X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:49:45 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta21.charter.net ([216.33.127.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3088688 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:59:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.81; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from aarprv06.charter.net ([10.20.200.76]) by mta21.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.03.00 201-2186-126-20070710) with ESMTP id <20080822155822.JTFU9229.mta21.charter.net@aarprv06.charter.net> for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:58:22 -0400 Received: from axs ([75.132.241.174]) by aarprv06.charter.net with SMTP id <20080822155822.QIMK29012.aarprv06.charter.net@axs> for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:58:22 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <007701c9046f$e73ee6f0$6501a8c0@axs> From: "terrence o'neill" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Accidents X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:58:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0074_01C90445.FE027C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Chzlrs: 0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C90445.FE027C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob, May I offer some distinctions regarding a few terms you used, which = should clarify how this Lancair safety problem should be approached? You said: 1) Poor behavior at high angles of attack is a design = problem, and one of the risks that we accept (knowingly or unknowingly) = when we buy an experimental airplane rather than a Part 23 certified = airplane.=20 First, do NOT accept design problems. When we buy a Kit, we don't buy, = and cannot legally buy, an Experimental 'kitplane'. Unless it has = already been built and received its first Airworthiness Certificate, the = kit is just part materials for a project. The magic that turns a = 'project' into an 'aircraft' is the first Airworthiness Certificate. A = Kit is not different from a bunch of parts bought or scroun ged by a = plans-builder. Further, a kit of parts legally must not constitute more = than 49% of the project. And the majority of kits are never completed = to become an FAA defined 'airplane'.=20 This distinction is very important to States with Aircraft Use Tax. So, = please call your project a project, and if you bought a kit to speed = completion, call it a merchandise kit. When you get your Airworthiness = Certificate, the FAA says you will become the 'manufacturer/builder' as = of that date, of an 'airplane'. When as manufacturer you sell the = 'airplane', the buyer will have to pay the tax ... sales, or use. You = will have paid tax opn the parts and matgerials you bought to build the = project which may or may not ever be completed into an 'airplane' ... = and most are not. As an amateur-builder you are permitted and even encouraged to improve = the design, within your own abilities. One should not 'accept' the = faults in a design and try to live (and die) with them. You mentioned: Remember when the Columbia crashed during spin testing? = That wasn't because of a failed spin chute -- it was because of an = unrecoverable spin mode. And then we have the Piper Traumahawk, which = obtained certification on one airframe, but produced an ever-so-slightly = different airplane which had significantly different stall recovery = characteristics (although this is the exception rather than the rule in = the certified world.) This is not quite correct, as any aerodynamic or primary structural = change invalidates the manufactured aircraft's FAA-granted Type = Certificate, and requires re-testing for FAA approval. This does not = apply to amateur-builders or the commercial 'manufacturer' prior to the = award of the first Airworthiness Certificate. So, when youo flight test = your plane, be looking for problems, and expect to correct them. Your also said: Certified airplanes are usually safer at high angles of = attack, Apart from aerobatic categoty, most 'certified' (you mean = non-experimental) are not safer at high AOAs, and are all placarded = against intentional spins. For FAR 23 they only have to demonstrate to = the FAA recovery from an 'incipient spinb', that is., the first two = turns of spin-entry, during which phase most airplanes will self-recover = or unstall once... as I recall. Most Standard Category TCd aircraft = will not recover from a developed spin at their aft CG. I think = probably the much safer spin recovery requirement of the per-WWII = designs was removed after the war. .. recovery, hand-off, from a = six-turn spin. I never understood the 'placard' approach to safety... as it ignores the = inadvertant stall/spin Most pilots are not airplane designers, and so that's why they don't = talk about correcting design problems... but they should be trying to = learn how to correct design problems if they're building an = Experimental. =20 Others will have a different viewpoint, to which they are entitled. I'd = enjoy hearing them. Mine comes from designing, building, and test-flying three different = airplanes, and from making major changes to improve the safety of the = last Waco, a Mitchell B-10, a Dragonfly, and now a Lancair 235/320 ... = and many years as a Tech Counselor and Flight Advisor, and I try to = encourage other Experimenters to learn as much as they can, I guess = because I enjoy this wonderful past-time Paul Poberezny and his WWII = friends created for us, with the help of the FAA. Terrence O'Neill L235/320 N211AL No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.072.012). http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C90445.FE027C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob,
 
May I offer some = distinctions=20 regarding a few terms you used, which should clarify how this Lancair = safety=20 problem should be approached?
 
You said: 1)  Poor behavior at high angles of attack is a = design=20 problem, and one of the risks that we accept (knowingly or unknowingly) = when we=20 buy an experimental airplane rather than a Part 23 certified=20 airplane. 
 
First, do NOT = accept design=20 problems.  When we buy a Kit, we don't buy, and cannot legally buy, = an=20 Experimental 'kitplane'.  Unless it has already been built and = received its=20 first Airworthiness Certificate, the kit is just part materials for a=20 project.  The magic that turns a 'project' into an 'aircraft' is = the first=20 Airworthiness Certificate.  A Kit is not different from a bunch of = parts=20 bought or scroun ged by a plans-builder.  Further, a kit of=20 parts legally must not constitute more than 49% of the = project.  And=20 the majority of kits are never completed to become  an FAA defined=20 'airplane'.
 
This distinction is = very=20 important to States with Aircraft Use Tax.  So, please call your = project a=20 project, and if you bought a kit to speed completion, call it a = merchandise=20 kit.  When you get your Airworthiness Certificate, the FAA says you = will=20 become the 'manufacturer/builder' as of that date, of an = 'airplane'.  When=20 as manufacturer you sell the 'airplane', the buyer will have to pay = the tax=20 ... sales, or use. You will have paid tax opn the parts and matgerials = you=20 bought to build the project which may or may not ever be completed into = an=20 'airplane' ... and most are not.
 
As an = amateur-builder you are=20 permitted and even encouraged to improve the design, within your own=20 abilities.  One should not 'accept' the faults in a design and try = to live=20 (and die) with them.
 
You mentioned:  Remember when the Columbia crashed during spin = testing?  That wasn't because of a failed spin chute -- it was = because of=20 an unrecoverable spin mode.  And then we have the Piper Traumahawk, = which=20 obtained certification on one airframe, but produced an ever-so-slightly = different airplane which had significantly different stall recovery=20 characteristics (although this is the exception rather than the rule in = the=20 certified world.)
 
This is not quite = correct, as=20 any aerodynamic or primary structural change invalidates the = manufactured=20 aircraft's FAA-granted Type Certificate, and requires re-testing for FAA = approval.  This does not apply to amateur-builders or the=20 commercial 'manufacturer' prior to the award of the first=20 Airworthiness Certificate.  So, when youo flight test your plane, = be=20 looking for problems, and expect to correct them.
 
Your also said:  Certified airplanes are usually safer at high = angles=20 of attack,
 
Apart from aerobatic categoty, most 'certified' (you mean = non-experimental)=20 are not safer at high AOAs, and are all placarded against intentional=20 spins.  For FAR 23 they only have to demonstrate to the FAA = recovery=20 from an 'incipient spinb', that is., the first two turns of spin-entry, = during=20 which phase most airplanes will self-recover or unstall once... as I=20 recall.  Most Standard Category TCd aircraft will not recover from = a=20 developed spin at their aft CG.  I think probably the much safer = spin=20 recovery requirement of the per-WWII designs was removed after the = war. ..=20 recovery, hand-off, from a six-turn spin.
I never understood the 'placard' approach to safety... as it = ignores the=20 inadvertant stall/spin
 
Most pilots are not = airplane=20 designers, and so that's why they don't talk about correcting design = problems...=20 but they should be trying to learn  how to correct design problems = if=20 they're building an Experimental. 
 
Others will have a = different=20 viewpoint, to which they are entitled.  I'd enjoy hearing=20 them.
Mine comes from = designing,=20 building, and test-flying three different airplanes, and from making = major=20 changes to improve the safety of the last Waco, a Mitchell B-10, a = Dragonfly,=20 and now a Lancair 235/320 ... and many years as a Tech Counselor = and Flight=20 Advisor, and I try to encourage other Experimenters to learn as much as = they=20 can, I guess because I enjoy this wonderful past-time Paul Poberezny and = his=20 WWII friends created for us, with the help of the FAA.
 
Terrence = O'Neill
L235/320 = N211AL

 


No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.072.012).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C90445.FE027C00--