X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:41:50 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nk11p08mm-asmtp001.mac.com ([17.158.58.246] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6015230 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:40:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=17.158.58.246; envelope-from=gw5@me.com MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_IDireuHjxL7R/xiseqHj8A)" Received: from [10.55.208.98] (216-147-135-217.globalsat.net [216.147.135.217]) by nk11p08mm-asmtp001.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-26.01(7.0.4.26.0) 64bit (built Jul 13 2012)) with ESMTPSA id <0MGQ002DM8Y0OW00@nk11p08mm-asmtp001.mac.com> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:39:45 +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_05:2013-01-16,2013-01-16,1970-01-01 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-1301160137 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Wing cuff videos References: From: George Wehrung X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) In-reply-to: X-Original-Message-id: <86F54923-97AC-4C03-BD5C-28C7BF908870@me.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:12:39 +0430 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Boundary_(ID_IDireuHjxL7R/xiseqHj8A) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Any ES videos? Sent from my iPad On Jan 16, 2013, at 20:29, John Smith wrote: > No prob; but these are not my work; these are the product of Lancair's tes= t flying. They seemed, to me at least, to be a good demonstration of what th= ese devices can do. Anyways, they were clearly not attempting to test the l= imits per that recent post about the "Cirrus crash analysis" where the unfor= tunate loss of flight control occurred with AoB up to 60deg and low power se= ttings at about 200ft AGL. >=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: Wednesday, 16 January 2013 9:32 PM > To: > Subject: [LML] Re: Wing cuff videos >=20 > John, >=20 > Those are some pretty interesting stall series. Thanks for sharing the vi= deos. >=20 > George >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Jan 15, 2013, at 5:16 PM, John Smith wrote: >=20 >> George, and anyone else who wants to see these=E2=80=A6 Just send me a p= ersonal 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]= >>=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= 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 conduc= ted 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 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 partic= ular 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 vi= deos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuff= s to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to ma= ke 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 o= ther type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries are= possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, with o= r without 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 m= ore=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 ad= d >>>> some additional factual information purely for your personal consumptio= n and >>>> reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA fligh= t >>>> 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 airpl= ane >>>> 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 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 a= nd a >>>> spin recovery chute. There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - i= t's >>>> an Experimental Category airplane. Early on they may have lightly touc= hed >>>> on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully >>>> completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at variou= s >>>> 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= that >>>> indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one tur= n >>>> 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/Li= st.html >>=20 >=20 --Boundary_(ID_IDireuHjxL7R/xiseqHj8A) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Any ES videos?
<= br>


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2013, at 20= :29, John Smith <john@jjts.net.au= > wrote:

No prob; but these are not my work; these are the product of Lancair's= test flying. They seemed, to me at least, to be a good demonstration of wha= t these devices can do.  Anyways, they were clearly not attempting to t= est the limits per that recent post about the "Cirrus crash analysis" where t= he unfortunate loss of flight control occurred with AoB up to 60deg and low p= ower settings at about 200ft AGL.

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: Wednesday, 16 January 2013 9:32 PM
To: <lml@lan= caironline.net>
Subject: [= LML] Re: Wing cuff videos

John,

<= /div>
Those are some pretty interesting stall series.  Thanks for s= haring the videos.

George

=


On Jan 15, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Joh= n Smith <john@jjts.net.au> wro= te:

<= div style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-b= reak: after-white-space; font-size: 11px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; "= >
George, and anyone else who wants to see these=E2=80=A6  Jus= t send me a personal email at  john= @jjts.net.au  - then I will be able to send you a Drop Box Invitati= on 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@lancairo= nline.net>
Subject: [LML]= Re: Stalls & Spins

John,

It seems they have taken down the videos.

George=




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

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
Hi George,

I o= riginally downloaded the videos from a link proved to me by Lancair. I've be= en trying it (see below) but the link is not valid =E2=80=93 so I'm guessing= the videos may have been removed. But have a try yourself =E2=80=93 may wor= k 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 like= =E2=80=93 can use Skype for this, or other tools like coreFTP etc=E2=80=A6 j= ust let me know and we'll make it happen somehow.

B= elow is what I was provided with in early 2009.

The cuffs improve the stal= l characteristics greatly.  Take a look at the following:
 =
 
Effec= tively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep stalls with flaps up, ta= ke 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 r= oll off without power and less than 10 degree roll off with power.
&n= bsp;
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_IDireuHjxL7R/xiseqHj8A)--