X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6420395 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:59:01 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=YgbMcpBmy8RPonWUxIARbK3W9ayxVPYCuX9KqQLa2RCn4E1Tbyfh8nzduj/aKg2g; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [72.92.134.55] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1VA8N0-0001n4-0i for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:58:26 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-46-1023030753 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FW: [LML] Flaps on take-off? Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:58:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Message-Id: <8314E3CB-27F2-4DB5-9883-F678EAAB4737@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940a1554c0519ec791985597e85198e84c6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 72.92.134.55 --Apple-Mail-46-1023030753 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Aug 15, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Lancair-ESP wrote: Bill, =20 What you describe is certainly a possible scenario =96 actually that = sounds like my typical arrival. With the engine pulled back to 10-12=94 = and a windmilling prop the decent rate should be similar zero power and = a feathered prop. =20 =20 But how likely is an engine that fails in the close pattern after a = cross-country flight? I've had it happen. More likely something would go afoul enroute, when the pilot could = select a landing spot and arrive 2000 ft above it. If not able to = arrive 2000 ft agl =96 choose an alternate spot. if the ceiling is lower = you don't get that choice. there's one on the record just like that. =20 Just my couple lira . . . =20 Robert =20 From: Bill Bradburry [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:06 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: RE: [LML] FW: [LML] Flaps on take-off? =20 Robert, =20 You should try it under conditions that are more likely to be the case.=20= =20 Descend to pattern altitude, 1000 ft AGL, slow to pattern speed, and = idle the engine abeam the numbers and see if you can make it =20 I recommend you idle the engine and not kill it, because I would be = surprised if you do make it. I also don=92t recommend you coarse pitch = the prop since you may need to add power for the go around. =20 Bill From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Lancair-ESP Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:18 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] FW: [LML] Flaps on take-off? =20 Bill, =20 I practiced that maneuver with a Lancair company pilot flying my ES-P = and found it a non-event.=20 Overhead upwind at 2000 ft agl and slowing to pattern speed in the turn. No flaps until over the fence then deployed everything and aimed for 1/3 = down the runway.=20 =20 I realize the IV would take different speeds but it should still be = do-able with a little practice. =20 Robert ES-P N301ES =20 From: Bill Bradburry [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:26 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: RE: [LML] Flaps on take-off? =20 That seems a scenario where you would be in better shape with the flaps = up. You very well might make the runway. With flaps down, you likely = would not and it would be very dangerous to try and retract them. With = the high wing loading that all the Lancairs have, they are flying bricks = with no power. I think almost nobody makes the approach to land with no = power. Remember way back in primary training when the instructor had you remove = power abeam the numbers and make the landing without having to add = power? Does anyone practice that maneuver with their Lancair? =20 Bill B =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Bill Hannahan Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:33 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Flaps on take-off? =20 Matt, I agree with the others that w's insults are inexcusable, but I = must ask a question. =20 What do you do if your low over the departure end of the runway and the = engine quits? =20 1. Land at high speed flaps up. =20 2. Lower the flaps and deal with the big trim and pitch change while = making all the other decisions and actions required in parallel. =20 3. ? =20 Regards, Bill Hannahan wfhannahan@yahoo.com =20 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "marv@lancair.net" To: lml =20 Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Flaps on take-off? =20 Posted for Matt losangeles : > I feel much safer adding 5 knots or so on the ground before I lift off = so I=20 >don't have to mess with trim when I am low to the ground. I could see a=20= >scenario where I take off IFR and I am immediately handed off to = departure=20 >control while I am putting the flaps up. They tell me to do something = the=20 >requires me to look at my map and the next thing you know, while = distracted,=20 > I am at an unusual attitude really close to the ground. When I am down = low=20 >like that I want to make sure if I am distracted it isn't a problem, = the=20 >plane just keeps on climbing along at Vy or so. > =20 > I also would guess if you use flaps on take off, this adds drag and = slows=20 >your rate of climb (I have not tested this). I am able to be at Vy a = couple=20 >seconds after take off and I am going to get to a safer altitude before = the=20 >guy using flaps (again, this is my guess since I have not tested the = two=20 >scenarios). > =20 > Another thing. It is an experimental aircraft. As it states on the=20 >EAA, "There is no FAA approved flight manual or POH for experimental=20= >aircraft, nor is there a TC". =20 > =20 > Ohh, what about those reno racer Legacy aircraft that have just bonded = thier=20 >flaps in place so they can't go down in order to eliminate the drag of = the=20 >hindges. I guess they are not flying those aircraft the way they were = meant=20 >to be flown. You could argue they are reno racers I suppose. It is also=20= >likely they are using those planes the other 51 weeks out of the year = to fly=20 >all over the place and those planes don't seem to be crashing on = takeoff. > =20 > "I believe everyone would agree that flaps do add a margin of safety" > I personally consider myself part of everyone and I don't agree that = flaps=20 >do in fact add a margin of safety on take off. I use them on landing so = I can=20 >see out the window and out of habit I suppose. If the speed you land at = makes=20 >such a difference, then the best thing to be doing is flying a plane = that=20 >lands at a slower speed. > =20 > Perhaps if we were all 100 hour pilots, blindly following the POH = makes=20 >sense. It is funny, I remember having this EXACT same argument on a = Mooney=20 >board. I used to take off without flaps when I had a Mooney and I heard = the=20 >same thing there. Follow the POH explicitly or you are completely = reckless=20 >and should have your license taken away. At least those Mooney guys had = a=20 >point. That was a certified aircraft with a POH that said to take off = with=20 >flaps. > =20 > Something else to consider, if flaps are so critical to flight on our=20= >planes, why on earth don't they have a back up system to ensure they = always=20 >go down when needed like our landing gear has? My guess is because the = plane=20 >will fly just fine without them. > =20 > Matt >=20 >=20 > ________________________________ > From: Art Jensen > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 1:46 PM > Subject: [LML] Re: To Marv > =20 > Maybe Wolfgang was short on political correctness, but the truth = remains=20 >that if you cannot or do not fly the plane as it was meant to be flown = then=20 >you should not be flying that plane.=20 >=20 > I believe everyone would agree that flaps do add a margin of safety = and=20 >should be used for take-off and landing as per your POH and I believe = every=20 >instructor giving training in a Lancair would agree. If an instructor=20= >reading this disagrees, please share why you disagree with me. >=20 > Art >=20 > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad =20 >=20 >=20 > ________________________________ > From: steve ; To: ; = Subject:=20 > [LML] Re: To Marv Sent: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 5:39:28 PM =20 > I second your post. I am surprised by the comment.=20 >=20 > steve alderman N25SA 360=20 >=20 > .=20 > -----Original Message----- From: Claudette Colwell = =20 >To: lml Sent: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 5:43 am = Subject:=20 >[LML] To Marv =20 > It is very regretful the comment from Wolfgang apparently directed to = Matt=20 >appeared on the LML. This has always been a constructive exchange of=20= >information and ideas. That type of personal comment is not in keeping = with=20 >the spirit of cooperative sharing of information.=20 > =20 > Claudette =20 -- =20 For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html =20 --Apple-Mail-46-1023030753 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
On Aug 15, 2013, at 6:25 PM, = Lancair-ESP wrote:

What = you describe is certainly a possible scenario =96 actually that sounds = like my typical arrival.  With the engine pulled back to 10-12=94 = and a windmilling prop the decent rate should be similar zero power and = a feathered prop.  
 
But how likely is an engine that = fails in the close pattern after a cross-country flight? =  I've = had it happen.
More = likely something would go afoul enroute, when the pilot could select a = landing spot and arrive 2000 ft above it.  If not able to arrive = 2000 ft agl =96 choose an alternate spot. if the ceiling is lower you don't get that = choice.   there's one on the record just like = that.
Just = my couple lira . . .
 
From: Bill Bradburry = [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 = 2:06 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subj= ect: RE: [LML] FW: = [LML] Flaps on take-off?
 
You should try it = under conditions that are more likely to be the = case. 
Descend to pattern = altitude, 1000 ft AGL, slow to pattern speed, and idle the engine abeam = the numbers and see if you can make it
 
I recommend you idle the engine and not kill = it, because I would be surprised if you do make it.  I also don=92t = recommend you coarse pitch the prop since you may need to add power for = the go around.
From: Bill Bradburry [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 = 9:26 AM
To:  RE: [LML] Flaps on = take-off?
That seems a scenario = where you would be in better shape with the flaps up.  You very = well might make the runway.  With flaps down, you likely would not = and it would be very dangerous to try and retract them.  With the = high wing loading that all the Lancairs have, they are flying bricks = with no power.  I think almost nobody makes the approach to land = with no power.
Remember way back = in primary training when the instructor had you remove power abeam the = numbers and make the landing without having to add power?  Does = anyone practice that maneuver with their = Lancair?
Bill = B




Posted for Matt losangeles = < 
>don't have to mess = with trim when I am low to the ground. I could see a 
>scenario where I = take off IFR and I am immediately handed off to departure 
>control while I am = putting the flaps up. They tell me to do something the 
>requires me to look = at my map and the next thing you know, while distracted, 
> I am at an = unusual attitude really close to the ground. When I am down low 
>like that I want to = make sure if I am distracted it isn't a problem, the 
>plane just keeps on = climbing along at Vy or so.
>  
> I also would guess if = you use flaps on take off, this adds drag and slows 
>your rate of climb = (I have not tested this). I am able to be at Vy a couple 
>seconds after take = off and I am going to get to a safer altitude before the 
>guy using flaps = (again, this is my guess since I have not tested the two 
>scenarios).
> =  
> Another thing. It is an experimental aircraft. As it = states on the 
>EAA, "There = is  no FAA approved flight manual or POH for experimental 
>aircraft, nor is = there a  TC".  
>  
> = Ohh, what about those reno racer Legacy aircraft that have just bonded = thier 
>flaps in = place so they can't go down in order to eliminate the drag of the 
>hindges. I guess = they are not flying those aircraft the way they were meant 
>to be flown. You = could argue they are reno racers I suppose. It is also 
>likely they are = using those planes the other 51 weeks out of the year to fly 
>all over the place = and those planes don't seem to be crashing on takeoff.
> =  
> "I believe everyone would agree that flaps do add a = margin of safety"
>  I personally consider myself part of = everyone and I don't agree that flaps 
>do in fact add a = margin of safety on take off. I use them on landing so I can 
>see out the window = and out of habit I suppose. If the speed you land at makes 
>such a difference, = then the best thing to be doing is flying a plane that 
>lands at a slower = speed.
>  
> Perhaps if we were all 100 hour pilots, = blindly following the POH makes 
>sense. It is funny, = I remember having this EXACT same argument on a Mooney 
>board. I used to = take off without flaps when I had a Mooney and I heard the 
>same thing there. = Follow the POH explicitly or you are completely reckless 
>and should have = your license taken away. At least those Mooney guys had a 
>point. That was a = certified aircraft with a POH that said to take off with 
>flaps.
> =  
> Something else to consider, if flaps are so critical to = flight on our 
>planes, why on = earth don't they have a back up system to ensure they always 
>go down when needed = like our landing gear has? My guess is because the plane 
>will fly just fine = without them.
>  
> Matt
> 
> 
> = ________________________________
> From: Art Jensen <flycassutts@yahoo.com>
> = To: lml@lancaironline.net 
> Sent: Monday, = August 12, 2013 1:46 PM
> Subject: [LML] Re: To = Marv
>  
> Maybe Wolfgang was short on political = correctness, but the truth remains 
>that if you cannot = or do not fly the plane as it was meant to be flown then 
>you should not be = flying that plane. 
> 
> I believe everyone = would agree that flaps do add a margin of safety and 
>should be used for = take-off and landing as per your POH and I believe every 
>instructor giving = training in a Lancair would agree.  If an instructor 
>reading this = disagrees, please share why you disagree with me.
> 
> Art
> 
> Sent from Yahoo! = Mail for iPad  
> 
> 
> = ________________________________
> From:  steve <n5276j@aol.com>;  To:  < 
> [LML] Re: To = Marv  Sent:  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 5:39:28 = PM    
> I second your post. I am surprised by = the comment. 
> 
> steve = alderman   N25SA  360 
> 
> . 
> -----Original = Message----- From: Claudette Colwell <colwell.ch@gmail.com> 
>To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net> Sent: Mon, = Aug 12, 2013 5:43 am Subject: 
>[LML] To = Marv  
> It is very regretful the comment from Wolfgang = apparently directed to Matt 
>appeared on the = LML.  This has always been a constructive exchange of 
>information and = ideas.  That type of personal comment is not in keeping with 
>the spirit of = cooperative sharing of information. 
>   
> = Claudette  

--
For archives and unsub