X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 08:18:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.24] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5530221 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:51:49 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.24; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.92]) by qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 7uft1j0021zF43QA2wrF85; Wed, 09 May 2012 20:51:15 +0000 Received: from Legent ([76.104.242.96]) by omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 7wrA1j01625W5K88kwrEj9; Wed, 09 May 2012 20:51:15 +0000 From: "John Hafen" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: What Killed Pat and Harry.... X-Original-Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 13:51:13 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <00d501cd2e25$790e9980$6b2bcc80$@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D6_01CD2DEA.CCBE1960" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac0uJChjZcSFZQCVRqeeDmXa3jDSkg== Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01CD2DEA.CCBE1960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gents: =20 Correct me if I=92m wrong, please, but Harry=92s plane came apart in = clear VFR conditions over Sisters, OR. There was no thunder storm to tear the = plane apart because of a fuselage weakened by a hole for air conditioning. =20 Based on my conversation with Pat Franzen a year ago, it sounds very = much like his incident over Redmond where his turbine just caught fire =96 = again in clear VFR conditions. =20 Witnesses describe a plane going straight down, with a plume of black = smoke coming from it. That sounds like an engine fire to me. If it just shattered into pieces because of the violence of a thunderstorm and a weakened fuselage because of AC holes, it may or may not have caught = fire. =20 This one was definitely on fire. Just like the one Pat survived last = year, the day before I did HPAT with him. =20 Interesting to me how quiet things go (no one knows anything) after an incident like this. =20 John Hafen IVP 413AJ 400 Hours =20 =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Czabaranek Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:39 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Necessity of A/C in IV-P? =20 Who wants to volunteer to be that test pilot? How would you determine = if the nominal Vne has been reduced from flight testing without exceeding = it? And then if you do exceed the new Vne I imagine the odds are greater = that failure will be catastrophic and sudden rather than gradual. Flight = test is a poor choice to determine new structural limits. Validate its within a margin of safety yes... =20 I wouldn't turn off the SAS on an F-16 or change its structural modes in flight to see if the ailerons are coming off without first modeling it = on the ground. And that's with an ejection seat. No amount of experience = at the controls should make flight testing an attractive option for = structural testing after you've cut new holes in the plane. =20 Joe Czabaranek N424DH On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Ted Noel wrote: I've been watching this thread with considerable interest. And all the concerns seem valid. There seem to be three ways to deal with the = problem: 1. No A/C. Not a great answer. 2. Detailed structural analysis. Problematic due to cost, and = variability in individual builds. 3. Flight testing with a competent test pilot.=20 I think #3 is best since it deals with the variabilities of the = installation and creates a hard VNE number. Also, there are a lot of A/C = installations flying. This implies a degree of safety. Ted Noel N540TF On 5/8/2012 7:51 AM, Colyn Case wrote:=20 Hi Bob,=20 =20 That would appear to be a huge improvement in that the area of = penetration through the fuselage is greatly reduced. =20 Congrats on getting your 8 knots back b.t.w. However, given all previous discussion (e.g. read the "flutter" article = on the main lml page) I personally wouldn't be comfortable pronouncing it "safe" especially to others, unless I had had the engineering analysis = done on the resulting entire fuselage structure. =20 =20 Colyn =20 On May 7, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Bob Rickard wrote: =20 Charlie K / Colyn =20 I just did the opposite this winter, and removed the Airflow systems = scoop from my IV-P and engineered a low drag plenum out back. I saw an 8 knot gain in TAS at FL180. My original system was installed in 2001 time = frame (1st flight in =9202), so I don=92t know if it was the =93reduced = drag=94 version. I=92m very aware of the topic of cutting holes in the fuselage and took = great care to overdesign the modification and have a carbon expert build and install it. There are bids of reinforcing carbon both inside and = outside the fuselage that are cut well beyond the scoops, which are also made of carbon and hysol=92d in. A couple of pics attached, I=92m planning a = LOBO paper on it sometime soon. It works very well, looks fantastic, is = light (except for the fan), and is strong and safe. =20 Bob R =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie Kohler Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Necessity of A/C in IV-P? =20 hi Colyn Yes-it worked out fine. By that- I mean- it was the best you can do. In the beginning, The pressurized IVs had the cabin intercooler located = on the side of the left lower cowling- with louvers. The intake air was = taken from the engine air cleaner box. Even after moving the intercooler to = the front/left side the air (thanks Don) into the cabin was measured at = 105=B0on the 70=B0 day. What I didn't say in the post yesterday was that selecting 11,000 feet = on the controller put an electrical signal to the outflow valve to open it = wide open. You also could use the "dump" switch to open the valve. That helps = a lot. But the big Issue is to shut off that 105=B0 air from entering the = cabin. I liked the idea of the Airflow design--but I heard stories of airspeed penalties with the P51 scoop. I asked Bill Genevro if he had ever = considered doing wind tunnel testing.Then they did-- at Ohio University. They = tucked the condenser up closer to the fuselage and drag reduced drastically. I bought his system. At that time there was no choice. I did testing = later and saw less than three knot change--. The only holes cut in the = fuselage was a pair of 1 inch holes for freon in and out of the condenser. The beautiful part of it, is that --it works. Very well! In all regimes. =20 =20 =20 Charlie K. =20 See me on the web at www.Lancair-IV.com =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Colyn Case To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 8:08 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Necessity of A/C in IV-P? =20 Charlie, how did that work out? You eventually added the airflow = systems unit right? Does that require a hole through the fuselage floor? =20 On May 3, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Charlie Kohler wrote: =20 LML gang In the years before AC was available, I developed a plan for Summer = (hot) flying. On take off I set the controller to 11,000 feet with the = Pressurized air to the cabin OFF. I opened the air valve from the fresh air from the vertical stabilizer. =20 I took off and climbed to 11,000 feet . At 10,000 feet I closed the = fresh aHim himir from the vertical stabilizer and gradually selected the pressurized air to the cabin to the ON position. Then as I continued to climb I selected the cruise altitude on the pressurization controller = and adjusted the rate knob to 200 feet a minute descent. The cabin would = then descend and level off 1000 feet above selected altitude. On the descent into the landing airport-- I set the controller to 1000 = feet above field elevation. =20 Complicated maybe--but it kept the hot turbocharged air out of the = cabin until it was necessary. =20 Charlie K. =20 See me on the web at www.Lancair-IV.com =20 =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Jim Nordin To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 8:28 AM Subject: [LML] Necessity of A/C in IV-P? =20 It can be really warn even at 17,000 feet without A/C in an IV-PT. Why? = The bleed air is super warm. Absolutely necessary? Not IMHO. But a few = letdowns from 20k+ and a drip drip drip off the end of your nose will tell you = it=92s nice. Or in summer heat in Houston, Phoenix or some other sauna, it is = even better than nice. Wouldn=92t it be good to use that air to air heat exchanger in line with = the bleed air to the cabin?HEAVY. Jim _____ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Dan & Kari Olsen Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:05 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Necessity of A/C in IV-P? =20 LML Gang, =20 With all the discussion of structural integrity compromises of the IV-P fuselage by cutting air conditioning holes, I have a question for you seasoned IV-P drivers=85 How necessary is air conditioning in this = aircraft? =20 I have been flying my 320 for almost 9 years now and certainly would = love to have had it during ground operations on hot summer days with the green = house canopy. However, once moving and at altitude, there is no need. I = realize that the IV-P is going to have warmer air because of the pressurization = but it is also typically flying much higher (colder ambient) and it = doesn=92t have the bubble canopy. =20 So, in normal cross country cruise operations above FL180, do any of you that don=92t have A/C *really* wish that you had it? =20 I=92m early in the building of my IV-P and don=92t want to put it in for = several reasons: =B7 Weight =B7 Potential structural issues =B7 Cost =B7 One more thing to break down the road =20 I live in Colorado and will be using this plane as a cross country = traveler with my wife, so comfort is certainly a factor but not at all costs. = One thought is to get one of those cooler-with-ice-and-a-fan systems to toss = in the back seat for those few days that are very hot. =20 I appreciate your input. =20 Dan Olsen Fort Collins, CO N320DK =96 640hrs IV-P =96 10% done =20 =20 =20 -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html =20 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4985 - Release Date: = 05/08/12 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01CD2DEA.CCBE1960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gents:

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but Harry’s plane came = apart in clear VFR conditions over Sisters, OR.=A0 There was no thunder = storm to tear the plane apart because of a fuselage weakened by a hole = for air conditioning.

 

Based on my conversation with Pat Franzen a year ago, it sounds very = much like his incident over Redmond where his turbine just caught fire = – again in clear VFR conditions.

 

Witnesses describe a plane going straight down, with a plume of black = smoke coming from it.=A0 That sounds like an engine fire to me.=A0 If it = just shattered into pieces because of the violence of a thunderstorm and = a weakened fuselage because of AC holes, it may or may not have caught = fire.

 

This one was definitely on fire.=A0 Just like the one Pat survived = last year, the day before I did HPAT with him.

 

Interesting to me how quiet things go (no one knows anything) after = an incident like this.

 

John Hafen

IVP 413AJ 400 Hours

 

 

 

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Joseph Czabaranek
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:39 = AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Necessity of A/C in IV-P?

 

Who wants to = volunteer to be that test pilot?  How would you determine if the = nominal Vne has been reduced from flight testing without exceeding it? =  And then if you do exceed the new Vne I imagine the odds are = greater that failure will be catastrophic and sudden rather than = gradual.  Flight test is a poor choice to determine new structural = limits.  Validate its within a margin of safety = yes...

 

I = wouldn't turn off the SAS on an F-16 or change its structural modes in = flight to see if the ailerons are coming off without first modeling it = on the ground.  And that's with an ejection seat.  No amount = of experience at the controls should make flight testing an attractive = option for structural testing after you've cut new holes in the = plane.

 

Joe Czabaranek

N424DH

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> = wrote:

I've been watching this = thread with considerable interest. And all the concerns seem valid. = There seem to be three ways to deal with the problem:
1. No = A/C.  Not a great answer.
2. Detailed structural analysis. = Problematic due to cost, and variability in individual builds.
3. = Flight testing with a competent test pilot.

I think #3 is best = since it deals with the variabilities of the installation and creates a = hard VNE number. Also, there are a lot of A/C installations flying. This = implies a degree of safety.

Ted Noel
N540TF

On 5/8/2012 = 7:51 AM, Colyn Case wrote:

Hi Bob, =

 

That would appear to be a huge improvement in that the = area of penetration through the fuselage is greatly reduced. =  

Congrats on getting = your 8 knots back b.t.w.

However, given all previous discussion (e.g. read the = "flutter" article on the main lml page) I personally wouldn't = be comfortable pronouncing it "safe" especially to others, = unless I had had the engineering analysis done on the resulting entire = fuselage structure.  

 

Colyn

 

On = May 7, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Bob Rickard wrote:

 

Charlie K / Colyn

 

I just did the opposite this winter, and removed the Airflow systems = scoop from my IV-P and engineered a low drag plenum out back.  I = saw an 8 knot gain in TAS at FL180.  My original system was = installed in 2001 time frame (1st flight in ’02), = so I don’t know if it was the “reduced drag” = version.   I’m very aware of the topic of cutting holes = in the fuselage and took great care to overdesign the modification and = have a carbon expert build and install it.  There are bids of = reinforcing carbon both inside and outside the fuselage that are cut = well beyond the scoops, which are also made of carbon and hysol’d = in.   A couple of pics attached, I’m planning a LOBO = paper on it sometime soon.  It works very well, looks fantastic, is = light (except for the fan), and is strong and = safe.

 

Bob R

 

 

From:=  Lancai= r Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf = Of Charlie Kohler
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 = 9:26 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML]= Re: Necessity of A/C in = IV-P?

 

hi = Colyn

Yes-it worked out fine. By = that- I mean- it was the best you can = do.

In = the beginning, The pressurized IVs had the cabin intercooler located on = the side of the left lower cowling- with louvers. The intake air was = taken from the engine air cleaner box. Even after moving the intercooler = to the front/left side the air (thanks Don) into the cabin was measured = at 105=B0on the 70=B0 day.

What = I didn't say in the post yesterday was that selecting 11,000 feet on the = controller put an electrical signal to the outflow valve to open it wide = open. You also could use the "dump" switch to open the valve. = That helps a lot. But the big Issue is to shut off that 105=B0 air from = entering the cabin.

I = liked the idea of the Airflow design--but I heard stories of airspeed = penalties with the P51 scoop. I asked Bill Genevro if he had ever = considered doing wind tunnel testing.Then they did-- at Ohio University. = They tucked the condenser up closer to the fuselage and drag reduced = drastically. I bought his system. At that time there was no = choice.  I did testing later and saw less than three knot change--. = The only holes cut in the fuselage was a pair of 1 inch holes for freon = in and out of the condenser. The beautiful part of it, is that --it = works. Very well! In all = regimes.

 

 

 

Charlie = K.

 

See me on the web = at

 

 

From:<= /b> Colyn = Case <colyncase@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net 
Sent: Fr= iday, May 4, 2012 8:08 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Necessity of = A/C in IV-P?

 

Charlie, how = did that work out?   You eventually added the airflow systems unit = right?

Does that = require a hole through the fuselage = floor?

 

On May 3, 2012, = at 1:20 PM, Charlie Kohler wrote:

 

LML = gang

In = the years before AC was available, I developed a plan for Summer (hot) = flying. On take off I set the controller to 11,000 feet with the = Pressurized air to the cabin OFF. I opened the air valve from the fresh = air from the vertical = stabilizer.

 

I took off and climbed to = 11,000 feet . At 10,000 feet I closed the fresh aHim himir from the = vertical stabilizer and gradually selected the pressurized air to the = cabin to the ON position. Then as I continued to climb I selected the = cruise altitude on the pressurization controller and adjusted the rate = knob to 200 feet a minute descent. The cabin would then descend and = level off 1000 feet above selected = altitude.

On = the descent into the landing airport-- I set the controller to 1000 feet = above field elevation.

 

Complicated maybe--but = it  kept the hot turbocharged air out of the cabin until it was = necessary.

 

Charlie = K.

 

See me on the web = at

 

 

From:<= /b> Jim = Nordin <panelmaker@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net 
Sent: Th= ursday, May 3, 2012 8:28 AM
Subject: [LML] Necessity of = A/C in IV-P?

 

It can be really = warn even at 17,000 feet without A/C in an IV-PT. Why? The bleed air is = super warm. Absolutely necessary? Not IMHO. But a few letdowns from 20k+ = and a drip drip drip off the end of your nose will tell you it’s = nice. Or in summer heat in Houston, Phoenix or some other sauna, it is = even better than nice.

Wouldn’t it = be good to use that air to air heat exchanger in line with the bleed air = to the cabin?HEAVY.

Jim

From:=  Lancai= r Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf = Of Dan & Kari Olsen
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, = 2012 11:05 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML]= Necessity of A/C in IV-P?

 

LML = Gang,

 

With all = the discussion of structural integrity compromises of the IV-P fuselage = by cutting air conditioning holes, I have a question for you seasoned = IV-P drivers…  How necessary is air conditioning in this = aircraft?

 

I have = been flying my 320 for almost 9 years now and certainly would love to = have had it during ground operations on hot summer days with the green = house canopy.  However, once moving and at altitude, there is no = need.  I realize that the IV-P is going to have warmer air because = of the pressurization but it is also typically flying much higher = (colder ambient) and it doesn’t have the bubble = canopy.

 

So, in = normal cross country cruise operations above FL180, do any of you that = don’t have A/C *really* wish that you had it?

 

I’m = early in the building of my IV-P and don’t want to put it in for = several reasons:

=B7  &n= bsp;      Weight

=B7  &n= bsp;      Potential = structural issues

=B7  &n= bsp;      Cost

=B7  &n= bsp;      One more = thing to break down the = road

 

I live in = Colorado and will be using this plane as a cross country traveler with = my wife, so comfort is certainly a factor but not at all costs.  = One thought is to get one of those cooler-with-ice-and-a-fan systems to = toss in the back seat for those few days that are very hot.

 

I = appreciate your input.

 

Dan = Olsen

Fort = Collins, CO

N320DK = – 640hrs

IV-P = – 10% done

 <= /o:p>

 

 

=

<IMG_0568.= jpeg><IMG_0566.jpeg><IMG_0534.jpeg><IMG_0594.jpeg>--=
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

 

No virus found in this = message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus = Database: 2425/4985 - Release Date: = 05/08/12

 

------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01CD2DEA.CCBE1960--