X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:12:59 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from HQEMGATE03.nvidia.com ([216.228.112.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 683379 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:39:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.228.112.143; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net Received: from hqemfe03.nvidia.com (Not Verified[172.16.227.123]) by HQEMGATE03.nvidia.com id ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:38:53 -0700 Received: from ccaselt ([172.16.228.84]) by hqemfe03.nvidia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:38:51 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <049901c5aa86$8ccea660$6a04020a@nvidia.com> From: "colyncase on earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Legacy stalls X-Original-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:38:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0496_01C5AA4B.DFC7CE90" 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 X-Original-Return-Path: colyncase@earthlink.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2005 21:38:51.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D1E4D00:01C5AA86] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0496_01C5AA4B.DFC7CE90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Skip wrote > One correction to your post - the Columbia test pilot did not bail = out > because of an unrecoverable spin, I talked to the test pilot at the 2003 Lancair fly-in just a couple days = after this incident. What I remember of his report is as follows: - this was a production copy of a test item that had been tested = years earlier and passed - a series of spins was performed, each deeper than the previous - at some point an unrecoverable spin condition occurred - the chute was deployed - the spin was recovered - the chute had a guillotine mechanism installed so that the chute = could be released. unfortunately the release links jammed the guillotine so that there = was no way to release the chute - the pilot attempted to fly with the chute dragging but could not = achieve better than a 45 degree nose down angle - pilot ejected at a few thousand feet or less - airframe incinerated itself what I find most interesting about this is that the production item = behaved different than the prototype built to the same drawings. what does that say about your airplane vs. mine? Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_0496_01C5AA4B.DFC7CE90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Skip wrote

> One correction to = your post -=20 the Columbia test pilot did not bail out
> because of an = unrecoverable=20 spin,

I talked to the test pilot at the 2003 = Lancair=20 fly-in just a couple days after this

incident. What I remember = of his report=20 is as follows:

- this was a = production copy of=20 a test item that had been tested years earlier and passed

- a series of spins = was=20 performed, each deeper than the previous

- at some point an = unrecoverable=20 spin condition occurred

- the chute was=20 deployed

- the spin was=20 recovered

- the chute had a = guillotine=20 mechanism installed so that the chute could be released.

unfortunately the = release links=20 jammed the guillotine so that there was no way to release the = chute

- the pilot = attempted to fly=20 with the chute dragging but could not achieve better than a 45 degree = nose down=20 angle

- pilot ejected at a = few=20 thousand feet or less

- airframe = incinerated=20 itself

what I find most interesting about this = is that the=20 production item behaved different than the prototype built to = the

same drawings. what does that say = about your=20 airplane vs. mine?

Colyn

------=_NextPart_000_0496_01C5AA4B.DFC7CE90--