X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:38:05 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.av-mx.com ([137.118.16.57] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3486771 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:47:12 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=137.118.16.57; envelope-from=pinetownd@volcano.net Received: from DennisDell (65-174-1-39.dsl.volcano.net [65.174.1.39]) (Authenticated sender: pinetownd@volcano.net) by smtp1.av-mx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E56290985 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:46:36 -0500 (EST) X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Dennis Johnson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Embarrassing Error: Accident Narrative X-Original-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:46:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0142_01C98B8E.5E778D80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0142_01C98B8E.5E778D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, Boy, am I embarrassed! In my attempt to think through the flight = dynamics as described in the Legacy canopy accident, I got myself turned = around and backwards and my explanation came out wrong. Of course the = tail provides negative lift and of course losing that negative lift will = cause the nose to drop. =20 Please accept my apologies for the mistake and thanks to those who = corrected me offline as well as on the LML. It is important not to let = errors go uncorrected and I'm glad people caught and corrected my error. However, I hope that doesn't detract from the other points in my = posting, which is that we have real world examples of Legacies flying = with open canopies without control problems and ones with control = problems. I'm still inviting Lancair International to join the = discussion with actual flight test data or aerodynamic modeling data to = help resolve the question. Sorry, Dennis (self grounded until I reread my aerodynamics books!) ------=_NextPart_000_0142_01C98B8E.5E778D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

Boy, am I embarrassed! In my attempt to think through the = flight=20 dynamics as described in the Legacy canopy accident, I got myself turned = around=20 and backwards and my explanation came out wrong. Of course the = tail=20 provides negative lift and of course losing that negative lift will = cause the=20 nose to drop.

Please accept my apologies for the mistake and thanks to those who=20 corrected me offline as well as on the LML. It is important not to = let=20 errors go uncorrected and I'm glad people caught and corrected my = error.

However, I hope that doesn't detract from the other points in my = posting,=20 which is that we have real world examples of Legacies flying with open = canopies=20 without control problems and ones with control problems. I'm still = inviting Lancair International to join the discussion with actual flight = test=20 data or aerodynamic modeling data to help resolve the question.

Sorry,

Dennis (self grounded until I reread my aerodynamics=20 books!)

------=_NextPart_000_0142_01C98B8E.5E778D80--