X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:01:33 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm10-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.170] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6002473 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:32:08 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.91.170; envelope-from=bu131@swbell.net Received: from [98.138.90.57] by nm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jan 2013 13:31:35 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.91] by tm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jan 2013 13:31:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1028.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jan 2013 13:31:34 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 951054.95444.bm@omp1028.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 30498 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jan 2013 13:31:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=swbell.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=3Ah6ZW9enwpGXpJ0wea9zKIq7M0SHY7sN4KSNt57bp5+OUXNgDUS6u+gNS6uk4HSccI669UfXFtfReuT062tVTIi5TQt+gamOlsesIW5NoPjDtOopxLdfqROm/49pQR7bu0YU6Yv0JIcNbk5zpKRAH5rtSQc5VnErkrRI90RGjw=; X-YMail-OSG: Wo4rKIIVM1lBqPi1Qm.GjusW0skkZODm8HVP1M2fveoslJF RKocytvlWWhFQugw6PhPFNLGnt9jI.SIJZY3TNx6QxeK6mITCOfamSTNVZiI TbqJRSQVQMykNlSewnpbGp_h637xrI3eCzr8GQHOFARSlGix2XLFR8pV5JTG bQJyPiMZn.IkX93hpkMgYeKHjAn0rQKBg6as4gUoNWhMBJlO2efrs1spsVIx 7dLSjQ1utaCIwMImarBRSejyzlYEQHhAdFtntaTjC4Y78XUBNivjKCFGI_dz JDW2AjzZA1f2PhuItFi_3qULsdgKD7nW7Uy3QpwlPsqmr55pQptamAnW.WNM 65_IRsSddW3XDrar5zW88Ijn9Npab2nW0PfFvCgOI1zhmwO8n2BUsZeTyNkG 8slWpzNtm7YnMd48inhaxkyMgxPi1eVU64g2f02dhP7h.xpt1BcUS1Z6tMLX 8TpM0gff2f3bPmwQLS_OgfoTjE4aDR1p6S2dbo3nqAtUf591lC9dUl6mZhP2 4V2ntXAbQNOuQ8c_gkiaetS2nXKr5YjMG Received: from [208.189.200.2] by web181702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:31:33 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001,aW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgY29tbWVudCBhYm91dCBtb3JlIHRhaWwgbW9tZW50Cm15IHRpZ2VybW90aCBOODJBSyBpcyBtaXNzaW5nIGFuIGFudGktc3BpbiBzdHJha2UKc29tZSB1Z2x5IGNvbnRyYXB0aW9uIGRldmljZWQgYnkgdGhlIGF1c3RyYWxpYW4gQ0FBIGkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IGlzIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIGltcHJvdmUgc3BpbiByZWNvdmVyeSBjaGFyYWN0ZXJpc3RpY3MgYnV0IHNvbWUgb2xkIGZvbGtzIHN3ZWFyIHRoYXQgaXQgZGlkIG5vdCBtYWtlIGEgZGlmZmVyZW5jZQptaW5lIHNwaW5zIGFuZCByZWMBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.130.494 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1357738293.30161.YahooMailNeo@web181702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:31:33 -0800 (PST) From: Dr Andres Katz Reply-To: Dr Andres Katz Subject: Re: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1672125993-602857892-1357738293=:30161" ---1672125993-602857892-1357738293=:30161 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable interesting comment about more tail moment=0Amy tigermoth N82AK is missing = an anti-spin strake=0Asome ugly contraption deviced by the australian CAA i= believe that is supposed to improve spin recovery characteristics but some= old folks swear that it did not make a difference=0Amine spins and recover= s without problem but I know is not a lancair, the most interesting item in= the manual is "if engine quits in the air there is no use in pointing the = nose to the ground, you will never achieve enough airspeed to restart the e= ngine" not something you do in the IV-P=0A=0A=0A___________________________= _____=0AFrom: Wolfgang =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net =0A= Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 5:56 AM=0ASubject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Sta= lls & Spins=0A=0A=0AStall strips are good, they widen the stall warning zon= e.=0ACuffs are good, they do more of the same.=0ABut once you are in a spin= in spite of those devices, what is there to help you recover ?=0A. . . I'm= thinking more tail moment and further forward CG . . . neither of which im= prove efficiency but do help stability.=0A. . . but that needs to be built = in, it's not something that can be glued on after the fact.=0A. . . . . . t= he "kangaroo tail" might be an exception.=0A=0AWolfgang=0A=C2=A0=0A----- Or= iginal Message ----- =0AFrom: John Smith =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net =0ASe= nt: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:20 AM=0ASubject: Re: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spi= ns=0A=0AFrom my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance.=0A=0AHaving= researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair videos of ac= tual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuffs to the = Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to make it ha= rder 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 vi= ew of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin recoverable, t= here would only appear to be upside from installing the cuffs. The flaw is,= of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without wing cuff= s, then the addition of the wing cuffs may=C2=A0preclude spin recovery!=0A= =0AUnless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any ot= her type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries are= possible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, with = or without wing cuffs.=0A=0AMeanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can= say is that the albeit very limited flight testing (straight and level, an= d 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 g= ive the first "gentle" warning", followed by the more severe intermittent "= shuddering" as the centre section drops in and out of the stall (whilst the= outboard sections are still flying).=0A=0AI'm happy to talk to anyone if t= hey are interested to talk about this more=E2=80=A6. numbers below, but ple= ase note time is UTC + 8!!=0A=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0AJohn=0A=0A=0AJohn N G Smit= h=0ATel / fax: =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0+61-8-9385-8891=0AMobile: =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0+61-409-372-975=0AEmail: =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0john@jjts.net.au=0A=0A=0AFrom: =0AReply-To= : Lancair Mailing List =0ADate: Tuesday, 8 January 2= 013 2:25 AM=0ATo: =0ASubject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins=0A=0A=0A=0A>=0A= >Posted for "Peter Field" :=0A>=0A>Dear Lancair Drive= rs:=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins a= nd I want to add=0A>some additional factual information purely for your per= sonal consumption and=0A>reflection.=C2=A0=C2=A0Attached are excerpts from = 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight=0A>test final reports on a series of GA ai= rplanes in which NASA evaluated the=0A>use of cuffs on leading edges to imp= rove the behavior of the test airplane=0A>approaching the stall.=C2=A0=C2= =A0For various reasons the cuffs improved lateral=0A>control entering the s= tall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the=0A>aircraft once a fu= lly developed spin was achieved.=C2=A0=C2=A0Essentially, stall=0A>behavior = was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery.=C2=A0=C2=A0Cuffs on wing=0A= >leading edges are an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is=0A>"w= ashout," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing=0A>alw= ays operate at a lower angle of attack.=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>To my knowledge, Lan= cair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a=0A>fully developed spin= matrix complete with appropriate instrumentation and a=0A>spin recovery ch= ute.=C2=A0=C2=A0There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's=0A>an = Experimental Category airplane.=C2=A0=C2=A0Early on they may have lightly t= ouched=0A>on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a ful= ly=0A>completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at vari= ous=0A>cg's and lateral loadings.=C2=A0=C2=A0In my opinion, it would be hig= hly risky to fool=0A>around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is= no documentation that=0A>indicates any of these airplanes can always be re= covered from a one turn=0A>incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin= .=C2=A0=C2=A0Being good at spin=0A>recovery isn't so much a matter of how s= killful a pilot you are, it's a=0A>matter of how many spins you've experien= ced in airplanes known to be=0A>recoverable.=C2=A0=C2=A0Being familiar with= the stall characteristics of your own=0A>airplane should be a matter of pe= rsonal preference.=C2=A0=C2=A0=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Best regards, =0A>=0A>Pete Fi= eld (LNC2)=0A>=0A>USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A= >-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.= html ---1672125993-602857892-1357738293=:30161 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
interesting comment about more tail mom= ent
my tigermoth N82AK is missi= ng an anti-spin strake
some ugly contraption devic= ed by the australian CAA i believe that is supposed to improve spin recover= y characteristics but some old folks swear that it did not make a differenc= e
mine spins and recovers wit= hout problem but I know is not a lancair, the most interesting item in the = manual is "if engine quits in the air there is no use in pointing the nose = to the ground, you will never achieve enough airspeed to restart the engine= " not something you do in the IV-P

From:= Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 5:56 AM
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: St= alls & Spins

Stall strips are good, they widen the stal= l warning zone.
Cuffs are good, they do more of the same.<= /FONT>
But once you are in a spin in spite of tho= se devices, what is there to help you recover ?
. . . I'm thinking more tail moment and fu= rther forward CG . . . neither of which improve efficiency but do help stab= ility.
. . . but that needs to be built in, it's = not something that can be glued on after the fact.
. . . . . . the "kangaroo tail" might be a= n exception.
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: John Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins

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.ne= t.au


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



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

Dear Lancair Drive= rs:



I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins a= nd I want to add
some additional factual information purely for your per= sonal consumption and
reflection.  Attached are excerpts from = 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight
test final reports on a series of GA ai= rplanes in which NASA evaluated the
use of cuffs on leading edges to imp= rove the behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  = ;For various reasons the cuffs improved lateral
control entering the sta= ll, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft once a full= y developed spin was achieved.  Essentially, stall
behavior wa= s improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery.  Cuffs on wing
le= ading edges are an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is
"wash= out," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing
always= operate at a lower angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancai= r has never subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin ma= trix complete with appropriate instrumentation and a
spin recovery chute= .  There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's
an Exp= erimental Category airplane.  Early on they may have lightly touc= hed
on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully<= BR>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 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 develope= d 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 ex= perienced in airplanes known to be
recoverable.  Being familia= r with the stall characteristics of your own
airplane should be a matter= of personal preference.  



Best regards,

P= ete Field (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor
<= BR>

-- For archives and unsub http://mai= l.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


---1672125993-602857892-1357738293=:30161--