Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:32:04 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1121493@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.197.155.165; envelope-from=rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com
Reply-To: <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>
From: "Rienk Ayers" <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <list-1121017@logan.com>

Tom,
Good points. I hope you see my other posts that allude to this as well.
I agree that the "desirability" of various handling characteristics is
completely subjective. What I am asserting is that the rating or value =
of
those characteristics are not - they are objective.

I happen to know the director of test flying for the Grumman Yankee, who
quite because - due to time constraints and investor pressure - they =
kept
coming up with bandages and wouldn't (couldn't?) properly fix the plane
before it was introduced. Obviously, the FAA certified it, but one only =
has
to look at the record to know that the plane had problems. Can a good =
pilot
still fly it? Of course. Can a good pilot learn to enjoy the given =
handling
characteristics of the plane? Again, yes.

Nonetheless, that does not make the plane stable or unstable. How many =
times
do I have to say it? Stability and control issues are mathematically
determined by calculating the derivatives. Those numbers do not change. =
The
only thing that is subjective is what the designer or pilots consider
acceptable.

What I am addressing is not "which plane is the most fun to fly?" That =
is
completely subjective, even without taking into consideration the =
different
mission profiles. I have several acquaintances who have had the =
privilege of
flying many types of planes. One would invariably say that flying a P51 =
is
the most fun he has ever had. On the other hand, he would also that the =
J-3
is the funnest plane to enjoy the "essence" of flying. Nor would he =
enjoy
flying anything off the water that wasn't a DeHaviland... This is one =
pilot
- who can't even make up his own mind! If we can't even exorcize all =
(but
one?) of the demons that plague this one pilot, how in the world can we =
get
any arbitrary group of pilots to agree? For goodness sake, you can't =
even
get a quorum on which Lancair is the best!

All that to say, I wish I could afford to be like Jay Leno and all his
cars... I wish I could justify a dozen different planes, all for =
different
reasons (and I have yet to meet a pilot that doesn't want at least =
three).
But as I'm sure you'd agree, there are way more planes that would never =
get
on our list, even if they were given to us. For you, it might be a 172. =
For
the Cessna drivers, it might be the Grumman. But to claim that they =
never
convinced you it was unstable is a bit naive... Did they ever show you =
the
stability numbers? Have you ever seen them? For that matter, have you =
ever
seen them for the Grumman?

I do not argue that you have the right to prefer, ask for, or fly a =
plane
with different stability and control numbers than any/every other plane.
What I do ask for is that you - and every other pilot - agree that we
compare known objective numbers.
I don't care what golf clubs you use or what balls you hit - some things
work better for some and not for others. But if you can put a golf ball =
in
some sort of testing apparatus, and determine which one flies farther,
higher, straighter, etc., you should then be able to have something to =
stake
a claim on.

I have been accused of not stating the facts, and offering nothing but
rhetoric. As if to say, just because I don't know the facts =
(derivatives)
about the Lancair that talking about derivatives should have no bearing =
on
the conversation (debate?). Such an assertion would be ludicrous. Though =
I
don't doubt you have much more fun in a Grumman than a Cessna, that =
really
isn't the point. However, you do get close by talking about the Legacy
having "better hands off stability than most certified planes I've =
flown."
Though that is still subjective, it gets close to where I am asking you =
all
to look. The next comment about it taking " a light touch to fly one
smoothly" is maybe more meaningful. After all, it is a rather
straightforward thing to change the control geometry such that there is =
more
movement needed to create the same amount of deflection (which brings up =
the
limitation of side sticks and some center sticks). But if by "light =
touch"
you mean that it is hard to dampen or stabilize the plane, because pilot
inputs are difficult to control - I would label that as "touchy" or
"twitchy" - both subjective terms. Regardless, there are actually =
"numbers"
for these variables that - glory be - can actually be "objectively" =
compared
to those of other aircraft.

Let me repeat: I do not claim that there are a certain set of "correct"
derivatives - to each their own. What I do claim is that such numbers =
can be
fairly compared to each other, and various aircraft can be ranked =
relative
to each other. It is up to the individual pilot to determine what they =
can
fly comfortably, let alone safely. In an ideal world, there would be as =
many
aircraft models as there are car models, so that each of us could have =
more
to choose from, to tailor to our particular wants, needs, and abilities. =


As has already been proven by Glassair, Lancair, Compare, etc., many =
pilots
would gladly give up their certified aircraft for planes with better
performance at the same price. I suspect that many/most pilots would =
also
gladly consider trading their current plane for one with similar =
performance
and price if it were easier or safer to fly. Frankly, we are betting on =
it
with the Envoy. As I said in my previous post, Lancair might double =
their
market if they did the same. Eventually, someone will... I just suggest =
that
Lancair beat them to the punch.

RA


-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of =
Tom
Gourley
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:11 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash


Rienk Ayers wrote:

>  Though I have flown an L4 and Columbia with the idea of buying one at =
=20
> different times, I do not have even an hour in each type, so I have no =

> way  to judge or compare the different models, let alone discern the=20
> stability  and control nuances - I just knew they were too twitchy for =

> me.

"Twitchy" is a highly subjective evaluation.  I learned to fly in a =
Grumman=20
AA-1B, a plane that evolved from the 2-seat American Yankee.  Since it =
was=20
the first airplane I ever flew, and the one in which I developed my =
flying=20
habits and reflexes, I had no problems with it.  Pilots who learned to =
fly=20
in 150s didn't like the little Grumman.  Most of them complained it was=20
twitchy and unstable.  I loved it.  It was light on the controls and =
very=20
responsive.  The first time I flew a Cessna 172 I thought it felt like a =

truck; a very unresponsive truck.  I've yet to fly in a an ES or LIV, =
but I=20
do have a little stick time in a Legacy.  To me it's not at all =
unstable. It

is responsive and precise but has better hands off stablity than most=20
certified airplanes I have flown.  It does requires a light touch to fly =
one

smoothly.

If you feel an airplane is "twitchy" then don't fly it.  On the other =
hand=20
don't try to convince pilots whose likes and dislikes are different from =

yours that there is something inherently wrong with their airplane of=20
choice.  The Cessna drivers never convinced me that the Grumman was=20
unstable, and I never convinced them that Cessnas are trucks.

Tom Gourley
Legacy Builder

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 4:45 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash


> Posted for "Rienk Ayers" <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>:
>
>  Jeff,
>  you are probably right about the Lancairs in question being the older =

> two  seat variants.  Again, I was just quoting him, and I gave a good=20
> enough  reference that anyone could read the whole article themselves. =
=20
> Though I have flown an L4 and Columbia with the idea of buying one at  =

> different times, I do not have even an hour in each type, so I have no =

> way  to judge or compare the different models, let alone discern the=20
> stability  and control nuances - I just knew they were too twitchy for =

> me. Only a  qualified engineer could legitimately compare the numbers=20
> (derivatives) or
>  an unbiased test pilot be able to discern the differences. My =
opinions=20
> are
>  based upon feedback from qualified people, including professional=20
> engineers
>  and test pilots who have flown the Lancairs - and that is as much as =
I'm
>  going to say about that.
>  My level of expertise has nothing to do with this issue - the numbers =

> speak
>  for themselves. I have yet to hear from a Lancair builder/pilot who =
even
>  knows what derivatives are, let alone what they mean, and what the=20
> numbers
>  actually are for any model of Lancair. To be fair, I sincerely doubt =
that
>  most designers and manufacturers even know either. But if I were an
>  owner/builder, I would sure hope that someone could give me the =
answers -

> at
>  least the theoretical numbers that were calculated in the design =
process
>  (only wind tunnel testing can completely verify them). don't =
inquiring=20
> minds
>  want to know?
>  Yes, you could simply say that you've flown an airplane, you can live =

> with
>  it's bad characteristics (if any), and make sure you don't "fall of =
the
>  wall."
>  But if you will recall, this thread got started when Allen Adamson=20
> wondered,
>  "what can be done to create a safer lancair record."
>  My suggestion? Don't just teach gymnastics - rather, shorten the =
wall.
>  RA
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>=20


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/


--=20
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 5/19/2006
=20

--=20
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 5/19/2006
=20