X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:46:08 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.168.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6012153 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:59:24 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.9.168.149; envelope-from=john@jjts.net.au Received: from nskntcmgw09p ([61.9.169.169]) by nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20130114225847.EIQE24726.nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com@nskntcmgw09p> for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:58:47 +0000 Received: from [192.168.15.18] ([110.142.219.220]) by nskntcmgw09p with BigPond Outbound id nyyi1k00H4luXCm01yyjUH; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:58:47 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=APSpfbFe c=1 sm=1 a=6xIvA0WTx9AVOJiHBW+VeQ==:17 a=D1PIhDlQBR8A:10 a=mCSqThwqAAAA:8 a=QkXBRyMHgwsA:10 a=HHGDD-5mAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=m2giflinAAAA:8 a=fLuM78UsAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=jjqUt_clAAAA:8 a=QozBep9eyP5beLIy-eQA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=rnYgdqcAs4AA:10 a=-ZBvsNeBbbMA:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=i1zE5R4R5dEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=3jk_M6PjnjYA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=xrPzlPWk7xcGhWbiSBEA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=p31h7kFjfPG3CZE0:21 a=6xIvA0WTx9AVOJiHBW+VeQ==:117 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 X-Original-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 06:58:40 +0800 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Wing cuff videos From: John Smith X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Wing cuff videos In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3441077926_43940" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3441077926_43940 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable George, and anyone else who wants to see these=8A Just send me a personal email at john@jjts.net.au - then I will be able to send you a Drop Box Invitation to share / access a directory with these wing cuff videos. [I tried to to this on the LML site, but doesn't seem to work=8A.sorry] Regards, John =20 John N G Smith Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 Mobile: +61-409-372-975 Email: john@jjts.net.au From: George Wehrung Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Friday, 11 January 2013 1:01 AM To: Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins > John, >=20 > It seems they have taken down the videos. >=20 > George >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:45 AM, John Smith wrote: >=20 >> Hi George, >>=20 >> I originally downloaded the videos from a link proved to me by Lancair. = I've >> been trying it (see below) but the link is not valid =AD so I'm guessing t= he >> videos may have been removed. But have a try yourself =AD may work for you= ? I >> have the 5 videos (all of the Legacy FG) totalling 230MB. Not emailable = =AD but >> I can upload them somewhere via FTP if you like =AD can use Skype for this= , or >> other tools like coreFTP etc=8A just let me know and we'll make it happen >> somehow. >>=20 >> Below is what I was provided with in early 2009. >>=20 >> The cuffs improve the stall characteristics greatly. Take a look at the >> following: >> =20 >> www.lancair.com/legacy_cuff_test >> =20 >> Effectively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep stalls with fla= ps >> up, take off, down, 30 degree bank, and power on. The tests were condu= cted >> in some pretty bumpy conditions. There was no more than 5 degree roll o= ff >> without power and less than 10 degree roll off with power. >> =20 >> These tests were not conducted with the ventral. We are not looking to >> extend the rudder as of now. We are still investigating this though. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> John >>=20 >> =20 >> John N G Smith >> Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 >> Mobile: +61-409-372-975 >> Email: john@jjts.net.au >>=20 >>=20 >> From: George Wehrung >> Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List >> Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:34 PM >> To: >> Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins >>=20 >>> John,=20 >>>=20 >>> I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in parti= cular >>> if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chance, >>> doubtful but I thought I'd ask. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Sent from my iPhone >>>=20 >>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith wrote: >>>=20 >>>> From my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance. >>>>=20 >>>> Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair v= ideos >>>> of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuf= fs to >>>> the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to m= ake >>>> it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed too far in= to a >>>> spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable. So, if one acce= pts >>>> the view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin >>>> recoverable, there would only appear to be upside from installing the >>>> cuffs. The flaw is, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin >>>> recoverable without wing cuffs, then the addition of the wing cuffs ma= y >>>> preclude spin recovery! >>>>=20 >>>> Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any = other >>>> type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries ar= e >>>> possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, w= ith >>>> or without wing cuffs. >>>>=20 >>>> Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit= very >>>> limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB t= urns) >>>> in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warni= ng of >>>> the impending stall =AD stall strips give the first "gentle" warning", >>>> followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre se= ction >>>> drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are still >>>> flying). >>>>=20 >>>> I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this >>>> more=8A. numbers below, but please note time is UTC + 8!! >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>>=20 >>>> John >>>>=20 >>>> =20 >>>> John N G Smith >>>> Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 >>>> Mobile: +61-409-372-975 >>>> Email: john@jjts.net.au >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> From: >>>> Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List >>>> Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM >>>> To: >>>> Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Posted for "Peter Field" : >>>>>=20 >>>>> Dear Lancair Drivers: >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins and I want to= add >>>>> some additional factual information purely for your personal consump= tion >>>>> and >>>>> reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA fl= ight >>>>> test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluat= ed >>>>> the >>>>> use of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test >>>>> airplane >>>>> approaching the stall. For various reasons the cuffs improved later= al >>>>> control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabiliz= ing >>>>> the >>>>> aircraft once a fully developed spin was achieved. Essentially, sta= ll >>>>> behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery. Cuffs on w= ing >>>>> leading edges are an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is >>>>> "washout," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wi= ng >>>>> always operate at a lower angle of attack. >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft t= o a >>>>> fully developed spin matrix complete with appropriate instrumentatio= n and >>>>> a >>>>> spin recovery chute. There is no FAA requirement for them to do so = - >>>>> it's >>>>> an Experimental Category airplane. Early on they may have lightly >>>>> touched >>>>> on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully >>>>> completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at var= ious >>>>> cg's and lateral loadings. In my opinion, it would be highly risky = to >>>>> fool >>>>> around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentat= ion >>>>> that >>>>> indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one = turn >>>>> incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin. Being good at spi= n >>>>> recovery isn't so much a matter of how skillful a pilot you are, it'= s a >>>>> matter of how many spins you've experienced in airplanes known to be >>>>> recoverable. Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your = own >>>>> airplane should be a matter of personal preference. >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> =20 >>>>> Pete Field (LNC2) >>>>> =20 >>>>> USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> -- For archives and unsub >>>>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html >=20 --B_3441077926_43940 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
George, and anyone= else who wants to see these…  Just send me a personal email at &= nbsp;john@jjts.net.au  - then I will be able to send you a Drop Box Inv= itation to share / access a directory with these wing cuff videos. [I tried = to to this on the LML site, but doesn't seem to work….sorry]


Regards,

John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au
=

=
From= : George Wehrung <gw5@me.com><= br>Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <= ;lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Friday, 11 January 2013 1:01 AMTo: <lml@lancaironline.net>
S= ubject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins

John,
It seems they have taken down the videos.

George




On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:45 AM, John Smith <john@jjts.net.au> wrote:

Hi George,

<= div>I originally downloaded the videos from a link proved to me by Lancair. = I've been trying it (see below) but the link is not valid – so I'm gue= ssing the videos may have been removed. But have a try yourself – may = work for you?  I have the 5 videos (all of the Legacy FG) totalling 230= MB. Not emailable – but I can upload them somewhere via FTP if you lik= e – can use Skype for this, or other tools like coreFTP etc… jus= t let me know and we'll make it happen somehow.

Bel= ow is what I was provided with in early 2009.

The cuffs improve the stall characteri= stics greatly.  Take a look at the following:<= /div>
 
www.lancair= .com/legacy_cuff_test
 
Effectively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep sta= lls with flaps up, take off, down, 30 degree bank,  and power on. = The tests were conducted in some pretty bumpy conditions.  There was n= o more than 5 degree roll off without power and less than 10 degree roll off= with power.
 



Regards,

John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au


=
<= span style=3D"font-weight:bold">From: George Wehrung <gw5@me.com>
Reply-To= : Lancair Mailing List <lm= l@lancaironline.net>
Date: = Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:34 PM
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spi= ns

John, 

I would be interested in watc= hing some of the videos on the ES in particular if not the other airframes. = Are they posted on the Internet by chance, doubtful but I thought I'd ask.




Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith <john@jjts.net.au> wrote:

From my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance.
<= div>
Having researched the NASA material and having also seen = the Lancair videos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed= the wing cuffs to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opp= ortunity to make it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed= too far into a spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable= . So, if one accepts the view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft w= as not spin recoverable, there would only appear to be upside from installin= g the cuffs. The flaw is, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recov= erable without wing cuffs, then the addition of the wing cuffs may&nb= sp;preclude spin recovery!

Unless someone goes to t= he trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any other type fitted with cuffs, = one will never know whether spin recoveries are possible under what flight a= nd loading circumstances and, of course, with or without wing cuffs.

Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is tha= t the albeit very limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous= 30deg AoB turns) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is ple= nty of warning of the impending stall – stall strips give the first "g= entle" warning", followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as th= e centre section drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections= are still flying).

I'm happy to talk to anyone if = they are interested to talk about this more…. numbers below, but pleas= e note time is UTC + 8!!


Regards,

John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au


=
<= span style=3D"font-weight:bold">From: <marv@lancair.net>
Reply-To: <= /span> Lancair Mailing List <lml@l= ancaironline.net>
Date: Tue= sday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM
To: &= lt;lml>
Subject: [LML] Re: Stal= ls & Spins



Posted for "Peter Field" <pfield.avn@gmail.com>:

Dear Lancair Drivers:



I've been following the discussion= on stalls and spins and I want to add
some additional factual information purely for your personal consumption and
reflection. &= nbsp;Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight
test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated the
u= se of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  For various reasons the cuff= s improved lateral
control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft once a fully developed spin was ac= hieved.  Essentially, stall
behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery.  Cuffs on wing
leading edges are = an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is
"washout," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing
always operate at a l= ower angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin matrix comple= te with appropriate instrumentation and a
spin recovery chute.  There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's
= an Experimental Category airplane.  Early on they may have lightly touched
on such testing; but I have never seen any documentatio= n on a fully
completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at various
cg's and lateral loadings.  In my opinion, i= t would be highly risky to fool
around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation that
indicates any of these airplan= es can always be recovered from a one turn
incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin.  Being good at spin
recovery isn't so m= uch a matter of how skillful a pilot you are, it's a
matter of how many spins you've experienced in airplanes known to be
recoverable. &nb= sp;Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your own
airplane should be a matter of personal preference.  



B= est regards,

Pete Field (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor



-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
<= br> --B_3441077926_43940--