X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:32:08 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net ([74.208.4.200] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6000690 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:08:12 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.208.4.200; envelope-from=cfi@instructor.net Received: from mailout-us.mail.com ([172.19.198.94]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmxus002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MQfW5-1TPBXr13cr-00U2pF for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:07:38 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Jan 2013 14:07:37 -0000 Received: from 184-88-232-154.res.bhn.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) [184.88.232.154] by mail.gmx.com (mp-us011) with SMTP; 08 Jan 2013 09:07:37 -0500 X-Authenticated: #73491717 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19/T/MX3Kh/Z+UcdqR2Mv4HPLOqruoPxIFb9osQMg Xuj+Dkq3nWbUGT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins References: From: Ron Galbraith Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FBBCF038-A6BB-443F-8ADE-B8EA98CAF59E X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A551) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <5A33E2E8-DED3-4901-889C-ADF196FC8670@instructor.net> X-Original-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:07:36 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 --Apple-Mail-FBBCF038-A6BB-443F-8ADE-B8EA98CAF59E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is an ES video that shows what happens when you stall an ES at full af= t CG. Spins immediately, takes 2.5 turns and 3000' to recover. Test Pilot w= as one turn from bailing out. Install an AOA system, install stall strips,= practice flying at low speeds and learn what impending stalls feel like. Th= e airframe gives you many indications that you are too slow. Learn them. Fl= y safe. =20 Ron Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:34 AM, George Wehrung wrote: > John,=20 >=20 > I would be interested in watching some of the videos on the ES in particul= ar if not the other airframes. Are they posted on the Internet by chance, do= ubtful but I thought I'd ask. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 > On Jan 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith wrote: >=20 >> =46rom my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance. >>=20 >> Having researched the NASA material and having also seen the Lancair vide= os of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I installed the wing cuffs t= o the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer the opportunity to make i= t harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if pushed too far into a sp= in, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverable. So, if one accepts the v= iew of many which is that "as was", the aircraft was not spin recoverable, t= here would only appear to be upside from installing the cuffs. The flaw is, o= f course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin recoverable without wing cuffs, t= hen the addition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin recovery! >>=20 >> Unless someone goes to the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any oth= er type fitted with cuffs, one will never know whether spin recoveries are p= ossible under what flight and loading circumstances and, of course, with or w= ithout wing cuffs. >>=20 >> Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is that the albeit ve= ry limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuous 30deg AoB turn= s) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is plenty of warning o= f the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give the first "gentle" warning= ", followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" as the centre secti= on drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sections are still fly= ing). >>=20 >> I'm happy to talk to anyone if they are interested to talk about this mor= e=E2=80=A6. numbers below, but please note time is UTC + 8!! >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> John >>=20 >>=20 >> John N G Smith >> Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 >> Mobile: +61-409-372-975 >> Email: john@jjts.net.au >>=20 >>=20 >> From: >> Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List >> Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM >> To: >> Subject: [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Posted for "Peter Field" : >>=20 >> Dear Lancair Drivers: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I've been following the discussion on stalls and spins and I want to add >> some additional factual information purely for your personal consumption a= nd >> reflection. Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight >> test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated th= e >> use of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airplan= e >> approaching the stall. For various reasons the cuffs improved lateral >> control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing t= he >> aircraft once a fully developed spin was achieved. Essentially, stall >> behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery. Cuffs on wing >> leading edges are an add on design fix, the more elegant solution is >> "washout," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing >> always operate at a lower angle of attack. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a >> fully developed spin matrix complete with appropriate instrumentation and= a >> spin recovery chute. There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it'= s >> an Experimental Category airplane. Early on they may have lightly touche= d >> on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation on a fully >> completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at various >> cg's and lateral loadings. In my opinion, it would be highly risky to fo= ol >> around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation t= hat >> indicates any of these airplanes can always be recovered from a one turn >> incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin. Being good at spin >> recovery isn't so much a matter of how skillful a pilot you are, it's a >> matter of how many spins you've experienced in airplanes known to be >> recoverable. Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your own >> airplane should be a matter of personal preference. =20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Best regards,=20 >>=20 >> Pete Field (LNC2) >>=20 >> USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List= .html --Apple-Mail-FBBCF038-A6BB-443F-8ADE-B8EA98CAF59E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is an ES video that shows what h= appens when you stall an ES at full aft CG.  Spins immediately, takes 2= .5 turns and 3000' to recover.  Test Pilot was one turn from bailing ou= t.   Install an AOA system, install stall strips, practice flying at lo= w speeds and learn what impending stalls feel like. The airframe gives you m= any indications that you are too slow.  Learn them.  Fly safe. &nb= sp;

Ron

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:34 AM, George Wehrung <gw5@me.com> wrote:

= John, 

I would be interested in watching som= e of the videos on the ES in particular if not the other airframes. Are they= posted on the Internet by chance, doubtful but I thought I'd ask.




Sent from my iPhone

On J= an 8, 2013, at 15:50, John Smith <joh= n@jjts.net.au> wrote:

=46rom my perspective, the key phrase is spin resistance.=

Having researched the NASA material and having als= o seen the Lancair videos of actual flight testing, rightly or wrongly, I in= stalled the wing cuffs to the Legacy on the basis that they seemed to offer t= he opportunity to make it harder to get into trouble, but accepting that if p= ushed too far into a spin, then the aircraft may or may not be recoverabl= e. So, if one accepts the view of many which is that "as was", the aircr= aft was not spin recoverable, there would only appear to be upside from inst= alling the cuffs. The flaw is, of course, that if indeed the Legacy is spin r= ecoverable without wing cuffs, then the addition of the wing cuffs may preclude spin recovery!

Unless someone goes t= o the trouble of spin testing the Legacy, or any other type fitted with cuff= s, one will never know whether spin recoveries are possible under what fligh= t and loading circumstances and, of course, with or without wing cuffs.

Meanwhile, per my prior post on this, all I can say is t= hat the albeit very limited flight testing (straight and level, and continuo= us 30deg AoB turns) in my Legacy fitted with the cuffs shows that there is p= lenty of warning of the impending stall =E2=80=93 stall strips give the firs= t "gentle" warning", followed by the more severe intermittent "shuddering" a= s the centre section drops in and out of the stall (whilst the outboard sect= ions are still flying).

I'm happy to talk to anyone= if they are interested to talk about this more=E2=80=A6. numbers below, but= please note time is UTC + 8!!


Regards,

John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au

From: <marv@lancair.net>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:25 AM
To: <lml>
Subject: <= /span> [LML] Re: Stalls & Spins



Posted for "Peter Field" <= pfield.avn@gmail.com>:
Dear Lancair Drivers:



I've been following the discussion o= n stalls and spins and I want to add
some additional factual information purely for your personal consumption and
reflection. &n= bsp;Attached are excerpts from 10 different 1980-90 NASA flight
test final reports on a series of GA airplanes in which NASA evaluated the
us= e of cuffs on leading edges to improve the behavior of the test airplane
approaching the stall.  For various reasons the cuffs= improved lateral
control entering the stall, but had the adverse effect of destabilizing the
aircraft once a fully developed spin was ach= ieved.  Essentially, stall
behavior was improved at the sacrifice of spin recovery.  Cuffs on wing
leading edges are a= n add on design fix, the more elegant solution is
"washout," where the wing is twisted so the outer portions of the wing
always operate at a lo= wer angle of attack.



To my knowledge, Lancair has never subjected any of their aircraft to a
fully developed spin matrix complet= e with appropriate instrumentation and a
spin recovery chute.  There is no FAA requirement for them to do so - it's
a= n Experimental Category airplane.  Early on they may have lightly touched
on such testing; but I have never seen any documentation= on a fully
completed spin matrix, which would involve at least 160 spins at various
cg's and lateral loadings.  In my opinion, it= would be highly risky to fool
around much beyond the stall in any Lancair - there is no documentation that
indicates any of these airplane= s can always be recovered from a one turn
incipient phase spin or any fully developed spin.  Being good at spin
recovery isn't so mu= ch a matter of how skillful a pilot you are, it's a
matter of how many spins you've experienced in airplanes known to be
recoverable. &nbs= p;Being familiar with the stall characteristics of your own
airplane should be a matter of personal preference.  



Be= st regards,

Pete Field (LNC2)

USNTPS graduate & spin recovery instructor



-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= --Apple-Mail-FBBCF038-A6BB-443F-8ADE-B8EA98CAF59E--