X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:49 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nk11p08mm-asmtp002.mac.com ([17.158.58.247] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6014356 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:41:40 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=17.158.58.247; envelope-from=gw5@me.com MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_geswZXqP/MJksS1HiGoFew)" Received: from [10.55.208.98] (216-147-135-217.globalsat.net [216.147.135.217]) by nk11p08mm-asmtp002.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-26.01(7.0.4.26.0) 64bit (built Jul 13 2012)) with ESMTPSA id <0MGP00B4SBO95X90@nk11p08mm-asmtp002.mac.com> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:41:05 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2013-01-16_02:2013-01-16,2013-01-16,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1301150339 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Wing cuff videos References: From: George Wehrung X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) In-reply-to: X-Original-Message-id: <4822B2E1-5270-4A36-9B74-44F4D1D03BDD@me.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:13:59 +0430 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Boundary_(ID_geswZXqP/MJksS1HiGoFew) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thanks John. I also have Dropbox. I didn't have a chance to reply before you= r link came in. Thank you very much Sent from my iPad On Jan 15, 2013, at 17:16, John Smith wrote: > George, and anyone else who wants to see these=E2=80=A6 Just send me a pe= rsonal email at john@jjts.net.au - then I will be able to send you a Drop B= ox Invitation to share / access a directory with these wing cuff videos. [I t= ried to to this on the LML site, but doesn't seem to work=E2=80=A6.sorry] >=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: Friday, 11 January 2013 1:01 AM > To: > Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins >=20 > 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 =E2=80=93 so I'm gu= essing the videos may have been removed. But have a try yourself =E2=80=93 m= ay work for you? I have the 5 videos (all of the Legacy FG) totalling 230MB= . Not emailable =E2=80=93 but I can upload them somewhere via FTP if you lik= e =E2=80=93 can use Skype for this, or other tools like coreFTP etc=E2=80=A6= 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 f= ollowing: >> =20 >> www.lancair.com/legacy_cuff_test >> =20 >> Effectively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep stalls with flap= s up, take off, down, 30 degree bank, and power on. The tests were conduct= ed in some pretty bumpy conditions. There was no more than 5 degree roll of= f 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 e= xtend 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 particu= lar if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chance, d= oubtful 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 >>> =46rom my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance. >>>=20 >>> Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair vid= eos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuffs= to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to mak= e 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 t= he view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin recoverabl= e, there would only appear to be upside from installing the cuffs. The flaw i= s, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without wing cuf= fs, then the addition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin recovery! >>>=20 >>> Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any ot= her type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries are p= ossible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, with or w= ithout wing cuffs. >>>=20 >>> Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit v= ery limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB tur= ns) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warning= of the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give the first "gentle" warni= ng", followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre sec= tion drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are still f= lying). >>>=20 >>> I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this mo= re=E2=80=A6. 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 consumption= and >>> reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight= >>> test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated t= he >>> use of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airpla= ne >>> approaching the stall. For various reasons the cuffs improved lateral >>> control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing t= he >>> aircraft once a fully developed spin was achieved. 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 lower angle of attack. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a >>> fully developed spin matrix complete with appropriate instrumentation an= d 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 touch= ed >>> on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully >>> completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at various= >>> cg's and lateral loadings. In my opinion, it would be highly risky to f= ool >>> around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation t= hat >>> indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one turn= >>> incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin. Being good at spin >>> 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 >>>=20 >>> Best regards,=20 >>>=20 >>> Pete Field (LNC2) >>>=20 >>> USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/Lis= t.html >=20 --Boundary_(ID_geswZXqP/MJksS1HiGoFew) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks John. I also have D= ropbox. I didn't have a chance to reply before your link came in. Thank you v= ery much



Sent from my iPad

On= Jan 15, 2013, at 17:16, John Smith <= john@jjts.net.au> wrote:

George, and anyone else who wants to see these=E2=80= =A6  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=E2=80=A6.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>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Friday, 11 January 2013 1:01 AM
To: <lml@lancai= ronline.net>
Subject: [LM= L] Re: Stalls & Spins

John,

<= /div>
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,

=
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 =E2=80=93 so I'm g= uessing the videos may have been removed. But have a try yourself =E2=80=93 m= ay work for you?  I have the 5 videos (all of the Legacy FG) totalling 2= 30MB. Not emailable =E2=80=93 but I can upload them somewhere via FTP if you= like =E2=80=93 can use Skype for this, or other tools like coreFTP etc=E2=80= =A6 just let me know and we'll make it happen somehow.

<= div>Below is what I was provided with in early 2009.

The cuffs improve the s= tall characteristics greatly.  Take a look at the following:=
&nb= sp;
<= a href=3D"http://www.lancair.com/legacy_cuff_test" style=3D"color: blue; tex= t-decoration: underline; ">www.lancair.com/legacy_cuff_test
 = ;
Ef= fectively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep stalls with flaps up,= take off, down, 30 degree bank,  and power on.  The tests were co= nducted in some pretty bumpy conditions.  There was no more than 5 degr= ee roll off without power and less than 10 degree roll off with power.<= /o:p>
&= nbsp;
T= hese tests were not conducted with the ventral.  We are not looking to e= xtend the rudder as of now.  We are still investigating this though.



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>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:34 PM
To: <lml@lancairo= nline.net>
Subject: [LML]= Re: Stalls & Spins

John, 

<= div>I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in partic= ular if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chance, d= oubtful but I thought I'd ask.



<= br>Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith &l= t;john@jjts.net.au> wrote:
=46rom my perspective, the key ph= rase is spin resistance.

Having researched t= he NASA material and having also seen the Lancair videos of actual flight te= sting, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuffs to the Legacy on the b= asis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to make it harder to get into= trouble, but accepting that if pushed too far into a spin, then the aircraf= t may or may not be recoverable. So, if one accepts the view of many w= hich is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin recoverable, there would on= ly appear to be upside from installing the cuffs. The flaw is, of course, th= at if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without wing cuffs, then the add= ition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin recovery!
Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, o= r any other type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recover= ies are possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course,= with or without wing cuffs.

Meanwhile, per my prio= r post on this, all I can say is that the albeit very limited flight testing= (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB turns) in my Legacy fitted wi= th the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warning of the impending stall =E2= =80=93 stall strips give the first "gentle" warning", followed by the more s= evere intermittent "shuddering" as the centre section drops in and out of th= e stall (whilst the outboard sections are still flying).

I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this m= ore=E2=80=A6. numbers below, but please 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


From: <marv@lancair.net>
= Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Da= te: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM
To: <lml>
Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins



Posted for "Peter Field" <= pfield.avn@gmail.com>:
Dear Lancair Drivers:



I've been following the discussion o= n stalls and spins and I want to add
some additional factual information purely for your personal consumption and
reflection. &n= bsp;Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight
test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated the
us= e of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  For various reasons the cuffs= improved lateral
control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft once a fully developed spin was ach= ieved.  Essentially, stall
behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery.  Cuffs on wing
leading edges are a= n 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 lo= wer angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin matrix complet= e with appropriate instrumentation and a
spin recovery chute.  There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's
a= n 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 various
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 documentation that
indicates any of these airplane= s can always be recovered from a one turn
incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin.  Being good at spin
recovery isn't so mu= ch 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. &nbs= p;Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your own
airplane should be a matter of personal preference.  



Be= st regards,

Pete Field (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor



-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
=
= --Boundary_(ID_geswZXqP/MJksS1HiGoFew)--