X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:34:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [137.118.16.50] (HELO smtp0.av-mx.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 5997228 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:46:52 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=137.118.16.50; envelope-from=pinetownd@volcano.net Received: from DennisPC (unknown [65.170.221.130]) (Authenticated sender: pinetownd@volcano.net) by smtp0.av-mx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A79A1C0D22 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 18:46:18 -0500 (EST) X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Dennis Johnson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:46:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2A2C_01CDEB5B.CFA6F870" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_2A2C_01CDEB5B.CFA6F870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I had previously believed that all of us Legacy pilots should practice = stalls, but after reading the comments in this important thread, I now = understand why the LOBO instructors here advise against it, and I now = agree with them. In fact, some of the comments in this thread scared = the bejeezus out of me! (I hope that it was because I misunderstood = what they wrote. Thanks, Jarrett, for reminding us of the definitions.) However, I do want to correct implications that a Legacy is an = inherently dangerous airplane to stall. Another poster already referred = to the CAFE flight test report for the Legacy, but here is the relevant = paragraphs from their flight test of the Legacy: Stalls were explored at 9,000 ft using 8" MP to establish an approximately a 1 knot per second rate of deceleration. The clean configuration stalls occurred crisply after mild aft stick force build-up and with little advanced warning. A t the moment of stall the right wing dropped approximately 30 degrees but this became controllable using both rudder and aileron as the angle-of-attach (sic) was reduced. The resulting nose drop would cause only about 150 feet of altitude loss provided that the stall recovery input was commenced immediately. Stalls with full flaps were explored with results similar to those obtained in the clean configuration. The deceleration was quicker due to the drag of the flaps and the nose attitude was lower prior to the stall. The wings maintained a more level attitude during the stall and recovery than they had during the clean configuration stalls. The stall was equally crisp and warning was very brief (less than one knot). A l t i t u d e loss during recovery was 400 feet due to the nose-low attitude obtained during the post-stall phase of controlling angle of attack. Accelerated stalls and high angle-of-attack maneuvering were sampled at airspeeds as high as 130 KIAS. Mild buffet occurs just prior to accelerated stalls and the stick position is well aft giving the pilot an excellent cue as to the wing=E2=80=99s aerodynamic condition. Stalls in both configurations were comfortable and controllable throughout. Stick force build up and stick movement were mild but adequate during stalls. Here's the link to the complete flight test report: http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_apr/legacy.pdf The CAFE guys were experienced test pilots and I'm not recommending = anyone trying it out for themselves. Go up with an instructor who has = Legacy and acro/military experience if you want to practice stalls. =20 The CAFE test report of the factory Legacy's stall behavior is similar = to my Legacy. I fly with an angle of attack indicator (AOA Pro), which = I think is an essential instrument for an airplane that gives "little = advanced warning" of a stall. Dennis Legacy, 560 hours =20 ------=_NextPart_000_2A2C_01CDEB5B.CFA6F870 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
I had previously believed that all of us Legacy pilots should = practice=20 stalls, but after reading the comments in this important thread, I now=20 understand why the LOBO instructors here advise against it, and I now = agree with=20 them.  In fact, some of the comments in this thread scared the = bejeezus out=20 of me!  (I hope that it was because I misunderstood what they = wrote. =20 Thanks, Jarrett, for reminding us of the definitions.)
 
However, I do want to correct implications that a Legacy is an = inherently=20 dangerous airplane to stall.  Another poster already referred to = the CAFE=20 flight test report for the Legacy, but here is the relevant paragraphs = from=20 their flight test of the Legacy:
 

Stalls were = explored at=20 9,000 ft using 8" MP to

establish an = approximately a=20 1 knot per second

rate of = deceleration. The=20 clean configuration

stalls = occurred crisply=20 after mild aft stick force

build-up and = with little=20 advanced warning. A t

the moment = of stall the=20 right wing dropped

approximately 30 degrees but=20 this became

controllable = using both=20 rudder and aileron as

the = angle-of-attach (sic) was reduced. The resulting

nose drop = would cause only=20 about 150 feet of

altitude = loss provided that=20 the stall recovery

input was = commenced=20 immediately.

 

Stalls with = full flaps were=20 explored with results

similar to = those obtained in=20 the clean configuration.

The = deceleration was quicker=20 due to the

drag of the = flaps and the=20 nose attitude was

lower prior = to the stall.=20 The wings maintained a

more level = attitude during=20 the stall and recovery

than they = had during the=20 clean configuration

stalls. The = stall was=20 equally crisp and warning

was very = brief (less than=20 one knot). A l t i t u d e

loss during = recovery was 400=20 feet due to the

nose-low = attitude obtained=20 during the post-stall

phase of = controlling angle=20 of attack.

 

Accelerated = stalls and high=20 angle-of-attack

maneuvering = were sampled at=20 airspeeds as

high as 130 = KIAS. Mild=20 buffet occurs just prior

to = accelerated stalls and=20 the stick position is

well aft = giving the pilot an=20 excellent cue as to

the = wing=E2=80=99s aerodynamic=20 condition.

 

Stalls in = both=20 configurations were comfortable

and = controllable throughout.=20 Stick force build

up and stick = movement were=20 mild but adequate

during stalls.

 

Here's the link to the complete flight = test=20 report:

http://= www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_apr/legacy.pdf

 

The CAFE guys were experienced test = pilots and=20 I'm not recommending anyone trying it out for themselves.  Go up = with an=20 instructor who has Legacy and acro/military experience = if you=20 want to practice stalls. 

 

The CAFE test report of the factory = Legacy's stall=20 behavior is similar to my Legacy.  I fly with an angle of = attack=20 indicator (AOA Pro), which I think is an essential instrument for an = airplane=20 that gives "little advanced warning" of a stall.

 

Dennis

Legacy, 560 hours =20

------=_NextPart_000_2A2C_01CDEB5B.CFA6F870--