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
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