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