X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 21:39:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost01.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6420373 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:20:42 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.101; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-98-85-141-180.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.141.180]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc01) with SMTP id <20130816002004H0100qeu1le>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:20:04 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [98.85.141.180] From: "Bill Bradburry" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: FW: [LML] Flaps on take-off? X-Original-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:20:06 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <5A0EB1FD67AA4F698D89A8628AA01774@Desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE99F4.D5419CC0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 Thread-Index: Ac6aBl2IwvSYKHVGQ2Wbf1943NoSbgADm1Mg This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE99F4.D5419CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert, I suppose you could run out of gas, but I think the reason for the exercise was to teach the pilot how far the plane would glide with power off in case he was trying to make a farmers field in a real emergency. I think you would be surprised about the feathered prop. I was trying to change my landing technique the other day by changing the prop to a coarse setting while in the pattern and locking it in that setting. I had to give it up because when the plane got into ground effect, it just glided the entire length of the runway and would not stop flying! Then when I added power to do a go around, the plane didn't want to fly because of the lack of power from the coarse prop. I was trying this because I didn't think I liked the fact that the plane would slow down so fast with the prop in fine pitch when I pulled the power back. I have now decided that I like it fine! :>) B2 _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Lancair-ESP Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:25 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: FW: [LML] Flaps on take-off? Bill, What you describe is certainly a possible scenario - actually that sounds like my typical arrival. With the engine pulled back to 10-12" 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? 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 - choose an alternate spot. Just my couple lira . . . Robert From: Bill Bradburry [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:06 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: RE: [LML] FW: [LML] Flaps on take-off? Robert, 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't recommend you coarse pitch the prop since you may need to add power for the go around. 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? Bill, I practiced that maneuver with a Lancair company pilot flying my ES-P and found it a non-event. 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. I realize the IV would take different speeds but it should still be do-able with a little practice. Robert ES-P N301ES From: Bill Bradburry [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:26 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: 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 _____ 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? Matt, I agree with the others that w's insults are inexcusable, but I must ask a question. What do you do if your low over the departure end of the runway and the engine quits? 1. Land at high speed flaps up. 2. Lower the flaps and deal with the big trim and pitch change while making all the other decisions and actions required in parallel. 3. ? Regards, Bill Hannahan wfhannahan@yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "marv@lancair.net" To: lml Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Flaps on take-off? Posted for Matt losangeles : > I feel much safer adding 5 knots or so on the ground before I lift off so I >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 > 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 ; To: ; Subject: > [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 >To: lml 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 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE99F4.D5419CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robert,

=

I suppose you could run out of gas, = but I think the reason for the exercise was to teach the pilot how far the plane = would glide with power off in case he was trying to make a farmers field in a = real emergency.

 

I think you would be surprised = about the feathered prop.  I was trying to change my landing technique the = other day by changing the prop to a coarse setting while in the pattern and = locking it in that setting.  I had to give it up because when the plane got into = ground effect, it just glided the entire length of the runway and would not = stop flying!  Then when I added power to do a go around, the plane = didn’t want to fly because of the lack of power from the coarse = prop.

 

I was trying this because I = didn’t think I liked the fact that the plane would slow down so fast with the prop in = fine pitch when I pulled the power back.  I have now decided that I like = it fine!  :>)

 

B2

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Lancair-ESP
Sent: Thursday, August = 15, 2013 6:25 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: FW: = [LML] Flaps on take-off?

 

Bill,

 <= /o:p>

What you = describe is certainly a possible scenario – actually that sounds like my = typical arrival.  With the engine pulled back to 10-12” and a = windmilling prop the decent rate should be similar zero power and a feathered prop. =  

 <= /o:p>

But how = likely is an engine that fails in the close pattern after a cross-country = flight?  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 – choose an alternate spot.

 <= /o:p>

Just my = couple lira . . .

 <= /o:p>

Robert<= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

From: Bill = Bradburry [mailto:bbradburry@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August = 14, 2013 2:06 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: RE: [LML] FW: = [LML] Flaps on take-off?

 

Robert,

=

 

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’t recommend you coarse pitch the prop since you may need to = add power for the go around.

 

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?

 

Bill,

 <= /o:p>

I practiced = that maneuver with a Lancair company pilot flying my ES-P and found it a non-event. 

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. 

 <= /o:p>

I realize = the IV would take different speeds but it should still be do-able with a little practice.

 <= /o:p>

Robert<= /o:p>

ES-P = N301ES

 <= /o:p>

 

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

 

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?

 

Matt, I agree with the others that w's insults are inexcusable, but I must ask a question.

 

What do you do if your low over = the departure end of the runway and the engine = quits?

 

1.  Land at high speed flaps = up.

 

2.   Lower the flaps = and deal with the big trim and pitch change while making all the other decisions = and actions required in parallel.

 

3.   = ?

 

Regards,

Bill Hannahan

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "marv@lancair.net" <marv@lancair.net>
To: lml <lml>
Sent: Monday, August 12, = 2013 4:02 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Flaps = on take-off?

 




Posted for Matt losangeles <mattinlosangeles@yahoo.com= >:

> I feel much safer adding 5 knots or so on the ground before I lift = off so I
>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:&nbs= p; <lml@lancaironline.net>; = ; Subject:
> [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  

--
<= pre style=3D'background:white'> 
For archives and unsub http://mail=
.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

 

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE99F4.D5419CC0--