X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:23:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta16.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.211] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2777965 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:30 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.211; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com Received: from Laptop ([74.75.176.139]) by mta16.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.04 201-2131-123-105-20051025) with SMTP id <20080305121049.YKCB2695.mta16.adelphia.net@Laptop> for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:10:49 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <5181B5307D55402A8247FD75CD66B936@Laptop> From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Florida experimental accident X-Original-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:10:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0041_01C87E90.0DE3EA50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16480 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C87E90.0DE3EA50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There's not much that could be said without more details. I had one of = the first Velocity retracts and there have since been many new model = iterations and changes to the brake systems. In general though the Velocity was designed with a relatively weak nose = gear. The intent was to drop the nose to raise and protect the prop and = engine, also creating drag to slow the aircraft by grinding the = fuselage. I haven't been involved with Velocities for a number of years = but there were several accidents where the arrangement worked well, = stopping the plane and protecting the occupants with only minor damage. Another factor is that the nose wheel is fully castoring so that = lateral control is completely a matter of differential braking. If the = ground was soft clay or sand a wheel off the runway could whip the nose = sideways off the runway instantly. The nose gear would then collapse, = and as this happened at high speed, perhaps the nose simply dug in. Adding power to a canard would aggravate the problem as the thrust is = aft of CG, pushing rather than pulling. -Bill Wade ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gary Casey=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:28 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Florida experimental accident I've heard of this type of accident before - once was with a IVP. The = pilot apparently landed, got a wheel off the paving onto soft (softer at = least) ground and then elected to add power. None of our engines are = probably powerful enough to overcome the drag of a wheel on soft ground, = but I would certainly think that the drag of a locked wheel on paving is = enough to overcome most any yaw moment due to the soft ground. The = lesson I can think of is that this is one time where fast reflexes and = decisive action counts. A really hard application of differential = braking would possibly save the day. Application of power might only = increase the speed of the crash. Go-rounds after the plane is on the = ground don't generally seem to be a good idea. but what caused the = tumbling? A collapsed nose gear combined with a tall, short wheelbase = gear layout? If the nose gear collapsed the canard would increase the = downforce on the nose, while the tail of a conventional plane would = decrease it. Gary Casey From: "Douglas Brunner" Tragic accident, not sure what "take home" safety message is - if = any.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C87E90.0DE3EA50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  There's not much that could be = said without=20 more details. I had one of the first Velocity retracts and there have = since been=20 many new model iterations and changes to the brake systems.
 
 In general though the Velocity = was designed=20 with a relatively weak nose gear. The intent was to drop the nose = to raise=20 and protect the prop and engine, also creating drag to slow the aircraft = by=20 grinding the fuselage. I haven't been involved with Velocities for a = number of=20 years but there were several accidents where the arrangement worked = well,=20 stopping the plane and protecting the occupants with only minor=20 damage.
 
  Another factor is that the nose = wheel is=20 fully castoring so that lateral control is completely a matter of = differential=20 braking. If the ground was soft clay or sand a wheel off the runway = could=20 whip the nose sideways off the runway instantly. The nose gear would = then=20 collapse, and as this happened at high speed, perhaps the nose simply = dug=20 in.
 
  Adding power to a = canard would=20 aggravate the problem as the thrust is aft of CG, pushing rather than=20 pulling.
 
    -Bill = Wade
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gary=20 Casey
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 = 1:28=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Florida = experimental=20 accident

I've heard of this type of accident before - once was = with a=20 IVP.  The pilot apparently landed, got a wheel off the paving = onto soft=20 (softer at least) ground and then elected to add power.  None of = our=20 engines are probably powerful enough to overcome the drag of a wheel = on soft=20 ground, but I would certainly think that the drag of a locked wheel on = paving=20 is enough to overcome most any yaw moment due to the soft ground. =  The=20 lesson I can think of is that this is one time where fast reflexes and = decisive action counts.  A really hard application of = differential=20 braking would possibly save the day.  Application of power might = only=20 increase the speed of the crash.  Go-rounds after the plane is on = the=20 ground don't generally seem to be a good idea.  but what caused = the=20 tumbling?  A collapsed nose gear combined with a tall, short = wheelbase=20 gear layout?  If the nose gear collapsed the canard would = increase the=20 downforce on the nose, while the tail of a conventional plane would = decrease=20 it.

Gary Casey


From: "Douglas Brunner" <douglasbrunner@earthlink.net= >

Tragic accident, not sure what "take = home" safety=20 message is - if any. 

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C87E90.0DE3EA50--