X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:56:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pan.gwi.net ([207.5.128.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTPS id 2245859 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:23:42 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.5.128.165; envelope-from=dhc1@gwi.net Received: from S0032744976 (d-216-195-160-92.gwi.net [216.195.160.92]) by pan.gwi.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id l76HMvS5001032 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:23:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dhc1@gwi.net) X-Original-Message-ID: <005d01c7d84e$6ec743f0$0500000a@S0032744976> From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lancair announcement? X-Original-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:22:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7D82C.E59BC4A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7D82C.E59BC4A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The early Velocities were capable of just that. During flight tests, = one entered what was termed "Deep Stall"- upon stalling the canard it = went into a vertical descent in an upright slightly nose-high position. = The descent rate was slow- I no longer have the information but I = believe it was between 3-500 FPM, and the attitude was very stable. = Various power and control inputs were tried to no effect. The pilot even = leaned out over the nose in an effort to push it down. It impacted a = river and he received back injuries as I recall. One lesson from this which may apply to BRS use- restraints and = cushioning may be inadequate for a vertical impact. I know of one = instance where a Cirrus deployed the chute shortly after takeoff near = Indianapolis. The plane dropped into a pond and the passengers were = rescued but the pilot was knocked unconscious and drowned. The NTSB = reported the injuries as "serious"- chute use is not without risk. The = pilot lost control during cruise climb- would he have been competent to = make an emergency landing? Would the passengers have been better off if = he had tried? I don't know. I agree with Hamid that using the chute as a selling point may = encourage pilots to buy an aircraft that is beyond their ability. In = Lancair's case that may be a moot point. How many Lancair owners or = builders have experience with the performance they are buying at the = time of purchase? The IV-P will have roughly twice the speed and ceiling = that I'm used to in the IO-550 Navion that I'm currently flying. That = deserves respect and requires preparation. I plan to get some training = at least once during the build time and again prior to testing, which = will be done professionally. -Bill Wade ----- Original Message -----=20 From: James H. Keyworth=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:10 PM Subject: [LML] Re: lancair announcement? So, what if, instead of "pointing down", you removed all forward speed = and kept the aircraft pointed "flat"? Assuming a stable no-yaw, = no-bank, no-knot stall, (and no need for distance) would the descent = rate be reduced because the aircraft is now a falling non-aerodynamic = cross-shaped flat plate? Compared with the "best glide" vertical speed? = And could that descent be converted to Vs 1.3 for a contolled landing? I suppose one would have to chuck all loose weight items (maybe even a = co-pilot) into the tailcone to help keep a flat descent, and then haul = them out again for elevator control on landing. JHK ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7D82C.E59BC4A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  The early Velocities were = capable of just=20 that. During flight tests, one entered what was termed "Deep Stall"- = upon=20 stalling the canard it went into a vertical descent in an upright = slightly=20 nose-high position. The descent rate was slow- I no longer have the = information but I believe it was between 3-500 FPM, and the = attitude was=20 very stable. Various power and control inputs were tried to no = effect. The=20 pilot even leaned out over the nose in an effort to push it down. It = impacted a=20 river and he received back injuries as I recall.
 
  One lesson from this which may = apply to BRS=20 use- restraints and cushioning may be inadequate for a vertical impact. = I know=20 of one instance where a Cirrus deployed the chute shortly after takeoff = near=20 Indianapolis. The plane dropped into a pond and the passengers were = rescued=20 but the pilot was knocked unconscious and drowned. The NTSB reported the = injuries as "serious"- chute use is not without risk. The pilot lost=20 control during cruise climb- would he have been competent to make = an=20 emergency landing? Would the passengers have been better off if he had=20 tried? I don't know.
 
  I agree with Hamid that using = the chute as a=20 selling point may encourage pilots to buy an aircraft that is beyond = their=20 ability. In Lancair's case that may be a moot point. How many=20 Lancair owners or builders have experience with the=20 performance they are buying at the time of purchase? The = IV-P will=20 have roughly twice the speed and ceiling that I'm used to in the IO-550 = Navion=20 that I'm currently flying. That deserves respect and requires = preparation. I=20 plan to get some training at least once during the build time and again = prior to=20 testing, which will be done professionally.  -Bill = Wade
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 James = H.=20 Keyworth
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 = 8:10=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: lancair=20 announcement?

So, what if, instead of "pointing = down", you=20 removed all forward speed and kept the aircraft pointed = "flat"? =20 Assuming a stable no-yaw, no-bank, no-knot stall, (and no need for = distance)=20 would the descent rate be reduced because the aircraft is now a = falling=20 non-aerodynamic cross-shaped flat plate?  Compared with the = "best=20 glide" vertical speed? 
 
And could that descent be converted = to Vs 1.3 for=20 a contolled landing?
 
I suppose one would have to chuck all = loose=20 weight items (maybe even a co-pilot) into the tailcone to help = keep a=20 flat descent, and then haul them out again for elevator control on=20 landing.
 
JHK
------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7D82C.E59BC4A0--