X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:08:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 5999733 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:49:11 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.202]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id B15EC1C0000A5 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mna001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mna001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.1]) by mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 77399E000082 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:48:37 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFBB2F7FBD1B8C_7FC_C9698_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37276-STANDARD Received: from 12.110.229.82 by webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com (64.12.225.54) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:48:36 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CFBB2F7FB5F76C-7FC-4B257@webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] X-Original-Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:48:36 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:464067616:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33ca50eb34a570a2 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFBB2F7FBD1B8C_7FC_C9698_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" are you a cfi? -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang To: lml Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 12:26 pm Subject: [LML] Re: stalls The bad part about this "stall" discussion is that most people want to stay= away from stalls all together. - - - That's ridiculous ! If you want to call yourself a proficient pilot, you must be able to react = to most any circumstance, intended or not. The only way to get to that point is training in all parts of the envelope.= Saying that the only time you will likely get to a stall is in the approac= h and then you don't have enough altitude for recovery is a foolish respons= e. Not training for certain circumstances because you're not "comfortable" = in said circumstances is courting disaster. =20 The Lancair is high performance and as such, stall characteristics have suf= fered. The stall comes on fast and with little warning. Learn to recognize = it and train how to handle it. =20 . . . But those flight characteristics can be tamed without loss of perform= ance. Stall strips would be the easiest way to increase the impending stall= warning time. Why they aren't more prevalent, I don't know. =20 Wolfgang =20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 =20 From: Todd Long =20 =20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 10:19 AM =20 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls =20 =20 I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for stall t= esting on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to stalls an= d recovery.=20 =20 The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate everyone g= o out and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high per= formance aircraft that are not and will never perform like certified airf= rames. Most got into the IV for the high speed. There were trade offs to = get that. Not necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can not = be treated like a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were= a bonanza. If you are unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft= they are not all treated the same go back to certified slower planes. Se= of us have spent our careers in high performance planes and know there a= re different operating and training rules. Know what the plane will do bu= t don't push it over the edge thinking it will behave nicely.=20 =20 Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone. =20 On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate or = business [charter?] aviation. =20 =20 =20 My point is/was simply this. All certified types of planes are tested= to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverable from stall, = the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and calibrated acco= rdingly. Then the pilots who fly them day to day are taught [in type] = slow flight, approach to stall [identification of impending stall] and = recovery. In my experiance, most flight departments train in this at le= ast annually if not more regularly [I know some of you jet drivers go t= o sim courses every 6 months, in my case it's either sim or in-plane tr= aining annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't practiced on this side of the border = either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' as well. =20 =20 =20 I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however w= hen we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test pilots. [if we = don't want to properly test fly them, then maybe test pilots should be = hired who have the skills to do so, maybe testing apparatus should be u= sed as well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we shoul= d TEST the airframes the same way the test pilots have tested the Citat= ion X's or Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've AL= L been tested [well, other than a large part of the Lancair fleet]. On= ce testing is complete and the stall warning devices are calibrated the= n it's practicing approach to stalls only.. the aircraft doesn't need t= o be stalled again, granted there is no aerodynamic alterations ever co= mpleted. If there is [such as your Hawker experiance] then the a/c need= s to have the stall warning devices calibrated again which would requir= e additional stall testing. =20 =20 =20 The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't stall = test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there is su= ch a large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flyi= ng and or why Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other t= ype of (GA) aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the stall= s on their Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's 'possible' for= every single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same degree [in m= y opinion]. Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same = on every airframe but it IS possible. =20 =20 =20 I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' and = the 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [and = continual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see = things from a angle that most others don't.. I dunno. =20 =20 =20 =20 All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any experimental = A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and has the proper [calibrate= d] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on mine before ANYONE e= lse fly's in it with me. =20 =20 =20 At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do. =20 =20 =20 Fwiw =20 Jarrett Johnson =20 =20 =20 235/320 -55% [and holding] =20 On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long wrote: =20 =20 =20 I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops. In= neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely diffe= rent animals. We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and shaker= get your attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers when we r= emoved and replaced TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full stalls = past the stick shaker. One time we did end up on our back, continued the= roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs were authorized = to do these tests. I was the lowely SIC at the time. I believe the l= ow altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the reference= was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a number of= accidents doing these in training. =20 I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any aircraf= t nor even got close. In high performance airplanes the pilot needs = to fly by the numbers not the seat of the pants. This goes for jets,= turbo props and definitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ hours = in a Ce-750 Citation X as PIC and have no idea how it handles in a full = stall. Using some people's logic I'm just too scared and shouldn't be = flying it. Really? In fortunately I do know how the Hawker 100= 0 can stall in some situations and don't want to go there again. And = that was fully certified. If you can't fly without unintentionally st= alling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any higher = from stupid accidents.=20 Sent from my iPad =20 On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" w= rote: =20 =20 =20 =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 th= is time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that I = see [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' differe= nt, but not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix: =20 =20 =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 traini= ng every year while training and flight testing for my PPC on the C= 425XP 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]. =20 2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in = getting your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo s= pins 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 =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 eng= ine 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 engi= ne ops [in Canada]. =20 4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] i= s false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being si= gned 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 trai= ning for the rest of your flying career, your mistaken. =20 =20 =20 I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these pla= nes, is saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, app= roach to stall and recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my op= inion, 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 co= ndition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic like' th= inking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests they nee= ded]. =20 =20 =20 The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are not sa= fe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the P= C-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck the= y 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.. ther= e 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 c= ould have been, at least if they had people would have a better "ju= mping off point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft. C= ouple this with the small variances plane to plane due to building = tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you get a plane w/ po= tentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's not 'tameable' or = correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected. =20 =20 =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 daug= hter [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 m= y family to enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe abo= ut 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 aft= er 'loss of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that r= ide 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 =20 =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 test= ed 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 et= c] and to Vne [plus the required margin] to ensure there is no flut= ter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these planes are as= signed a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to do fo= r 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone? =20 =20 =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 =20 =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 t= imes] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progre= ss' for years.. sigh... ] =20 =20 =20 Jarrett Johnson =20 235/320 55% [and currently holding] =20 =20 =20 On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey = wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this c= ontroversy, but here are a couple of observations: =20 Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-alt= itude engine-out proficiency. That requirement was dropped and t= he 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 keep= ing coordinated (ball in the center). I doubt that ANY inadverte= nt stall is accompanied by a centered ball. I haven't stalled my= ES. =20 Gary Casey =20 =20 =20 On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" wrote: =20 =20 =20 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 fl= ight, I don't even get near a typical slow flight speed. Too ma= ny 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 r= ain). =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 www.innovention-tech.com =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFBB2F7FBD1B8C_7FC_C9698_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" are you a cfi?


-----= Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 12:26 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: stalls

The bad part about this "stall" d= iscussion is=20 that most people want to stay away from stalls all together. - - - <= font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">That's ridiculous !
If you want to call yourself a profici= ent pilot,=20 you must be able to react to most any circumstance, intended or=20 not.
The only way to get to that point is t= raining in=20 all parts of the envelope. Saying that the only time you will likely get to= a=20 stall is in the approach and then you don't have enough altitude for recove= ry is=20 a foolish response. Not training for certain circumstances because you're n= ot=20 "comfortable" in said circumstances is courting disaster.
 
The Lancair is high performance and as= such, stall=20 characteristics have suffered. The stall comes on fast and with little warn= ing.=20 Learn to recognize it and train how to handle it.
 
. . . But those flight characteristics= can be tamed=20 without loss of performance. Stall strips would be the easiest way to incre= ase=20 the impending stall warning time. Why they aren't more prevalent, I don't= =20 know.
 
Wolfgang
 
 
=20
----- Original Message -----
=20
= From:=20 Todd= Long=20
=20 =20
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 10:19= =20 AM
=20
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls
=20

=20
I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for stal= l=20 testing on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to stalls= and=20 recovery. 
=20
The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate everyon= e=20 go out and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high=20 performance aircraft that are not and will never perform like certified= =20 airframes. Most got into the IV for the high speed. There were trade offs= to=20 get that. Not necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can no= t be=20 treated like a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were a= =20 bonanza. If you are unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft th= ey=20 are not all treated the same go back to certified slower planes. Se of us= have=20 spent our careers in high performance planes and know there are different= =20 operating and training rules. Know what the plane will do but don't push = it=20 over the edge thinking it will behave nicely. 
=20

Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone.
=20

On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>=20 wrote:

=20
=20
=20
Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate o= r=20 business [charter?] aviation.
=20
 
=20
My point is/was simply this.   All certified types of planes= =20 are tested to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverab= le=20 from stall, the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and=20 calibrated accordingly.  Then the pilots who fly them day to day a= re=20 taught [in type] slow flight, approach to stall [identification of impe= nding=20 stall] and recovery. In my experiance, most flight departments train in= this=20 at least annually if not more regularly [I know some of you jet drivers= go=20 to sim courses every 6 months, in my case it's either sim or in-plane= =20 training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't practiced on this side of the b= order=20 either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' as well.
=20
 
=20
I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however= =20 when we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test pilots. [if we=20 don't want to properly test fly them, then maybe test pilots should be = hired=20 who have the skills to do so, maybe testing apparatus should be used as= =20 well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we should TEST = the=20 airframes the same way the test pilots have tested the Citation X's or= =20 Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've ALL been test= ed=20 [well, other than a large part of the Lancair fleet].  Once testin= g is=20 complete and the stall warning devices are calibrated then it's practic= ing=20 approach to stalls only.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled again= ,=20 granted there is no aerodynamic alterations ever completed. If there is= =20 [such as your Hawker experiance] then the a/c needs to have the stall= =20 warning devices calibrated again which would require additional stall= =20 testing.
=20
 
=20
The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't st= all=20 test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there is s= uch a=20 large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flying an= d or=20 why Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other type of (GA= )=20 aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the stalls = on=20 their Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's 'possible= ' for=20 every single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same degree [= in my=20 opinion]. Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same on= =20 every airframe but it IS possible.
=20
 
=20
I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' and= =20 the 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [an= d=20 continual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see= =20 things from a angle that most others don't.. I dunno.   =20
 
=20
All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any=20 experimental A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and ha= s the=20 proper [calibrated] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on min= e=20 before ANYONE else fly's in it with me.
=20
 
=20
At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do.
=20
 
=20
Fwiw
=20
Jarrett Johnson
=20
 
=20
235/320 -55% [and holding]
=20


On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long <toddlong1@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
=20
I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops.=20  In neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Complete= ly=20 different animals.  We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA = and=20 shaker get your attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers whe= n we=20 removed and replaced TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full sta= lls=20 past the stick shaker. One time we did end up on our back, continued = the=20 roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs were authorized t= o do=20 these tests.  I was the lowely SIC at the time. I believe the lo= w=20 altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the reference wa= s V1=20 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a number of acciden= ts=20 doing these in training.
=20
I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any=20 aircraft nor even got close.  In high performance airplanes the = pilot=20 needs to fly by the numbers not the seat of the pants.  This goe= s for=20 jets, turbo props and definitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ = hours=20 in a Ce-750 Citation X as PIC and have no idea how it handles in a fu= ll=20 stall. Using some people's logic I'm just too scared and shouldn't be= =20 flying it.  Really?  In fortunately I do know how the Hawke= r=20 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want to go there again. A= nd=20 that was fully certified. If you can't fly without unintentionally=20 stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any high= er=20 from  stupid accidents. 

Sent from my iPad
=20

On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>=20 wrote:

=20
=20
=20 =20
This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned,=20 there is no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thi= ck of=20 things in past discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers = this=20 time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see= =20 [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, = but=20 not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix:
=20
 
=20
1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do=20 stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall= =20 training every year while training and flight testing for my PPC on= the=20 C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it u= p to=20 max torque and hold the pitch angle.. it immediately transitions fr= om=20 many hundreds fpm of decent to a couple thousand fpm of climb.= . a=20 really interesting experience compared to the same thing in a singl= e=20 [push, power, recover].
=20
2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in=20 getting your private license, including w/ an instructor and s= olo=20 spins and has to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't rememb= er=20 the last time I heard of a spin training accident [in Canada], it's= been=20 many years.
=20
3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training= =20 curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the e= ngine=20 [I've got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in t= he=20 breeze] and an approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one e= ngine=20 in-op] and signed off as completed before you'll get your ride= =20 approval to take your flight test. Again, I can't remember the last= time=20 I heard of a twin engine training accident due to single engine ops= [in=20 Canada].
=20
4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and=20 slower] is false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before= =20 being signed off an 'released' for production. All pilots in traini= ng=20 then fly these maneuvers while doing type training [in simulators w= hich=20 duplicate the tested results]. If you think that once you get your= =20 Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to=20 stall training for the rest of your flying career, your=20 mistaken.
=20
 
=20
I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall=20 testing these planes, is saying these planes need to be "= deep=20 stalled". However, approach to stall and recovery at the first sign= of=20 stall is, in my opinion, valuable training/testing of a new airfram= e.=20 Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the stall side of the envelope= ,=20 this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at some point] get to t= hat=20 flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic= =20 like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests = they=20 needed].
=20
 
=20
The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft=20 are not safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, loo= k at=20 the PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, hec= k=20 they call it a STOL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I f= ly,=20 [Cruise at 285knts, land at less than 100 and stalls as viciously= =20 as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM..= =20 there are lots of higher performance aircraft out there that fly we= ll in=20 all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mand= ate=20 was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D progra= m to=20 clean these issues up were not pushed as far as they= =20 maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a bet= ter=20 "jumping off point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft= .=20 Couple this with the small variances plane to plane due to building= =20 tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you get a plane w/=20 potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's not 'tameabl= e' or=20 correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected.
=20
 
=20
I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as= =20 my duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves befor= e I=20 convince someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in= the=20 testing than possibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter= =20 [both of which have been 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me i= n the=20 425] or my wife or my mother or father etc etc. I want my fami= ly to=20 enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe about it if I= =20 didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially] darker corner= s of=20 the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an=20 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after '= loss=20 of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride= =20 down to 0 from 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm= =20 pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a family member along for the= =20 ride..  that's the stuff of nightmares..<shutter>]
=20
 
=20
In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a= =20 'ride' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested = at=20 both ends of the envelope prior to their experience. At least=20 tested to the stall point [not nesc a deep stall and not=20 intentionally to spin it but at least know where it stalls and how = it=20 recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] to ensure = there=20 is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these pla= nes=20 are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to= do=20 for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone?
=20
 
=20
If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane= =20 but just go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way = you=20 see fit.
=20
 
=20
I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go= =20 as far as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doin= g it=20 w/ a personal chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple=20 times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been= =20 'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ]
=20
 
=20
Jarrett Johnson
=20
235/320 55% [and currently holding]
=20
 
=20


On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com>=20 wrote:
=20
=20
=20
I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this=20 controversy, but here are a couple of observations:
=20
Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of=20 low-altitude engine-out proficiency.  That requirement was= =20 dropped and the overall safety improved.  Years ago, spin=20 demonstrations were required and then dropped - safety improved.&= nbsp;=20 Another observation:  All that have sided with stall trainin= g=20 have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the center). = I=20 doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a centered=20 ball.  I haven't stalled my ES.
=20
Gary Casey
=20
 
=20
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell=20 CRFA" <su= perdmp@sonic.net>=20 wrote:
=20
=20
I=20 have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls=20 altogether in my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin=20 accident information, I just don't think it's worth the risk. O= n=20 take-off, I stay in ground effect for the half second it takes = to=20 make it into the green after wheels up; on landing, I approach = well=20 above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed bleed = off=20 only a few feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I do= n't=20 even get near a typical slow flight speed. Too many variables i= n a=20 home built airplane with no precise envelope, a header tank tha= t is=20 PROBABLY where I think it is, but could be off by 30 or 40 poun= ds if=20 the gauge is stuck; possible extra wait in the tail area (water= =20 retention after heavy=20 rain).
=20


=20
 
=20

=20


=20 =20

----------MB_8CFBB2F7FBD1B8C_7FC_C9698_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com--