X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:08:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6421669 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:39:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=panelmaker@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Y2nqBJCTjqeqUQ1HJnGNSyucenMhBbCpHXOEvUBsoNAgwpFN4yBgpn+RU/4XbPwr; h=Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [209.173.71.64] (helo=COMPUTER1) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1VARjc-0000hW-6D for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:39:05 -0400 From: "Jim Nordin" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: Flaps on take-off? X-Original-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:39:07 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <6312D5A41CEF45019459AA24EE5C6C7E@COMPUTER1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A3_01CE9A9F.20C593E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Ac6arbqKfs+5ah1uSnKE/8Jjz7t1+wAGiZvg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-ELNK-Trace: bdfc62829fd2a80cc8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c2609ee6803a6b4e0989369b39182502830ec350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 209.173.71.64 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01CE9A9F.20C593E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You know Chris, I think that actually may have been what happened. If we were a little low on approach (and I might not have known what was comfortable to him) and close to the numbers, he actually may have = touched the throttle which made it die. I don=92t know as I was not watching his = hands that closely. Had tower asked we go around (there was no tower but I get = the point), it would indeed have been a bad experience =85 if for no other = reason that our shorts. Yes on the final landing check list. When we get comfortable, that is do things by memory, processes get lost or forgotten for an instant. Not = having his =93normal=94 co-pilot could have encouraged a memorized approach. = Not the best for sure. We are =96 each of us =96 not always mindful of our job. Jim _____ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Chris Zavatson Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:23 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Flaps on take-off? =20 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 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 7:49 AM Subject: [LML] Flaps on take-off? =20 He has a check list but there wasn=92t an =93enrichen=94 on elevation = letdown. Has one now. My plane also now has a similar check. Jim=20 =20 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? =20 Jim, 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.=20 Chris =20 From: Jim Nordin To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:39 PM Subject: [LML] Flaps on take-off? =20 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=92t prompt him with the verbal clues he needed. Very = close to touch down it just quit. No problem as we were only 100=B1 feet above = the ground and nearly at the numbers. Scary nonetheless =96 mostly after everything was on the ground and rolling out safely. He didn=92t waver = from the task of landing - engine or no. Jim =20 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? =20 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? 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. =20 Just my couple lira . . .=20 =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 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=20 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 = >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 >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 >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=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 >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=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 >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 >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 >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 >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 >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 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01CE9A9F.20C593E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You know Chris, I think that = actually may have been what happened. If we were a little low on approach (and I = might not have known what was comfortable to him) and close to the numbers, he = actually may have touched the throttle which made it die. I don=92t know as I was = not watching his hands that closely. Had tower asked we go around (there was = no tower but I get the point), it would indeed have been a bad experience = =85 if for no other reason that our shorts.

Yes on the final landing check list. = When we get comfortable, that is do things by memory, processes get lost or forgotten for an instant. Not having his =93normal=94 co-pilot could = have encouraged a memorized approach. Not the best for sure. We are =96 each = of us =96 not always mindful of our job.

Jim

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Chris Zavatson
Sent: Friday, August 16, = 2013 1:23 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Flaps = on take-off?

 

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=92t an =93enrichen=94 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?

 

Jim,

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. 

Chris

 

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=92t prompt him with the = verbal clues he needed. Very close to touch down it just quit. No problem as we were = only 100=B1 feet above the ground and nearly at the numbers. Scary = nonetheless =96 mostly after everything was on the ground and rolling out safely. He = didn=92t 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 =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?  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.

 

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=92t 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.n= et]
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,<= /font>

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<= /a>>:

> 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:&= nbsp; <lml@lancaironline.net>;&n= bsp; 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  

--

 

 

 

  =

 

------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01CE9A9F.20C593E0--