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