|
|
Jim, I was more concerned about the final landing checklist which would have caught the mixture. Worst scenario is when there is enough fuel for the engine at low power/idle, but not for full throttle. i.e. Tower tells you to go around. You throttle up and that promptly kills the engine. Chris
From: Jim Nordin
<panelmaker@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 7:49 AM
Subject: [LML] Flaps on take-off?
He has a check list but there wasn’t an “enrichen”
on elevation letdown. Has one now.
My plane also now has a similar check.
Jim
From: Lancair Mailing
List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of Chris Zavatson
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 7:00
AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Flaps on
take-off?
Now
that is worrisome. I suggest your friend write up a landing checklist (GUMPF w/o the U at a minimum) such
that he can fly with any given co-pilot or none at all. The plane should
have been configured for a go-around. -good thing you didn't need
one.
From: Jim Nordin <panelmaker@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013
6:39 PM
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.
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?
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 . . .
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
--
|
|