|
|
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/
|
|