X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:02:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6001058 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:44:42 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=ROGG@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.138]) by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id DA4A81C0010A3 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-doc001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-doc001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.160.193]) by mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 3EB86E000091 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:31:25 -0500 (EST) From: ROGG@aol.com Full-name: ROGG X-Original-Message-ID: <12d.160fa59.3e1da3dc@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:31:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12d.160fa59.3e1da3dc_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.7 sub 55 X-Originating-IP: [69.106.50.246] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:476837728:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338a50ec49dd4fb5 --part1_12d.160fa59.3e1da3dc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Any body got anything on turbocharging and intercooling =20 =20 In a message dated 1/8/2013 8:26:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, =20 vtailjeff@aol.com writes: For a good read see the following accident report from the Australian=20 Transport Safety Board on a LIVP turbine accident. Be sure to read the=20 analysis. =20 http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/aair/aair200= 2 06005.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 = =20 aft CG. Spins immediately, takes 2.5 turns and 3000' to recover. Test=20 Pilot was one turn from bailing out. Install an AOA system, install stal= l=20 strips, practice flying at low speeds and learn what impending stalls feel= =20 like. The airframe gives you many indications that you are too slow. Lear= n=20 them. Fly safe. =20 Ron Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:34 AM, George Wehrung <_gw5@me.com_=20 (mailto:gw5@me.com) > wrote: John,=20 I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in =20 particular if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by = chance,=20 doubtful but I thought I'd ask. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith <_john@jjts.net.au_=20 (mailto:john@jjts.net.au) > wrote: =20 =20 From my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance. Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair =20 videos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing = cuffs=20 to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to=20 make it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed too far i= nto=20 a spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable. So, if one accept= s=20 the view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin=20 recoverable, there would only appear to be upside from installing the cuff= s. The=20 flaw is, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without= =20 wing 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 =20 other type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries = are=20 possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, with = or=20 without wing cuffs. Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit=20 very limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB= =20 turns) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of wa= rning=20 of the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give the first "gentle" warn= ing",=20 followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre sectio= n=20 drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are still=20 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_ (mailto:john@jjts.net.au)=20 From: <_marv@lancair.net_ (mailto:marv@lancair.net) > Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <_lml@lancaironline.net_=20 (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net) > Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM To: Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins Posted for "Peter Field" <_pfield.avn@gmail.com_=20 (mailto: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 = =20 and reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA 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 lateral control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing th= e 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 risky to =20 fool around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation=20 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 your own airplane should be a matter of personal preference. =20 Best regards,=20 Pete Field (LNC2) USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor -- For archives and unsub=20 _http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html_ (http://mail.lancair= online.net:81/lists/lml/List.html) =20 --part1_12d.160fa59.3e1da3dc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Any body got anything on turbocharging and intercooling
 
In a message dated 1/8/2013 8:26:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,=20 vtailjeff@aol.com writes:
= For a goo= d read=20 see the following accident report=20 from the Australian Transport Safety Board on a LIVP=20 turbine accident. Be sure=20 to read the analysis. =20


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

Jeff

--= ---Original=20 Message-----
From: Ron Galbraith <cfi@instructor.net>
To: lml= =20 <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 8:32 am
Subjec= t:=20 [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins

There is an ES video that shows what happens when you stall an ES at= full=20 aft CG.  Spins immediately, takes 2.5 turns and 3000' to recover.=20  Test Pilot was one turn from bailing out.   Install an AOA sys= tem,=20 install stall strips, practice flying at low speeds and learn what impend= ing=20 stalls feel like. The airframe gives you many indications that you are to= o=20 slow.  Learn them.  Fly safe.  

Ron

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:34 AM, George Wehrung <gw5@me.com>= =20 wrote:

John, 

I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in= =20 particular if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet = by=20 chance, 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 Lan= cair=20 videos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the = wing=20 cuffs to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opport= unity=20 to make it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed t= oo=20 far into a spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable.=20 So, if one accepts the view of many which is that "as was", the aircr= aft=20 was not spin recoverable, there would only appear to be upside from= =20 installing the cuffs. The flaw is, of course, that if indeed the Lega= cy is=20 spin recoverable without wing cuffs, then the addition of the wing cu= ffs=20 may preclude spin recovery!

Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, o= r any=20 other type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recove= ries=20 are possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of cour= se,=20 with or without wing cuffs.

Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the= =20 albeit very limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuou= s=20 30deg AoB turns) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there = is=20 plenty of warning of the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give = the first=20 "gentle" warning", followed by the more severe intermittent "shudderi= ng"=20 as the centre section drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outbo= ard=20 sections are still flying).

I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about= this=20 more=E2=80=A6. numbers below, but please note time is UTC + 8!!


Regards,

John


John N G Smith
Tel / fax:=20    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:=20      +61-409-372-975
Email:=20         john@jjts.net.au

<= /DIV>

From: <marv@lancair.net>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <= ;lml@lancaironline.net>Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25= =20 AM
To: <lml>
Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls &=20 Spins



Posted for "Peter Field" <= pfield.avn@gmail.com>:<= BR>
Dear=20 Lancair Drivers:



I've been following the discussion = on=20 stalls and spins and I want to add
some additional factual=20 information purely for your personal consumption=20 and
reflection.  Attached are excerpts from 10 differe= nt=20 1980-90 NASA flight
test final reports on a series of GA airplan= es in=20 which NASA evaluated the
use of cuffs on leading edges to improv= e the=20 behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  = For=20 various reasons the cuffs improved lateral
control entering the= =20 stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft = once=20 a fully developed spin was achieved.  Essentially,=20 stall
behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin=20 recovery.  Cuffs on wing
leading edges are an add on d= esign=20 fix, the more elegant solution is
"washout," where the wing is= =20 twisted so the outer portions of the wing
always operate at a lo= wer=20 angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancair has never= =20 subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin matrix= =20 complete with appropriate instrumentation and a
spin recovery=20 chute.  There is no FAA requirement for them to do so -= =20 it's
an Experimental Category airplane.  Early on they= may=20 have lightly touched
on such testing; but I have never seen any= =20 documentation on a fully
completed spin matrix, which would invo= lve=20 at least 160 spins at various
cg's and lateral=20 loadings.  In my opinion, it would be highly risky to=20 fool
around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no= =20 documentation that
indicates any of these airplanes can always b= e=20 recovered from a one turn
incipient phase spin or any fully deve= loped=20 spin.  Being good at spin
recovery isn't so much a mat= ter=20 of how skillful a pilot you are, it's a
matter of how many spins= =20 you've experienced in airplanes known to=20 be
recoverable.  Being familiar with the stall=20 characteristics of your own
airplane should be a matter of perso= nal=20 preference.  



Best regards,

Pete F= ield=20 (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery=20 instructor



-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l=20
--part1_12d.160fa59.3e1da3dc_boundary--