X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:25:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6000979 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:12:38 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.40; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.204]) by imr-ma02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 459931C0011D3 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mna001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mna001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.1]) by mtaomg-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id E91D4E00008D for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:09:17 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins 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_8CFBBD1A52E7578_7FC_DBFD2_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); Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:09:17 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CFBBD1A4E24978-7FC-501C2@webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] X-Original-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:09:17 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:468862016:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33cc50ec44ad2698 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFBBD1A52E7578_7FC_DBFD2_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" For a good read see the following accident report from the Australian Trans= port Safety Board on a LIVP turbine accident. Be sure to read the analysis.= =20 http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/aair/aair200= 206005.aspx Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Ron Galbraith To: lml Sent: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 8:32 am Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins There is an ES video that shows what happens when you stall an ES at full a= ft CG. Spins immediately, takes 2.5 turns and 3000' to recover. Test Pilo= t was one turn from bailing out. Install an AOA system, install stall str= ips, practice flying at low speeds and learn what impending stalls feel lik= e. The airframe gives you many indications that you are too slow. Learn th= em. Fly safe. =20 Ron Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:34 AM, George Wehrung wrote: John,=20 I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in particula= r if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chance, do= ubtful but I thought I'd ask. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith wrote: From my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance. Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair videos= of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuffs t= o the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to make= it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed too far into a= spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable. So, if one accepts = the view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin recovera= ble, there would only appear to be upside from installing the cuffs. The fl= aw is, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without win= g cuffs, then the addition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin recovery! Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any other= type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries are po= ssible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, with or = without wing cuffs. Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit very= limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB turns= ) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warning = of the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give the first "gentle" warni= ng", followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre se= ction drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are still= flying). I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this more= =E2=80=A6. numbers below, but please note time is UTC + 8!! Regards, John =20 John N G Smith Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 Mobile: +61-409-372-975 Email: john@jjts.net.au From: Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM To: Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins Posted for "Peter Field" : Dear Lancair Drivers: =20 =20 =20 I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins and I want to add some additional factualinformation purely for your personal consumption an= d reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight testfinal reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated the use of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the testairplane approaching the stall. For various reasons the cuffs improved lateral control entering the stall, but had the adverseeffect of destabilizing the aircraft once a fully developed spin was achieved. Essentially, stall behavior was improved at thesacrifice of spin recovery. Cuffs on wing leading edges are an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is "washout," where thewing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing always operate at a lower angle of attack. =20 =20 =20 To my knowledge, Lancair has neversubjected any of their aircraft to a fully developed spin matrix complete with appropriate instrumentation and = a spin recoverychute. There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's an Experimental Category airplane. Early on they may havelightly touched on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160spins at various cg's and lateral loadings. In my opinion, it would be highly risky to foo= l around much beyond the stall in anyLancair - there is no documentation tha= t indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one turn incipient phase spin or anyfully developed spin. Being good at spin recovery isn't so much a matter of how skillful a pilot you are, it's a matter of how manyspins you've experienced in airplanes known to be recoverable. Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your own airplaneshould be a matter of personal preference. =20 =20 =20 =20 Best regards,=20 =20 Pete Field (LNC2) =20 USNTPS graduate &spin recovery instructor =20 =20 =20 --For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml =20 ----------MB_8CFBBD1A52E7578_7FC_DBFD2_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" For a good read see the following accident report from&n= bsp;the Australian Transport Safety Board on a LIVP turbine accid= ent. Be sure to read the analysis. 


http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/aair/= aair200206005.aspx

Jeff

There is an ES video that shows what happens when you stall an ES at f= ull aft CG.  Spins immediately, takes 2.5 turns and 3000' to recover. =  Test Pilot was one turn from bailing out.   Install an AOA syste= m, install stall strips, practice flying at low speeds and learn what impen= ding stalls feel like. The airframe gives you many indications that you are= too slow.  Learn them.  Fly safe.  

Ron

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:34 AM, George Wehrung <gw5@me.com> wrote:

John, 

I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in part= icular if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chanc= e, doubtful but I thought I'd ask.




Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith <john@jjts.net.au> wrote:

From my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance.

Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair v= ideos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cu= ffs to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to= make it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed too far i= nto a spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable. So, if = one accepts the view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not s= pin recoverable, there would only appear to be upside from installing the c= uffs. The flaw is, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable= without wing cuffs, then the addition of the wing cuffs may pr= eclude spin recovery!

Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any = other type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries a= re possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, wit= h or without wing cuffs.

Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit= very limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB = turns) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of war= ning of the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give the first "gentle" = warning", followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the cent= re section drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are = still flying).

I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this = more=E2=80=A6. numbers below, but please note time is UTC + 8!!


Regards,

John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au


From: <marv@lancair.net<= /a>>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <= ;lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25= AM
To: <lml>
Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Sp= ins



Posted for "Peter Field" <pfield= .avn@gmail.com>:

Dear Lancair Drivers:



I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins and I want to add some additional factual information purely for your personal consumption and
reflection.  Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NAS= A flight
test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated the
use of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  For various reasons the cuffs improved l= ateral
control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft once a fully developed spin was achieved.  Essentially,= stall
behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery.  Cuffs on wing
leading edges are an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is
"washout," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing
always operate at a lower angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin matrix complete with appropriate instrumentation and = a
spin recovery chute.  There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's
an Experimental Category airplane.  Early on they may have lightly touched
on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully
completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at various
cg's and lateral loadings.  In my opinion, it would be highly ri= sky to fool
around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation that
indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one turn incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin.  Being good at spin
recovery isn't so much a matter of how skillful a pilot you are, it's a matter of how many spins you've experienced in airplanes known to be
recoverable.  Being familiar with the stall characteristics of y= our own
airplane should be a matter of personal preference.  



Best regards,

Pete Field (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor



-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L= ist.html
----------MB_8CFBBD1A52E7578_7FC_DBFD2_webmailstg-m02.sysops.aol.com--