X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:58 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail1.btc-bci.com ([208.25.96.26] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5996160 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:32:45 -0500 Received-SPF: error receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.25.96.26; envelope-from=dwills@glbelt.com Received: from DaleVAIO (SWM-HIGH-SPEED4-211.btc-bci.com [216.176.19.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.btc-bci.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r054WAWp016973 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:32:10 -0500 From: "DW laptop" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: stalls X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:32:09 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <02e701cdeafd$a03955f0$e0ac01d0$@glbelt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02E8_01CDEAD3.B7676CA0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIDMliy1XR/XsEe/SYpSRkjDc99DZfPi9RQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02E8_01CDEAD3.B7676CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Very good information, my thoughts are similar, and you have also = mentioned maybe wearing a personal chute. I am building a 360 and this = has crossed my mind as well. I have been trying to determine if in fact = I could even open the canopy (forward hinge) at all in flight, to exit = in an emergency situation.=20 =20 Dwills =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Jarrett Johnson Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 2:02 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: stalls =20 This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned, there = is no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thick of = things in past discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers this = time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see = [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but = not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix: =20 1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall = training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training = every year while training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP = that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to max = torque and hold the pitch angle.. it immediately transitions from many = hundreds fpm of decent to a couple thousand fpm of climb.. a really = interesting experience compared to the same thing in a single [push, = power, recover]. 2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in = getting your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo spins = and has to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember the last = time I heard of a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been many = years.=20 3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training = curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine = [I've got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the = breeze] and an approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine = in-op] and signed off as completed before you'll get your ride approval = to take your flight test. Again, I can't remember the last time I heard = of a twin engine training accident due to single engine ops [in Canada]. 4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] is = false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being signed = off an 'released' for production. All pilots in training then fly these = maneuvers while doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the = tested results]. If you think that once you get your Airline Transport = License your done w/ stall/approach to stall training for the rest of = your flying career, your mistaken. =20 I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these planes, = is saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, approach to = stall and recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my opinion, = valuable training/testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, while = everyone avoids the stall side of the envelope, this doesn't mean the = plane can't or won't [at some point] get to that flight condition. To = think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic like' thinking [when they = calculated how many life boats and vests they needed]. =20 The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are not safe in = the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the PC-12 = [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it = a STOL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at = 285knts, land at less than 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it = ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher = performance aircraft out there that fly well in all corners of the = envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mandate was speed at all = costs and the limited nature of the R&D program to clean these issues up = were not pushed as far as they maybe could have been, at least if they = had people would have a better "jumping off point" to tame the stalls of = their individual aircraft. Couple this with the small variances plane to = plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you = get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's = not 'tameable' or correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected. =20 I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my = duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I = convince someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the = testing than possibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter = [both of which have been 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the = 425] or my wife or my mother or father etc etc. I want my family to = enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe about it if I didn't = fully vet it and test those [potentially] darker corners of the = envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an 'incident' which = snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'loss of life' I'm not = 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride down to 0 from 10,000ft = while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a = family member along for the ride.. that's the stuff of = nightmares..] =20 In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a = 'ride' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at both = ends of the envelope prior to their experience. At least tested to the = stall point [not nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it but = at least know where it stalls and how it recovers etc] and to Vne [plus = the required margin] to ensure there is no flutter at that end of the = spectrum either. Most of these planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr = test period, what else is there to do for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm = test zone? =20 If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane but = just go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way you see = fit. =20 I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go as = far as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a = personal chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple times] that = is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progress' for years.. = sigh... ] =20 Jarrett Johnson 235/320 55% [and currently holding] =20 On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey = wrote: I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this = controversy, but here are a couple of observations: Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-altitude = engine-out proficiency. That requirement was dropped and the overall = safety improved. Years ago, spin demonstrations were required and then = dropped - safety improved. Another observation: All that have sided = with stall training have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the = center). I doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a = centered ball. I haven't stalled my ES. Gary Casey =20 On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" < = superdmp@sonic.net> wrote: I have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls altogether = in my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin accident information, = I just don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground = effect for the half second it takes to make it into the green after = wheels up; on landing, I approach well above stall for my flap = configuration, and let the speed bleed off only a few feet above the = threshold. During normal flight, I don't even get near a typical slow = flight speed. Too many variables in a home built airplane with no = precise envelope, a header tank that is PROBABLY where I think it is, = but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if the gauge is stuck; possible = extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy rain). =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_02E8_01CDEAD3.B7676CA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Very good information, my thoughts are similar, and you have also = mentioned maybe wearing a personal chute. I am building a 360 and this = has crossed my mind as well. I have been trying to determine if in fact = I could even open the canopy (forward hinge) at all in flight, to exit = in an emergency situation.

 

Dwills

 

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Jarrett Johnson
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 2:02 = PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = stalls

 

This certainly isn't a new = discussion and like Gary has mentioned, there is no single silver bullet = to answer it. I've been in the thick of things in past discussions but = have tried to stay in the bleachers this time and observe the = discussion. A couple clarifications that I see [keep in mind I'm = Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but not by much] and = some-more 'opinion' to add to the = mix:

 

1-It was mentioned that = pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall training,which [in = Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training every year while = training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP that I fly [for = work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to max torque and hold the = pitch angle.. it immediately transitions from many hundreds fpm of = decent to a couple thousand fpm of climb.. a really interesting = experience compared to the same thing in a single [push, power, = recover].

2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training = is a required step in getting your private license, including w/ an = instructor and solo spins and has to be demonstrated on the flight = test. I can't remember the last time I heard of a spin training accident = [in Canada], it's been many years.

3-In Canada low alt = single engine ops are part of the multi training curriculum, including a = complete shutdown and restart of the engine [I've got pic's of my = training, prop feathered and hanging out in the breeze] and an approach = AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and signed = off as completed before you'll get your ride approval to take your = flight test. Again, I can't remember the last time I heard of a twin = engine training accident due to single engine ops [in = Canada].

4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in = slow flight [and slower] is false as well, all of these jets are fully = tested before being signed off an 'released' for production. All pilots = in training then fly these maneuvers while doing type training [in = simulators which duplicate the tested results]. If you think that once = you get your Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach = to stall training for the rest of your flying career, your = mistaken.

 

I don't think anyone = on the list advocating stall testing these planes, is = saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, = approach to stall and recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my = opinion, valuable training/testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, = while everyone avoids the stall side of the envelope, this doesn't mean = the plane can't or won't [at some point] get to that flight condition. = To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic like' thinking [when = they calculated how many life boats and vests they = needed].

 

The 'blanket = perspective' that high performance aircraft are not safe in the = slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the PC-12 [Cruise at = 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it a STOL = airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, = land at less than 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it ain't = vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher = performance aircraft out there that fly well in all corners of the = envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mandate was speed at all = costs and the limited nature of the R&D program to clean these = issues up were not pushed as far as they maybe could have = been, at least if they had people would have a better "jumping off = point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft. Couple this = with the small variances plane to plane due to building tolerances, ever = increasing gross weights and you get a plane w/ potentially a nasty = stall. That isn't to say that it's not 'tameable' or correctable should = it have more 'teeth' than = expected.

 

I guess if I'm going = to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my duty to at least = test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convince someone else = to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the testing than possibly = myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter [both of which have been = 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the 425] or my wife or = my mother or father etc etc. I want my family to enjoy what I've built = but I couldn't feel good/safe about it if I didn't fully vet it and = test those [potentially] darker corners of the envelope. I couldn't = imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an 'incident' which snowballs into = loss of life etc.[of course after 'loss of life' I'm not 'thinking = or feeling' anything but that ride down to 0 from 10,000ft = while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a = family member along for the ride..  that's the stuff of = nightmares..<shutter>]

 

In = my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a = 'ride' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at = both ends of the envelope prior to their experience. At least = tested to the stall point [not nesc a deep stall and not = intentionally to spin it but at least know where it stalls and how it = recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] to ensure there = is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these planes = are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to do = for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test = zone?

 

If on the other hand your = not going to fly anyone else in your plane but just go out and enjoy it = yourself, then have at er' in any way you see = fit.

 

I will be 'approach to = stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go as far as to build a = spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a personal chute = on as well [I've survived skydives a couple times] that = is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been = 'in-progress' for years.. = sigh... ]

 

Jarrett = Johnson

235/320 55% [and currently = holding]

 



On Fri, 04 Jan = 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> = wrote:

I don't know if there is a single right or = wrong answer to this controversy, but here are a couple of = observations:

Years ago, twin engine training required = demonstration of low-altitude engine-out proficiency.  That = requirement was dropped and the overall safety improved.  Years = ago, spin demonstrations were required and then dropped - safety = improved.  Another observation:  All that have sided with = stall training have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the = center).  I doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a = centered ball.  I haven't stalled my = ES.

Gary = Casey

 

On Jan 2, 2013, = at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" <superdmp@sonic= .net> = wrote:

I = have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls altogether in = my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin accident information, I = just don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground = effect for the half second it takes to make it into the green after = wheels up; on landing, I approach well above stall for my flap = configuration, and let the speed bleed off only a few feet above the = threshold. During normal flight, I don't even get near a typical slow = flight speed. Too many variables in a home built airplane with no = precise envelope, a header tank that is PROBABLY where I think it is, = but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if the gauge is stuck; possible = extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy = rain).

 

 <= /p>

 

------=_NextPart_000_02E8_01CDEAD3.B7676CA0--