My next door hangar mate was practicing
ILS approaches at night and forgot to put on carb heat. He wound up in an
orange grove. Destroyed his RV-6 but no one injured.
B2
From:
Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Nordin
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013
9:39 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Flaps on take-off?
I know how an engine fails in the close
pattern environment. Decent from altitude and forget to richen the engine.
Happened to a friend while I was in the plane (ES) as copilot. Why did it
happen? His wife normally is co-pilot and I didn’t prompt him with the
verbal clues he needed. Very close to touch down it just quit. No problem as we
were only 100± feet above the ground and nearly at the numbers. Scary
nonetheless – mostly after everything was on the ground and rolling out
safely. He didn’t waver from the task of landing - engine or no.
Jim
From:
Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Lancair-ESP
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013
5:25 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
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
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
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.
-----
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: <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
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html