X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:19:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.144] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 5997743 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:12:12 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.144; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-mb01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.65]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 918411C000079 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (24-107-65-42.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.65.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb01.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 030F3E0000BE; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:11:37 -0500 (EST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A423FD0E-0461-484C-B4B5-6A4211513E46 X-Original-Message-Id: <786E7340-19AA-4C66-9732-ADC1395D1FBC@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Getting back into the air X-Original-Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 08:11:34 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:491199840:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294150e98618690c X-AOL-IP: 24.107.65.42 --Apple-Mail-A423FD0E-0461-484C-B4B5-6A4211513E46 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 George, Thank you and welcome aboard. LOBO has worked very hard these past four year= s to improve the Lancair safety stats. We have been meeting with FAA officia= ls exploring different options including getting some relief for 91.319. We h= ave also been meeting with the insurance industry to be able to get and keep= insurance. We will keep up our efforts in this regard. We are also asking Lancair pilots to do the right thing and fly responsibly.= Stay current and proficient, take recurrent training, stay up to date on th= e issues, don't be in a rush to get someplace, don't treat these machines as= big boy toys. As to performance data, sometimes someone else will have bits and pieces-- m= aybe Robert Simon or Tim Ong. Otherwise you might just have to bite the bull= et and collect some data. Lancair may have an updated poh for your aircraft-= - worth a call to Kim. There are composite experts on this forum -- but to my knowledge, eglass and= carbon fiber have infinite fatigue life. Best regards, Jeff Edwards=20 Sent from my iPad On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34 AM, George Wehrung wrote: > Jeff, >=20 > I have been reading a lot of your comments including the stall debate/argu= ment. Your sage advice has lead me to join LOBO. >=20 > My wife and I are buying a 2009 Super ES that I have been flying in since 2= 010 as a CFII, partner and now buyer since 2010.=20 >=20 > I also read the white paper that is on the web page discussing the acciden= t history of the Lancairs and it caused me to take notice. I am in the less t= han 100 hour category. However, I also fit in the ATP/CFII/Military (I fly p= rofessionally around the world for a living) experience pie wedge but it doe= sn't mean that I am not cautious when I fly the Grey Lady. >=20 > For one, I am very new and inexperienced in the experimental world. I am n= ot used to not having a complete performance planning section for takeoff, c= limb, enroute, and landing data nor stall numbers for our airplane. The unkn= own makes me nervous.=20 >=20 > Two, I know very little about lifetime fatigue issues of E-Glass, fiber gl= ass, or other composite materials. But I love our airplane and the people we= have met. My wife and I also became lifetime members of EAA. >=20 > We will be moving our airplane from CA to NC this summer and if I am in co= untry I hope to attend the Lancair Fly-In. =20 >=20 > I also hope that once you all process my membership application I will hav= e access to more ES data on your website. I am in the process of revising o= ur POH during my time off here in Afghanistan. But the best data I can find i= s a POH for N85WP, well written but references Columbia 350 performance data= . Did Lancair ever publish an electronic version of their original POH? >=20 > One thing I would like to push for is a break in insurance rates for the E= S because of its low accident rate, non pressurized, fixed gear, and non-tur= bo status? >=20 > Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. >=20 > George >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Dec 16, 2012, at 20:45, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >=20 >> John, >> =20 >> Great questions. >> =20 >> First-- how much does your aircraft weigh empty? IVP's are heavier than I= V's, naturally and have higher landing speeds. >> =20 >> Speaking from my experience and LOBO's flight training recommendations, 3= 000 feet of level paved runway in good dry condition with no obstacles in th= e approach/departure path is the absolute minimum for an experienced LIVP p= ilot with a proven aircraft. >> =20 >> My LIVP would typically use 2000 feet to get off the ground and 2000 feet= of stopping distance on the ground. >> =20 >> For landing, on a 3000 foot runway with 2000 feet to stop means obviously= you must be very good at putting the aircraft exactly on the aimpoint. The I= VP typically crosses the threshold at 100 KIAS. With no wind at sea level th= at is approximately 100 KTAS and 100 KGS. If you are spotting a touchdown 50= 0 feet down the runway it means you have about 3.2 seconds from threshold to= touchdown. If you are a little fast or a little high and over shoot your to= uchdown spot you are chewing up runway at about 150 feet per second. So you h= ave three seconds from passing that chosen spot to the point that if you put= it on the runway you will not be able to stop before going off the end. Rai= n, turbulence, etc. Forget it. >> =20 >> For folks in the Phase I period I urge you to use 5000 feet or more of ru= nway. You have spent many years and thousands of dollars building it now is n= ot the time to get cheap. When you are at that 5000 foot runway put a marker= at 3000 feet and see how many times you go past it on landing or taking off= . I had a client years ago that wanted to use a 2500 foot runway. We trained= at a 5000 foot runway with a midfield taxiway. He could never get it stoppe= d in 2500 feet. Never. Never, Never. >> =20 >> BTW I had this same conversation six months ago with Fairley Gooch, a ret= ired Delta captain/ former military pilot. He chose to ignore my advice and L= OBO's advice. May he rest in peace. >> =20 >> Best regards, >> =20 >> Jeff >> =20 >> The advice I=E2=80=99m looking for centers around the fact that our runwa= y is 3,000 feet long, certainly more than adequate for this airplane but not= by a lot. The first flight after reinstallation will be a test flight with= several different concerns >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Barrett >> To: lml >> Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 12:56 pm >> Subject: [LML] Getting back into the air >>=20 >> My Lancair IVP after 55 hours of total flight time is having an engine ov= erhaul (it was a =E2=80=9Cnew engine=E2=80=9D to start with from Performance= Engines =E2=80=93 I=E2=80=99ll tell that story later) and I expect to get t= he engine back from Barrett in Tulsa in January or early February. It will t= ake a while to get the engine back on =E2=80=93 all the other upgrades and f= ixes completed, taxi tests etc etc and so I expect to be ready to get airbor= ne again in the spring or early summer. >> =20 >> I have about 60 hours of personal IVP time =E2=80=93 50 of them in my air= plane. I am hangared at 0S9, Port Townsend International Airport in Washing= ton State.=20 >> =20 >> The advice I=E2=80=99m looking for centers around the fact that our runwa= y is 3,000 feet long, certainly more than adequate for this airplane but not= by a lot. The first flight after reinstallation will be a test flight with= several different concerns.=20 >> =20 >> 1. Although I have much confidence in my decision to have Barrett o= verhaul the engine, it=E2=80=99s still a break in flight and carries more ri= sk than normal for that first takeoff. >> 2. Because I am still a low time LIV driver and I will have had alm= ost 6 months of rust developing in my IVP skills, that will be a factor >> 3. Because the airport environment is not conducive to emergency la= nding after takeoff (trees and salt water at both ends) engine problems duri= ng this takeoff would be problematic. >> =20 >> Port Angeles is about 6 or 7 minutes away in the IVP and has a nice long a= nd wide runway, so the plan is to head directly there and perform engine bre= ak in over head that airport followed by several landings there prior to ret= urning to home field. There is another runway at Sequim midway between that= is 4,000 ft long - it=E2=80=99s narrow but could be a satisfactory emergen= cy strip if necessary. >> =20 >> Is there advice other than hiring another test pilot and/or buying time i= n someone else=E2=80=99s IVP that I should be planning for to lower risks in= this upcoming event? Any other concerns I should be thinking about I haven= =E2=80=99t mentioned? >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> Regards, >> =20 >> John Barrett, CEO >> Leading Edge Composites >> PO Box 428 >> Port Hadlock, WA 98339 >> =20 >> www.carbinge.com >> =20 --Apple-Mail-A423FD0E-0461-484C-B4B5-6A4211513E46 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
George,

Thank you and welcome aboard. LOBO has worked very hard these past fo= ur years to improve the Lancair safety stats. We have been meeting with FAA o= fficials exploring different options including getting some relief for 91.31= 9. We have also been meeting with the insurance industry to be able to get a= nd keep insurance. We will keep up our efforts in this regard.
We are also asking Lancair pilots to do the right thing and fly r= esponsibly. Stay current and proficient, take recurrent training, stay up to= date on the issues, don't be in a rush to get someplace, don't treat these m= achines as big boy toys.

As to performance data, so= metimes someone else will have bits and pieces-- maybe Robert Simon or Tim O= ng. Otherwise you might just have to bite the bullet and collect some data. L= ancair may have an updated poh for your aircraft-- worth a call to Kim.

There are composite experts on this forum -- but to my k= nowledge, eglass and carbon fiber have infinite fatigue life.

=

Best regards,

Jeff Edward= s 




Sent from my iPad

On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34 AM, George Wehrung <gw5@me.com> wrote:

Jeff,

I have been reading a l= ot of your comments including the stall debate/argument. Your sage advice ha= s lead me to join LOBO.

My wife and I are buying a 2= 009 Super ES that I have been flying in since 2010 as a CFII, partner and no= w buyer since 2010. 

I also read the white pap= er that is on the web page discussing the accident history of the Lancairs a= nd it caused me to take notice. I am in the less than 100 hour category. &nb= sp;However, I also fit in the ATP/CFII/Military (I fly professionally around= the world for a living) experience pie wedge but it doesn't mean that I am n= ot cautious when I fly the Grey Lady.

For one, I am= very new and inexperienced in the experimental world.  I am not used t= o not having a complete performance planning section for takeoff, climb, enr= oute, and landing data nor stall numbers for our airplane. The unknown makes= me nervous. 

Two, I know very little about li= fetime fatigue issues of E-Glass, fiber glass, or other composite materials.= But I love our airplane and the people we have met.  My wife and I als= o became lifetime members of EAA.

We will be moving= our airplane from CA to NC this summer and if I am in country I hope to att= end the Lancair Fly-In.  

I also hope that onc= e you all process my membership application I will have access to more ES da= ta on your website.  I am in the process of revising our POH during my t= ime off here in Afghanistan. But the best data I can find is a POH for N85WP= , well written but references Columbia 350 performance data.  Did Lanca= ir ever publish an electronic version of their original POH?

<= /div>
One thing I would like to push for is a break in insurance rates f= or the ES because of its low accident rate, non pressurized, fixed gear, and= non-turbo status?

Thanks again for sharing your kn= owledge.

George

Sent from my iPad
=
On Dec 16, 2012, at 20:45, vtailjef= f@aol.com wrote:

=
John,
 
Great questions.
 
First-- how much does your aircraft weigh empty? IVP's are heavier than= IV's, naturally and have higher landing speeds.
 
Speaking from my experience and LOBO's flight training recommendations,= 3000 feet of level paved runway in good dry condition with no obstacle= s in the approach/departure path  is the absolute minimum for a= n experienced LIVP pilot with a proven aircraft.
 
My LIVP would typically use 2000 feet to get off the ground and 2000 fe= et of stopping distance on the ground.
 
For landing, on a 3000 foot runway with 2000 feet to stop means obvious= ly you must be very good at putting the aircraft exactly on the aimpoint. Th= e IVP typically crosses the threshold at 100 KIAS. With no wind at sea level= that is approximately 100 KTAS and 100 KGS. If you are spotting a touchdown= 500 feet down the runway it means you have about 3.2 seconds from threshold= to touchdown. If you are a little fast or a little high and over shoot your= touchdown spot you are chewing up runway at about 150 feet per second. So y= ou have three seconds from passing that chosen spot to the point that if you= put it on the runway you will not be able to stop before going off the end.= Rain, turbulence, etc. Forget it.
 
For folks in the Phase I period I urge you to use 5000 feet or more of r= unway. You have spent many years and thousands of dollars building it now is= not the time to get cheap. When you are at that 5000 foot runway put a mark= er at 3000 feet and see how many times you go past it on landing or taking o= ff. I had a client years ago that wanted to use a 2500 foot runway. We train= ed at a 5000 foot runway with a midfield taxiway. He could never get it stop= ped in 2500 feet. Never. Never, Never.
 
BTW I had this same conversation six months ago with Fairley Gooch= , a retired Delta captain/ former military pilot. He chose to ignore my= advice and LOBO's advice. May he rest in peace.
 
Best regards,
 
Jeff
 
=
The advice I=E2=80=99m looking for c= enters around the fact that our runway is 3,000 feet=20 long, certainly more than adequate for this airplane but not by a lot. = The=20 first flight after reinstallation will be a test flight with several differe= nt=20 concerns
= -----Original Message-----
From: John Barrett <jbarrett@car= binge.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 12:56 pm
Subject: [LML] Getting back into the air

My Lancair IVP after 55 hours of total flight time i= s having an engine overhaul (it was a =E2=80=9Cnew engine=E2=80=9D to start w= ith from Performance Engines =E2=80=93 I=E2=80=99ll tell that story later) a= nd I expect to get the engine back from Barrett in Tulsa in January or early= February.  It will take a while to get the engine back on =E2=80=93 al= l the other upgrades and fixes completed, taxi tests etc etc and so I expect= to be ready to get airborne again in the spring or early summer.
 
I have about 60 hours of personal IVP time =E2=80=93= 50 of them in my airplane.  I am hangared at 0S9, Port Townsend Intern= ational Airport in Washington State. 
 
The advice I=E2=80=99m looking for centers around t= he fact that our runway is 3,000 feet long, certainly more than adequate for= this airplane but not by a lot.  The first flight after reinstallation= will be a test flight with several different concerns. 
 
1.   &n= bsp;   Although I have much confidence in my decisio= n to have Barrett overhaul the engine, it=E2=80=99s still a break in flight a= nd carries more risk than normal for that first takeoff.
2.   &n= bsp;   Because I am still a low time LIV driver and I= will have had almost 6 months of rust developing in my IVP skills, that wil= l be a factor
3.   &n= bsp;   Because the airport environment is not conduc= ive to emergency landing after takeoff (trees and salt water at both ends) e= ngine problems during this takeoff would be problematic.
 
Port Angeles is about 6 or 7 minutes away in the IV= P and has a nice long and wide runway, so the plan is to head directly there= and perform engine break in over head that airport followed by several land= ings there prior to returning to home field.  There is another runway a= t Sequim midway between that is 4,000 ft long -  it=E2=80=99s narrow bu= t could be a satisfactory emergency strip if necessary.
 
Is there advice other than hiring another test pilo= t and/or buying time in someone else=E2=80=99s IVP that I should be planning= for to lower risks in this upcoming event?  Any other concerns I shoul= d be thinking about I haven=E2=80=99t mentioned?
 
 
 
Regards,
 
John Barrett, CEO
Leading Edge Composites
PO Box 428
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
 
www.carbinge.com
 
= --Apple-Mail-A423FD0E-0461-484C-B4B5-6A4211513E46--