X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:15:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.168.140] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6003782 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:08:03 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.9.168.140; envelope-from=john@jjts.net.au Received: from nskntcmgw08p ([61.9.169.168]) by nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20130110000728.TMNO24575.nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com@nskntcmgw08p> for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:07:28 +0000 Received: from [192.168.15.18] ([110.142.219.220]) by nskntcmgw08p with BigPond Outbound id m07R1k00P4luXCm0107SQL; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:07:28 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=FNuZNpUs c=1 sm=1 a=6xIvA0WTx9AVOJiHBW+VeQ==:17 a=D1PIhDlQBR8A:10 a=mCSqThwqAAAA:8 a=-4Zy7PhmlH0A:10 a=m2giflinAAAA:8 a=HHGDD-5mAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=fLuM78UsAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=jjqUt_clAAAA:8 a=Lp3QEThBvGxJY45iwtMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=rnYgdqcAs4AA:10 a=-ZBvsNeBbbMA:10 a=UFtNBcj8PC4A:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=j-w-REOKI6QA:10 a=i1zE5R4R5dEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=3jk_M6PjnjYA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=_34mUTNyXoo3VGKA0hUA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=nWgq54SiMLrja2QG:21 a=6xIvA0WTx9AVOJiHBW+VeQ==:117 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:07:24 +0800 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins From: John Smith X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3440650047_186762" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3440650047_186762 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi George, I originally downloaded the videos from a link proved to me by Lancair. I'v= e been trying it (see below) but the link is not valid =AD so I'm guessing the videos may have been removed. But have a try yourself =AD may work for you? = I have the 5 videos (all of the Legacy FG) totalling 230MB. Not emailable =AD but I can upload them somewhere via FTP if you like =AD can use Skype for this, or other tools like coreFTP etc=8A just let me know and we'll make it happen somehow. Below is what I was provided with in early 2009. The cuffs improve the stall characteristics greatly. Take a look at the following: =20 www.lancair.com/legacy_cuff_test =20 Effectively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep stalls with flaps up, take off, down, 30 degree bank, and power on. The tests were conducte= d in some pretty bumpy conditions. There was no more than 5 degree roll off without power and less than 10 degree roll off with power. =20 These tests were not conducted with the ventral. We are not looking to extend the rudder as of now. We are still investigating this though. Regards, John =20 John N G Smith Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 Mobile: +61-409-372-975 Email: john@jjts.net.au From: George Wehrung Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:34 PM To: Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins > John,=20 >=20 > I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in particu= lar > if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chance, > doubtful but I thought I'd ask. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 > On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith wrote: >=20 >> From my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance. >>=20 >> Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair vid= eos >> of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuffs= to >> the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to mak= e 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 recoverable, t= here >> would only appear to be upside from installing the cuffs. The flaw is, o= f >> course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without wing cuffs= , >> then the addition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin recovery! >>=20 >> Unless 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, wit= h or >> without wing cuffs. >>=20 >> Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit v= ery >> limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB tur= ns) >> in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warning= of >> the impending stall =AD stall strips give the first "gentle" warning", fol= lowed >> by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre section drops= in >> and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are still flying). >>=20 >> I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this mo= re=8A. >> numbers below, but please note time is UTC + 8!! >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> John >>=20 >> =20 >> John N G Smith >> Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 >> Mobile: +61-409-372-975 >> Email: john@jjts.net.au >>=20 >>=20 >> From: >> Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List >> Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM >> To: >> Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins >>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Posted for "Peter Field" : >>>=20 >>> Dear Lancair Drivers: >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins and I want to a= dd >>> some additional factual information purely for your personal consumpti= on >>> and >>> reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flig= ht >>> 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 airp= lane >>> approaching the stall. For various reasons the cuffs improved lateral >>> control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizin= g the >>> aircraft once a fully developed spin was achieved. Essentially, stall >>> behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery. Cuffs on win= g >>> 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. >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> 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 tou= ched >>> on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully >>> completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at vario= us >>> 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 documentatio= n >>> that >>> indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one tu= rn >>> 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 ow= n >>> airplane should be a matter of personal preference. >>> =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.html --B_3440650047_186762 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi George,

I originally downloaded the videos from a link proved to m= e by Lancair. I've been trying it (see below) but the link is not valid R= 11; so I'm guessing the videos may have been removed. But have a try yoursel= f – may work for you?  I have the 5 videos (all of the Legacy FG)= totalling 230MB. Not emailable – but I can upload them somewhere via = FTP if you like – can use Skype for this, or other tools like coreFTP = etc… just let me know and we'll make it happen somehow.

=
Below is what I was provided with in early 2009.

The cuffs improve the stall cha= racteristics greatly.  Take a look at the following:<= /font>

 

www.lancair= .com/legacy_cuff_test

 

Effectively, these tests are full aft stick limited deep stalls wit= h flaps up, take off, down, 30 degree bank,  and power on.  The te= sts were conducted in some pretty bumpy conditions.  There was no more = than 5 degree roll off without power and less than 10 degree roll off with p= ower.

&= nbsp;

= These tests= were not conducted with the ventral.  We are not looking to extend the= rudder as of now.  We are still investigating this though.




Regards,

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

=
From= : George Wehrung <gw5@me.com><= br>Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <= ;lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:34 PMTo: <lml@lancaironline.net>
S= ubject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins

John, 

I would be interested in watching some of the videos on th= e ES in particular if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Intern= et by chance, doubtful but I thought I'd ask.


<= /div>


Sent from my iPhone

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

From my pers= pective, 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 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 into a spi= n, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable. So, if one accept= s the view of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin recover= able, 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 wing= cuffs, then the addition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin re= covery!

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 possible under what flight and loading circumst= ances and, of course, with or without wing cuffs.

M= eanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit very l= imited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB turns) i= n my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warning of t= he impending stall – stall strips give the first "gentle" warning", fo= llowed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre section dr= ops 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…. 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>
Reply-T= o: Lancair Mailing List <l= ml@lancaironline.net>
Date: = Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM
To: <lml>
Subject: [LML] Re: = Stalls & Spins



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. &= nbsp;Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight
test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated the
u= se of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  For various reasons the cuff= s improved lateral
control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft once a fully developed spin was ac= hieved.  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 l= ower angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin matrix comple= te 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 documentatio= n on a fully
completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at various
cg's and lateral loadings.  In my opinion, i= t would be highly risky to fool
around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation that
indicates any of these airplan= es can always be recovered from a one turn
incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin.  Being good at spin
recovery isn't so m= uch 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. &nb= sp;Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your own
airplane should be a matter of personal preference.  



B= est regards,

Pete Field (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor



-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
 --B_3440650047_186762--