X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc2-s34.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.170] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTP id 2923690 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 May 2008 14:58:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.170; envelope-from=bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Received: from BAY128-W48 ([65.55.133.83]) by bay0-omc2-s34.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 15 May 2008 11:58:05 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_3ded0afd-39d3-41a7-8ce4-e80bff4fc465_" X-Originating-IP: [65.182.241.193] From: Bill Kennedy X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training X-Original-Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:58:05 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2008 18:58:05.0754 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BB629A0:01C8B6BD] --_3ded0afd-39d3-41a7-8ce4-e80bff4fc465_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dom, it's not even debatable at 200'. I'm comfortable with 500', but not mu= ch less. I can promise that if I did make a turn, I would not be a stall-sp= in victim. Good thought though. My field is 3200 feet long and I'm not at 500' AGL unt= il well past the end of the runway. Good news -- I've got a good road with = very little traffic in front of me. Fly safe -- Bill To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:27:03 -0400 From: domcrain@tpg.com.au Subject: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= OK Bill =96 You=92re on the take-off =0A= R/W length 1000 metres (3280=92). You=92re at say, 200=92 passing=0A= 100 KIAS Gear is UP, Flaps retracted =96 engine dead cuts. Where to?=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= I think your scenario is fine if you have a=0A= significant amount of breathing gas under, but then =96 can you still make= =0A= the airfield?=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Your scenario is seriously debatable, I=0A= believe.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Cheers mate=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Dom=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= VH-CZJ=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= -----Original Message----- =0A= From: Lancair Mailing List=0A= [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill=0A= Kennedy =0A= Sent: Thursday, 15 May 2008 8:39=0A= AM =0A= To: lml@lancaironline.net =0A= Subject: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling=0A= nozzles and training=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= I practice these simulated engine=0A= failure turns from time to time. I'd far rather land on or parallel to the= =0A= runway than in the whatever off the ends of the runway. There is a big=0A= difference between a maximum performance turn at 100 KIAS and a 60 degree b= ank=0A= turn. My experience suggests that the turn rate is so fast at max performan= ce,=0A= that timing the rollout becomes a problem. Max performance puts you on the = edge=0A= of a stall, so brain overload is a problem too. However, a 60 degree bank= =0A= produces a very brisk turn rate without overtaxing my brain. I can still ho= ld=0A= my 100KIAS and time my rollout perfectly. =0A= =0A= To reiterate: =0A= 1. Max performance turns at low altitude suck. =0A= 2. 60 degree bank turns are easy if you maintain your airspeed. =0A= 3. Practice, or don't plan to do it for real. The key things are to maintai= n=0A= your airspeed and keep the ball in the middle. =0A= =0A= Almost all say they'd land "straight ahead". Almost all attempt to=0A= return to the airport when it actually happens. The one's who don't practic= e=0A= often die.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= To: lml@lancaironline.net =0A= Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:35:42 -0400 =0A= From: tom.gourley@verizon.net =0A= Subject: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= "check this out for=0A= training..... =0A= http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html "=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= I can't dispute the results shown in=0A= the video, but I gotta wonder. I understand that a steep bank with low=0A= airspeed results in a high turn rate, i.e. completes the turn in the least= =0A= amount of time, but it leaves no margin for error. In a real engine=0A= out situation, high pucker factor, probably distractions, maybe some=0A= turbulence, lots of adrenaline, is a 60 degree bank with the stick=0A= pulled back so that you're getting some stall buffeting really a good idea?= =0A= I don't think so; especially not in a Lancair, and probably not in several= =0A= other types of aircraft. A few years ago I watched the pilot of a Mooney= =0A= 231 attempt to make a steeply banked turn to a runway after loss of power a= t=0A= low altitude. (Yes, it turned out to be fuel exhaustion.) He was=0A= trying to turn a total of 120 - 135 degrees. He had turned about 90=0A= degrees when the right wing and nose dropped noticeably; a stall-spin=0A= entry. He stopped the rotation immediately with opposite rudder=0A= but was too low to fully recover. The impact was fatal. I=0A= think an off airport landing with the aircraft under control would always b= e=0A= better than an uncontrolled descent.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Yes, I realize an AOA would help=0A= tremendously in this situation, assuming the pilot isn't completely paniced= and=0A= is capable of flying the AOA accurately. Training and practice sounds=0A= like a good idea.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Tom Gourley=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= --_3ded0afd-39d3-41a7-8ce4-e80bff4fc465_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dom, it's not ev= en debatable at 200'. I'm comfortable with 500', but not much less. I can p= romise that if I did make a turn, I would not be a stall-spin victim.
Good thought though. My field is 3200 feet long and I'm not at 500' AGL u= ntil well past the end of the runway. Good news -- I've got a good road wit= h very little traffic in front of me.

Fly safe -- Bill

=

To: lml@lancaironline.netDate: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:27:03 -0400
From: domcrain@tpg.com.au
Subj= ect: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training

=0A= =0A= =0A= = =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

OK Bill =96 You=92re = on the take-off =0A= R/W length 1000 metres (3280=92). You=92re at say, 200=92 passing=0A= 100 KIAS Gear is UP, Flaps retracted =96 engine dead cuts. Where to?=

=0A= =0A=

 <= /p>=0A= =0A=

I think your scenario= is fine if you have a=0A= significant amount of breathing gas under, but then =96 can you still make= =0A= the airfield?

=0A= =0A=

 <= /p>=0A= =0A=

Your scenario is seri= ously debatable, I=0A= believe.

=0A= =0A=

 <= /p>=0A= =0A=

Cheers mate

=0A= =0A=

 <= /p>=0A= =0A=

Dom

= =0A= =0A=

 <= /p>=0A= =0A=

VH-CZJ<= /p>=0A= =0A=

 <= /p>=0A= =0A=

-----Ori= ginal Message-----
=0A= From: Lancair Mailing List= =0A= [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Beh= alf Of Bill=0A= Kennedy
=0A= Sent: Thursday, 15 May 200= 8 8:39=0A= AM
=0A= To: lml@lancaironline.net<= br>=0A= Subject: [LML] Re: Crash, = fueling=0A= nozzles and training

=0A= =0A=

 =

=0A= =0A=

I practi= ce these simulated engine=0A= failure turns from time to time. I'd far rather land on or parallel to the= =0A= runway than in the whatever off the ends of the runway. There is a big=0A= difference between a maximum performance turn at 100 KIAS and a 60 degree b= ank=0A= turn. My experience suggests that the turn rate is so fast at max performan= ce,=0A= that timing the rollout becomes a problem. Max performance puts you on the = edge=0A= of a stall, so brain overload is a problem too. However, a 60 degree bank= =0A= produces a very brisk turn rate without overtaxing my brain. I can still ho= ld=0A= my 100KIAS and time my rollout perfectly.
=0A=
=0A= To reiterate:
=0A= 1. Max performance turns at low altitude suck.
=0A= 2. 60 degree bank turns are easy if you maintain your airspeed.
=0A= 3. Practice, or don't plan to do it for real. The key things are to maintai= n=0A= your airspeed and keep the ball in the middle.
=0A=
=0A= Almost all say they'd land "straight ahead". Almost all attempt to=0A= return to the airport when it actually happens. The one's who don't practic= e=0A= often die.

=0A= =0A=


=0A=
=0A=

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

To: lml@lancaironline.net
=0A= Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:35:42 -0400
=0A= From: tom.gourley@verizon.net
=0A= Subject: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

"check this out for= =0A= training.....
=0A= http://www.aerobats.c= om/seminar_02-07.html "

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

 

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

I can't di= spute the results shown in=0A= the video, but I gotta wonder.  I understand that a steep bank with lo= w=0A= airspeed results in a high turn rate, i.e. completes the turn in the least= =0A= amount of time, but it leaves no margin for error.  In a real eng= ine=0A= out situation, high pucker factor, probably distractions, maybe some=0A= turbulence, lots of adrenaline, is a 60 degree bank with the stic= k=0A= pulled back so that you're getting some stall buffeting really a good idea?=  =0A= I don't think so; especially not in a Lancair, and probably not in sev= eral=0A= other types of aircraft.  A few years ago I watched the pilot of a Moo= ney=0A= 231 attempt to make a steeply banked turn to a runway after loss of power a= t=0A= low altitude.  (Yes, it turned out to be fuel exhaustion.)  He wa= s=0A= trying to turn a total of 120 - 135 degrees.  He had turned about 90= =0A= degrees when the right wing and nose dropped noticeably; a stall-spin=0A= entry.  He stopped the rotation immediately with opposite ru= dder=0A= but was too low to fully recover.  The impact was fatal.  I= =0A= think an off airport landing with the aircraft under control would always b= e=0A= better than an uncontrolled descent.

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

 

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

Yes, I rea= lize an AOA would help=0A= tremendously in this situation, assuming the pilot isn't completely paniced= and=0A= is capable of flying the AOA accurately.  Training and practice sounds= =0A= like a good idea.

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

 

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

Tom Gourle= y

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

 

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=

 

=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A=
=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
= --_3ded0afd-39d3-41a7-8ce4-e80bff4fc465_--