Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:10:35 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1121010@logan.com>
From: "Tom Gourley" <tom.gourley@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
Reply-to: "Tom Gourley" <tom.gourley@verizon.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=windows-1250;
 reply-type=response
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <list-1119787@logan.com>

Rienk Ayers wrote:

>  Though I have flown an L4 and Columbia with the idea of buying one at
>  different times, I do not have even an hour in each type, so I have no 
> way
>  to judge or compare the different models, let alone discern the stability
>  and control nuances - I just knew they were too twitchy for me.

"Twitchy" is a highly subjective evaluation.  I learned to fly in a Grumman 
AA-1B, a plane that evolved from the 2-seat American Yankee.  Since it was 
the first airplane I ever flew, and the one in which I developed my flying 
habits and reflexes, I had no problems with it.  Pilots who learned to fly 
in 150s didn't like the little Grumman.  Most of them complained it was 
twitchy and unstable.  I loved it.  It was light on the controls and very 
responsive.  The first time I flew a Cessna 172 I thought it felt like a 
truck; a very unresponsive truck.  I've yet to fly in a an ES or LIV, but I 
do have a little stick time in a Legacy.  To me it's not at all unstable. It 
is responsive and precise but has better hands off stablity than most 
certified airplanes I have flown.  It does requires a light touch to fly one 
smoothly.

If you feel an airplane is "twitchy" then don't fly it.  On the other hand 
don't try to convince pilots whose likes and dislikes are different from 
yours that there is something inherently wrong with their airplane of 
choice.  The Cessna drivers never convinced me that the Grumman was 
unstable, and I never convinced them that Cessnas are trucks.

Tom Gourley
Legacy Builder

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 4:45 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash


> Posted for "Rienk Ayers" <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>:
>
>  Jeff,
>  you are probably right about the Lancairs in question being the older two
>  seat variants.  Again, I was just quoting him, and I gave a good enough
>  reference that anyone could read the whole article themselves.
>  Though I have flown an L4 and Columbia with the idea of buying one at
>  different times, I do not have even an hour in each type, so I have no 
> way
>  to judge or compare the different models, let alone discern the stability
>  and control nuances - I just knew they were too twitchy for me. Only a
>  qualified engineer could legitimately compare the numbers (derivatives) 
> or
>  an unbiased test pilot be able to discern the differences. My opinions 
> are
>  based upon feedback from qualified people, including professional 
> engineers
>  and test pilots who have flown the Lancairs - and that is as much as I'm
>  going to say about that.
>  My level of expertise has nothing to do with this issue - the numbers 
> speak
>  for themselves. I have yet to hear from a Lancair builder/pilot who even
>  knows what derivatives are, let alone what they mean, and what the 
> numbers
>  actually are for any model of Lancair. To be fair, I sincerely doubt that
>  most designers and manufacturers even know either. But if I were an
>  owner/builder, I would sure hope that someone could give me the answers - 
> at
>  least the theoretical numbers that were calculated in the design process
>  (only wind tunnel testing can completely verify them). don't inquiring 
> minds
>  want to know?
>  Yes, you could simply say that you've flown an airplane, you can live 
> with
>  it's bad characteristics (if any), and make sure you don't "fall of the
>  wall."
>  But if you will recall, this thread got started when Allen Adamson 
> wondered,
>  "what can be done to create a safer lancair record."
>  My suggestion? Don't just teach gymnastics - rather, shorten the wall.
>  RA
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>