X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:19:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4000789 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:38:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136]) by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nB3GbPQ3006302 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:37:25 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.d0c.65075e95 (37564) for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-dc03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dc03.mx.aol.com [205.188.170.3]) by cia-mb04.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB041-d3c04b17e93b54; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:37:20 -0500 Received: from webmail-d080 (webmail-d080.sim.aol.com [205.188.181.106]) by smtprly-dc03.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDC038-d3c04b17e93b54; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:37:15 -0500 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number X-Original-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:37:15 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 75.46.205.203 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC424E016EF32D_49B4_D24D_webmail-d080.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 29644-STANDARD Received: from 75.46.205.203 by webmail-d080.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.106) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:37:15 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC424E015E497F-49B4-6805@webmail-d080.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CC424E016EF32D_49B4_D24D_webmail-d080.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I concur with Skip's assessment. Vne is a limit just like G-- if you excee= d the limits recommended by Lancair you are a test pilot and the risk goes= up dramatically. LOBO does not endorse exceeding these limits. Our member= s are currently paying the price of limited insurance coverage because of= those Lancair pilots who have exceeded their abilites and the limits of= their aircraft. One IVP was lost in August 2005 after spending a week nex= t to me at Oshkosh (see below for those of you who incorrectly believe th= at there are no Lancair accidents involving this stuff) and the airframe= failed above Vne near the predicted Vne value. Lynn Farnsworth has gone= to great lengths to study the issue, strengthen the airframe and reduce= his risk. Most of the rest of us have not. I applaud Lynn for his efforts= and the methodolgy he has employed. If you want to expand the envelope of= your aircraft then it will take some dedicated engineering and redesign--= not simply stating "well Lance over designed it to begin with" wishful th= inking. There are many real smart people like Robert Wolf (who has a PhD= in aero and over 30 years experience in the industry) who have given you= the benefit of their decades of experience --please listen to them and en= joy your Lancairs safely this holiday season and in the future. =20 Best Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards President, LOBO Excerpts from the Canadian report for Sterling Ainsworth's accident is as= follows.=20 "The Lancair IV design was subjected to computer analysis and static load= testing, and a full flutter test program was conducted. These tests showe= d that the tail section would fail first due to flutter at Mach 0.57 follo= wed by failure of the wing flap assemblies at Mach 0.6. During the descent= the aircraft reached a calculated speed of 412 knots or Mach 0.62." The aircraft fuselage and left wing spar were located approximately eight= nautical miles (nm) southeast of Sundre, Alberta. The right wing, left wi= ng skins, and pieces of the tail section were located over a 1.3 nm debris= field in a line southwest of the main wreckage site. The pilot and passen= ger were fatally injured. 1918:34 - aircraft descended through 17 330 feet at 12 500 feet per minute= ; pitch attitude 36=C2=BA nose down; bank angle 66=C2=BA right; speed 88= KIAS; climb power was still set 1918:48 - aircraft descended through 10 840 feet; speed KIAS 150 (Based on= altitude change, time, and ground speed, calculations show that the aircr= aft reached a peak velocity of 412 knots [Mach 0.62] going through 11 000= feet) 1919:12 - last data point recorded at 3870 feet; elevation of accident sit= e 3640 feet=20 At the time of the accident, the aircraft was 250 to 350 pounds over the= recommended gross take-off weight, which increased the stall speed by app= roximately 17 knots.=20 fmi:=20 http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05w0160/a05w0160.= asp -----Original Message----- From: Skip Slater To: lml Sent: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 5:21 am Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number "One IVP was lost years ago when it exceeded Vne." =20 Gene Long's ES also broke up in flight when it exceeded VNE during it's in= explicable descent from cruse altitude a year an a half ago. =20 The fact it this: No amount of pilot skill will save a plane once flutter= begins to break it apart. If you knowingly exceed VNE, you are a test pi= lot and the only way you'll know you went too fast is as your plane is goi= ng down in pieces. Pilots who willfully ignore manufacturer established= limitations are accidents looking for a place to happen. Pilots who brag= about such exploits deserve a very wide berth. =20 I have to wonder what the instructors from HIPAT and LOBO would have to sa= y on this subject. If they're listening, I hope they'll chime in. =20 Skip Slater=20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Skip Slater To: lml Sent: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 5:21 am Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number "One IVP was lost years ago when it exceeded Vne." =20 Gene Long's ES also broke up in flight when it exceeded VNE during it's in= explicable descent from cruse altitude a year an a half ago. =20 The fact it this: No amount of pilot skill will save a plane once flutter= begins to break it apart. If you knowingly exceed VNE, you are a test pi= lot and the only way you'll know you went too fast is as your plane is goi= ng down in pieces. Pilots who willfully ignore manufacturer established= limitations are accidents looking for a place to happen. Pilots who brag= about such exploits deserve a very wide berth. =20 I have to wonder what the instructors from HIPAT and LOBO would have to sa= y on this subject. If they're listening, I hope they'll chime in. =20 Skip Slater=20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CC424E016EF32D_49B4_D24D_webmail-d080.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
I concur with Skip's assess= ment. Vne is a limit just like G-- if you exceed the limits recommended by= Lancair you are a test pilot and the risk goes up dramatically. LOBO does= not endorse exceeding these limits. Our members are currently paying the= price of limited insurance coverage because of those Lancair pilots who= have exceeded their abilites and the limits of their aircraft. One IVP wa= s lost in August 2005 after spending a week next to me at Oshkosh &nb= sp;(see below for those of you who incorrectly believe that there are no= Lancair accidents involving this stuff) and the airframe failed above Vne= near the predicted Vne value. Lynn Farnsworth has gone to great lengths= to study the issue, strengthen the airframe and reduce his risk. Most of= the rest of us have not. I applaud Lynn for his efforts and the methodolg= y he has employed. If you want to expand the envelope of your aircraft&nbs= p;then it will take some dedicated engineering and redesign-- not simply= stating "well Lance over designed it to begin with" wishful thi= nking. There are many real smart people like Robert Wolf (who has a PhD in= aero and over 30 years experience in the industry) who have given yo= u the benefit of their decades of experience --please listen to them and= enjoy your Lancairs safely this holiday season and in the future.<= /FONT>
 
 
Best Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO
 
 
 
Excerpts from the Canadian report for Sterling Ainsworth's accident= is as follows.
 
"The Lancair IV design was subjected to computer analysis and static= load testing, and a full flutter test program was conducted. These tests= showed that the tail section would fail first due to flutter at Mach = ;0.57 followed by failure of the wing flap assemblies at Mach 0.6. Du= ring the descent the aircraft reached a calculated speed of 412 knots= or Mach 0.62."
 
The aircraft fuselage and left wing spar were located approximately= eight nautical miles (nm) southeast of Sundre, Alberta. The right wing,= left wing skins, and pieces of the tail section were located over a 1.3&n= bsp;nm debris field in a line southwest of the main wreckage site. The pil= ot and passenger were fatally injured.
 
  • 1918:34 - aircraft descended through 17 330 feet at 12 = 500 feet per minute; pitch attitude 36=C2=BA nose down; bank ang= le 66=C2=BA right; speed 88 KIAS; climb power was still set

  • 1918:48 - aircraft descended through 10 840 feet; speed KIAS=  150 (Based on altitude change, time, and ground speed, calculations= show that the aircraft reached a peak velocity of 412 knots [Mach&nb= sp;0.62] going through 11 000 feet)

  • 1919:12 - last data point recorded at 3870 feet; elevation of acc= ident site 3640 feet
    •  
    1. At the time of the accident, the aircraft was 250 to 350 pounds over= the recommended gross take-off weight, which increased the stall speed by= approximately 17 knots.
    fmi:
     
     
     


    -----Orig= inal Message-----
    From: Skip Slater <skipslater@verizon.net>
    To: lml
    Sent: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 5:21 am
    Subject: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number

    "One IVP was lost years ago when it excee= ded Vne."
     
    Gene Long's ES also broke up in flight wh= en it exceeded VNE during it's inexplicable descent from cruse altitude a= year an a half ago.
     
    The fact it this:  No amount of pilo= t skill will save a plane once flutter begins to break it apart.  If= you knowingly exceed VNE, you are a test pilot and the only way you'll kn= ow you went too fast is as your plane is going down in pieces.  Pilot= s who willfully ignore manufacturer established limitations are accidents= looking for a place to happen.  Pilots who brag about such exploits= deserve a very wide berth.
     
    I have to wonder what the instructors fro= m HIPAT and LOBO would have to say on this subject.  If they're liste= ning, I hope they'll chime in.
     
    Skip Slater 
     
     
     ----------MB_8CC424E016EF32D_49B4_D24D_webmail-d080.sysops.aol.com--