X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:31:51 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp174.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.174] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTPS id 2861493 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:25:32 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.174; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: from relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 56DBA1B417D for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hometel.com (webmail16.webmail.iad.mlsrvr.com [192.168.1.21]) by relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 53D391B40D4 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by webmail.hometel.com (Authenticated sender: marknlisa@hometel.com, from: marknlisa@hometel.com) with HTTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:24:54 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:24:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Legacy crash - speculation From: marknlisa@hometel.com X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Reply-To: marknlisa@hometel.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_20080418072454_24221" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: 2 X-Original-Message-ID: <47544.192.168.1.71.1208521494.webmail@192.168.1.71> X-Mailer: webmail6.6.1 ------=_20080418072454_24221 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0AEven disregarding the possible aerodynamic issues, I don't think o= pening the canopy in preparation for a crash is such a good idea.=0A=0AI th= ink an unlatched canopy has a much greater possibility of being torn from t= he fuselage. If it *IS* torn from the fuselage, I would think there's a goo= d chance it will strike the occupant(s). Additionally, a closed and latched= canopy can provide the occupants protection from debris, fuel and fire pos= tcrash.=0A=0AIf you are concerned the canopy might jam closed, consider thi= s: I recall a warning in the USAF KC-135 Dash-1 (operating manual) that sta= tes (in so many words) any crash violent enough to jam a hatch closed will = likely provide a fuselage break for egress.=0A=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0AMark Slet= ten=0A=0A =0A=0ASteve Reeves [sreeves@sc.rr.com] said:=0A=0A> I tend to agr= ee. I know my instructor, when we were doing instrument=0A> training in a C= heetah, would tell > me to slide the canopy back, stick=0A> your shoe in it= (or something similar) and slide it back onto=0A> whatever you were crammi= ng into it.=0A=0A> Steve ------=_20080418072454_24221 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A

Even disregarding the possible aerodynamic issues, I don't think= opening the canopy in preparation for a crash is such a good idea.<= /P>=0A

I think an unlatched canopy has a much= greater possibility of being torn from the fuselage. If it *IS* torn from = the fuselage, I would think there's a good chance it will strike the occupa= nt(s). Additionally, a closed and latched canopy can provide the occupants = protection from debris, fuel and fire postcrash.

=0A

If you are concerned the canopy might jam closed, conside= r this: I recall a warning in the USAF KC-135 Dash-1 (operating manual) tha= t states (in so many words) any crash violent enough to jam a hatch closed = will likely provide a fuselage break for egress.

=0A


Regards,

=0A

Mark Sletten

=0A

 

=0A=

Steve Reeves [sreeves@sc.rr.com] said:

=0A

> I tend to agree. I = know my instructor, when we were doing instrument
> training in a Che= etah, would tell > me to slide the canopy back, stick
> your shoe = in it (or something similar) and slide it back onto
> whatever you we= re cramming into it.

=0A

> Steve

 ------=_20080418072454_24221--