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.
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).