 > > airframe needs to be fixed.=20 > > > =20 > > > Wolfgang=20 > > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > > From: Karen Farnsworth=20 > > > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:12 PM=20 > > > Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex=20 > > Generators for L...=20 > > >=20 > > > David,=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I have no problem with anyone who wants to explore the=20 > > =E2=80=9Cenvelope=E2=80=9D of his/her airplane. However, I take great ex= ception to=20 > > you grounding me because I might choose to not get as near to the=20 > > edge as you.=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Lynn Farnsworth=20 > > >=20 > > > Super Legacy #235=20 > > >=20 > > > TSIO-550 Powered=20 > > >=20 > > > Reno Race #44=20 > > >=20 > > > Mmo .6=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I agree 100% also.=20 > > >=20 > > > If you don=E2=80=99t know what the incipient stall feels like in the=20= > > stick and the airframe you should not be flying the Legacy or=20 > > 320=E2=80=99s.=20 > > >=20 > > > (Not knowing this is the single biggest killer of Lancair pilots.)=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > David T.=20 > > >=20 > > > Legacy=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l --Apple-Mail-2-176563474 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Jarrett
I think this is a goo= d discussion, and I'm not trying to boast about my fortunate flying career o= r be pretentious in any way.  Just being direct.


First of all, let's define the difference between a stall a= nd "out of control".  The F-16 flight control computer was designed to n= ot allow an AOA (in positive pitch) of above 25 degrees no matter what the p= ilot asks for with the stick.  At that AOA limit, the wing is not flyin= g anymore, but the plane handles just fine ( usually in a big sink rate unle= ss you are low with the AB cookin).  We used this AOA to slow down and g= et nose authority for fighting.  Out of control is a different animal a= ll together.  If you overshoot the roll/pitch/yaw limiters and truly ar= e not in control of the nose, it's an emergency procedure.  You really h= ave to try hard to make this happen, but it does happen every so often. &nbs= p;So it is a misconception to say that the F-16 has "super poor" stall recov= ery ability.  In fact, a select few of us each year get to go to Edward= s and intentionally put an F16 out of control repeatedly, and practice recov= ering from it.  As long as you have some altitude and the CG of the air= plane is not intentionally mishandled, you can recover every time with the p= roper technique.  Bottom line,  It's a very poor comparison to the= 4P.  

Additionally, I didn't say I was more c= omfortable in a fighter, I said the 4P is harder to land, which it is.  = ;The F16 is still at flying speed when you land, so its easy to handle near t= he runway ( long story offline about F16 landing technique).  The HUGE w= ing on the F22 makes landing a piece of cake.  My very first landing in= the F22 was better than my very best landing in the 4P, because there is so= much more design differences (leading edge flaps, HUD, digital flight contr= ol computer, 70,000 pounds of thrust if you need it, etc) that aide landing.=  
 
I will say it again, the 4p doesn't need f= ixed (the strake for a turbine 4P excluded I guess).  In my opinion, wh= at needs fixed are some pilots attitude toward the airplane.  Maybe the= fact that this is an experimental aircraft gives some people the idea that t= hey can mess with it.  I think there is a big difference on whether you= have sunshades in the cockpit or change the baggage door locking mechanism v= s. fooling with the aero design.  There had to be a thousand tradeoffs i= n the design process for this airplane.  I for one think Lance made the= right choices for a plane that has very unique performance characteristics.=  Takeoff, Go fast, cruise in a straight line a far distance, land, Per= iod.  Faster and more efficient than anything else like it in the world= .  It wasn't designed to fly slow, do acro, stalls/spins, or anything o= f the kind.  If you "fixed" all of the perceived problems with the 4P, y= ou would end up with a Cessna or Bonanza.  You can't have it both ways.=   Don't think that other airplanes ability to do these things safely i= s a reason that you should try it in a 4P.  If you can't stay ahead of t= he airplane in all circumstances enough to avoid a stall, or if you must go p= ractice a stall for your own reasons, then don't get a 4P.  Get a Cirru= s so you can ride a parachute if you mess up.  

Does a 737 or 747 need fixed because it can't stall and recover easily? &n= bsp;No, and airline pilots don't go there either, except in the simulator. &= nbsp;It was designed for cruise efficiency.  Same story with the 4P,and= we don't have a simulator to practice in either!

I= 'm comfortable with my family in the airplane because I know the limits of t= he airplane.  I know it won't act good in a stall so I'm not going ther= e.  I'm not saying you should not learn those skills in another airplan= e that was designed for it, but I am saying that outside of the testing/cert= ification process on this airplane it is a bad idea, no matter what your ski= ll level is.  I accept the fact that my desire for high speed efficient= cruising necessitates a high landing speed and poor high AOA performance. &= nbsp;  When I was checked out in my aircraft, we slowed down to the ons= et for a demonstration of the aircraft performance, with plenty of altitude b= elow us.  Now I know where the limit is, and to never go there.  4= P pilots should not either, in my opinion.  


On J= un 27, 2011, at 11:16 AM, H & J Johnson <hjjohnson@sasktel.net> wrote:

I swore I was just going to sit on my hands but....  darn-it I can't= .  

Bob your saying your more comfortable in a fighter [which has known for i= ts SUPER POOR stall recovery ability] in slow= flight than you are in the IV?  I can't comment on the F22 as I never&= nbsp;learned much about what it can or can't do in the stall. I can imagine w= / the vectored thrust that it's never going to be an issue unless your dead s= tick [at which time the plane would have to fend for itself while you pulled= the 'handle', I'm sure]  but the F16 has been known [since it was buil= t] that it has NEARLY unrecoverble in a stall. If you hit 10000' and your not recovered, just pul= l the handle.  I've read accounts of test pilots who stalled them and i= t took 15000+ft to recover and then just barely before the hard-deck. As I u= nderstand it, to recover you need to use stick movement in the direction of t= he oscillations [rocking the plane in pitch to get it to 'unstall' at the ap= ex of one of the down pitch oscillations].  So it's established, t= he F16 is not one to be stalled, infact I think there is a 'down pitch' comm= and [built into the control software for the flight controls] that comes int= o play if the plane gets too slow. The only way to actually stall the airfra= me is to override that 'down pitch command'.

So your ok flying in slow flight w/ that type of plane but not in a I= V, doesn't that speak to the need for more testing of the airframe to 'get c= omfortable'?  I have no doubts in your skills, zero. You are as go= od a qualified pilot as we're going to find for the 'hands on, non-straight/= level' stuff yet you don't want to explore the lower end of the envelope on t= he plane you carry family members in. Granted the IV doesn't have a 'seat' b= ut it could have a spin chute!   I understand that the F16's and 2= 2's have had extensive test flying and their pilots extensive training and t= his is why their pilots are ok w/ slow flight, this is exactly what the IV n= eeds [and the 300 series also] to 'tame' them.

Also it was mentioned about the F86 demonstration....  All I can say= is 'exactly', he stayed inside the envelope, he also knew where the envelop= e was, what the limitations w/ the airframe were and where he could push it a= nd where he couldn't.  He was also flying an airframe that was wel= l tested and it's deficency's known. He obviously was also a very skilled pi= lot.  Would a person DARE try this in a Lancair?  I'd hope not. Th= at said, if you knew the airframe inside and out and it's limitations a= nd how it behaved [was tamed??] in extreeme edges of the envelope then m= aybe a person skilled enough could do something similar [no that's not an en= dorsement on my part to try it in any form].

Bob Hoover showed a similar type of flying w/ his Shrike Commander b= ack in the day in a plane that was never intended to be flown thus.  Th= e bottom line of all this [as I see it] is the 'amazing' flying that has bee= n discussed always occurs in an airframe that is well tested and adjusted, b= y skilled pilots who are well trained. If we were to apply those same criter= ia to the IV and 300's [ok lets just say 'Lancairs'] then there could/would b= e the same level of confidence in those airframes also.

Ok onto another endless topic...  FORD or Chevy?   [a topi= c as likely to be solved as this 'To Stall or Not to Stall' topic  = ;:) ]  [or how about MAC or PC?]

Jarrett Johnson  [ok back t= o sitting on my hand again..]
235/320 55% and holding

> Pile on to the fighter comment:  
>
> I f= lew F16s for 18 years and now fly the F-22.  Both of those
> pla= nes are easier to land than my IV-P.  I have flown a lot of
> sl= ow speed stuff in those planes, and I don't Intend to explore
> the s= tall characteristics of my plane, ever.  If you are learning
> t= o fly, then yes, do so in a plane than can stall and was designed
> f= or it.  Do all of that, get 1000 hours, and THEN get a IV-P, and
&g= t; 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
> u= nless 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 f= ix the
> IV-P or stall it should fly something else ( in my opinion).=  
>
> Bob R
>
>
>
> On Jun 24= , 2011, at 10:02 PM, John Hafen <j= .hafen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > One has to choose b= etween stall strips and a heated leading edge.
> >
> > Fo= r me personally, stall strips would be more applicable for my
> Cub, w= hich doesn't need them at all.  And I have been in
> inadvertent= icing conditions in the IVP and watched the ice curl
> up like potat= o 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???
> > &n= bsp; A.  Who is going to spend the additional money to make their
&= gt; IVP look stupid?
> >   B.  The IVP is tail heav= y already -- no one wants to load
> extra weight aft of the CG.
&= gt; >   C.  Challenged pilots should perhaps fly a differe= nt plane.
> >
> > I love the IVP the way it is.  I h= ave never crashed and died.  I
> understand the envelope, and li= ke it;)
> >
> > John
> >
> > (On mil= itary pilots and "training" to fly unstable air craft --
> I don't th= ink you are accurate on this one.  The F-16 is so
> unstable tha= t it requires 20+ inputs per second to maintain
> straight and level f= light.  It is computerized.  No human being on
> earth, no matter how highly trained, can manually fly an F-16
> s= traight 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
&= gt; move slightly.  And the pilots wishes to go a computer that
>= ; controls the flight surfaces.  There is no direct manual
> con= nection from the stick to the flight control surfaces.  Even in
>= ; the old F4, the flight control "feel" was artificial -- based on
> s= prings, as the hydraulic system supplied 3,000 psi to the flight
> co= ntrol surfaces, which came in really handy over about mach 1.1. 
&g= t; You don't need a million dollars worth of training to fly a IVP
> s= afely.  HPAT, yes.)
> >
> > On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:= 24 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Military aircraft are unstable to allow better agility.
> &= gt; Military pilots get over a million dollars worth of training
> ea= ch to be able to handle their "unstable" aircraft.
> > 
&= gt; > 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 la= rger tail feathers come to mind.
> > 
> > Wolfgang <= br>> > 
> > From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
> > Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
>= > Subject: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs,
&= gt; Vortex Generators for L...
> > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:05:59= -0400
> > To: lml@lancai= ronline.net
> > Wolfgang states:  "If the airframe can't g= et back in the
> envelope, then the airframe needs to be fixed."
> >
> &= gt; 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 no= t
> Recovered, Maintain Full Forward Stick and Deploy Drag Shoot" wer= e
> not enough. 
> >
> > Yet the F4 was the w= ork horse fighter for the Navy, Air Force,
> Marines, and hosts of al= lies for decades.  And it was fast, over
> Mach II.
> >= ;
> > Yet, you stayed far far away from "departing" -- high angle o= f
> attack, stick one way and the rudder the other.....
> >=
> > Most advanced stalls in IVP are recoverable, given 10,000 fee= t
> 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."&n= bsp; 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.
> >
&= gt; > I'll happily keep the un-fixed version of the IVP myself, thank > you. 
> >
> > John Hafen
> >
&g= t; >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:11 A= M, Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > I, for one, want to be able t= o recover from an "adverse"
> condition should I ever find myself in o= ne.
> > Knowing where the edges of the envelope are and how to get= beck
> in the envelope should be required.
> > If the airf= rame can't get back in the envelope, then the
> airframe needs to be fixed.
> > 
> > Wolfgang <= br>> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Karen Farnswor= th
> > To: lml@lancaironl= ine.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:12 PM
> &g= t; Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex
> Generato= rs for L...
> >
> > David,
> >
> > <= br>> > I have no problem with anyone who wants to explore the
>= =E2=80=9Cenvelope=E2=80=9D of his/her airplane. However, I take great excep= tion to
> you grounding me because I might choose to not get as near t= o the
> edge as you.
> >
> >
> > Lynn Fa= rnsworth
> >
> > Super Legacy #235
> >
>= ; > TSIO-550 Powered
> >
> > Reno Race #44
> &= gt;
> > Mmo .6
> >
> >
> > I agree 1= 00% also.
> >
> > If you don=E2=80=99t know what the incipient stall feels like in t= he
> stick and the airframe you should not be flying the Legacy or > 320=E2=80=99s.
> >
> > (Not knowing this is the s= ingle biggest killer of Lancair pilots.)
> >
> >
>= ; > David T.
> >
> > Legacy
> >
> &g= t;
> >
>=20 

--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= --Apple-Mail-2-176563474--