X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 15:01:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from argon.lunarpages.com ([216.97.227.30] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6865604 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 May 2014 10:58:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.97.227.30; envelope-from=thorn@starflight.aero Received: from 71-218-221-246.hlrn.qwest.net ([71.218.221.246]:64435 helo=VAlien2) by argon.lunarpages.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WimFU-0007ZM-UW for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 May 2014 07:58:09 -0700 From: "Valin & Allyson Thorn" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" X-Original-Cc: "Valin & Allyson Thorn" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Legacy Canopy X-Original-Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:58:00 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <004401cf6b97$12ce7df0$386b79d0$@starflight.aero> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0045_01CF6B64.C8359490" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQEffGX3SL2WppIoS11gbNp5ydCGEZyYNI8A Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - argon.lunarpages.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - starflight.aero X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: argon.lunarpages.com: authenticated_id: thorn@starflight.aero This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01CF6B64.C8359490 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris, it would be an interesting research project. On the 360 history, every time the Legacy canopy issue comes up a number of 360 pilots chime in that they have no problems flying a 320/360 with their canopy's unlatched. I received a note from one that when it happened to him he just slowed down and latched the canopy in flight. If we could get more info on the 360 history/behavior flying with the canopy unlatched that will be helpful. Thanks, Valin From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Chris Zavatson Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 5:54 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Legacy Canopy Jack, I'm in. My interest in this whole discussion centers more around the aerodynamics of the situation and why we have such opposing first-hand accounts; everything from 'It will try to kill you' to 'no-big deal'. I remember the 360 had a similar differing accounts. I think there were bent airplanes but no fatalities. I was also curious if any of the events were latched canopies that got unhooked. Chris ============== Posted for JON ADDISON< jraddison@msn.com >: > At the risk of being chastised for "not having enough data," for the sake of >lives saved, I will make one last plea.There are 3 important data points, >that do in fact point out the critical need for a separate red warning light >in all Legacys and 235/320/360s (with forward hinged canopies). While all the >arguments of secondary canopy lock, and whether to release a (very good) >paper on the subject, most of the subject aircraft are flying around without >a red warning light (separate from an EFIS).That warning light tucked under >the glare shield, that is illuminated anytime the canopy is not down and over >center locked, if installed in all remaining subject aircraft, WILL save one >or more lives.So while the rhubarb laced with technological-obstructionism >carries on, please, lets support all these Lancairs in getting a warning >light installed. And it must be over center activated.In the mean time, >NASA/Ames Research Center, is the place to petition for the use of the 40x80 >wind tunnel using an actual current Legacy properly mounted for a matrix of >cg's, angle of attacks, and canopy opened at various airspeeds.It's not out >of the question to solicit a somewhat abandoned bare-bones Legacy project >aircraft for a model.Seriously, this would be a great project for Chris >Zaviston. (Thanks Chris!) However, it's not out of the question to solicit >a grad student involvement from just up the road at Stanford University which >just happens to have a very robust graduate Aero Engr department.In years >past NASA has been quite eager for University projects, even to the extent of >funding some.Their engineering and human resources have already well >documented the value of certain critical red "abort" lights.As for the >engineering of a secondary latch system that does not impede egress from >inside or from outside assistance (rescue); that can be embarked upon by home >builders. Lancair told me in-person they are not interested in the >secondary latch.Thus, the clock is ticking while worthy discussion takes >place and long term engineering is contemplated. We should all encourage to >do that which is easy and quite effective in the meantime: add a bright >canopy warning light for under $20.To NOT release the paper, in some form or >another, would actually be detrimental at this point, in that it well could >contribute to a fatal accident by not providing information useful to a well >intended builder.Interesting that Lancair on the factory panel for new Legacy >kits includes a red light above the EFIS for canopy not locked. The light is >wired in a bundle, but the actual switching is left to the builder. > Jack Addison ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01CF6B64.C8359490 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Chris, it would be an interesting research = project.  On the 360 = history, every time the Legacy canopy issue comes up a number of 360 = pilots chime in that they have no problems flying a 320/360 with their = canopy’s unlatched.  = I received a note from one that when it happened to him he just = slowed down and latched the canopy in flight. 

 

If we could get more info on the 360 = history/behavior flying with the canopy unlatched that will be = helpful.

 

Thanks,

 

Valin

 

 

From: Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Chris = Zavatson
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 5:54 AM
To: = Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Legacy Canopy =

 

Jack,

I'm in.  My interest in this whole discussion = centers more around the aerodynamics of the situation and why we = have such opposing first-hand accounts; everything from  'It will = try to kill you' to 'no-big deal'.  I remember the 360 had a = similar differing accounts.  I think there were bent airplanes but = no fatalities.

I was also curious if any of the events were latched = canopies that got unhooked.

Chris

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

Posted for JON ADDISON< jraddison@msn.com>:

> = At the risk of being chastised for "not having enough data," = for the sake of
>lives saved, I will make one last plea.There are = 3 important data points,
>that do in fact point out the critical = need for a separate red warning light
>in all Legacys and = 235/320/360s (with forward hinged canopies). While all the =
>arguments of secondary canopy lock, and whether to release a = (very good)
>paper on the subject, most of the subject aircraft = are flying around without
>a red warning light (separate from an = EFIS).That warning light tucked under
>the glare shield, that is = illuminated anytime the canopy is not down and over
>center = locked, if installed in all remaining subject aircraft, WILL save one =
>or more lives.So while the rhubarb laced with = technological-obstructionism
>carries on, please, lets support = all these Lancairs in getting a warning
>light = installed.   And it must be over center activated.In the mean = time,
>NASA/Ames Research Center, is the place to petition for = the use of the 40x80
>wind tunnel using an actual current Legacy = properly mounted for a matrix of
>cg's, angle of attacks, and = canopy opened at various airspeeds.It's not out
>of the question = to solicit a somewhat abandoned bare-bones Legacy project =
>aircraft for a model.Seriously, this would be a great project = for Chris
>Zaviston.   (Thanks = Chris!)  However, it's not out of the question to solicit =
>a grad student involvement from just up the road at Stanford = University which
>just happens to have a very robust graduate = Aero Engr department.In years
>past NASA has been quite eager for = University projects, even to the extent of
>funding some.Their = engineering and human resources have already well
>documented the = value of certain critical red "abort" lights.As for the =
>engineering of a secondary latch system that does not impede = egress from
>inside or from outside assistance (rescue); that can = be embarked upon by home =
>builders.    Lancair told me in-person they = are not interested in the
>secondary latch.Thus, the clock is = ticking while worthy discussion takes
>place and long term = engineering is contemplated.  We should all encourage to =
>do that which is easy and quite effective in the meantime: add a = bright
>canopy warning light for under $20.To NOT release the = paper, in some form or
>another, would actually be detrimental at = this point, in that it well could
>contribute to a fatal accident = by not providing information useful to a well
>intended = builder.Interesting that Lancair on the factory panel for new Legacy =
>kits includes a red light above the EFIS for canopy not = locked.  The light is
>wired in a bundle, but the = actual switching is left to the builder.
> Jack = Addison

------=_NextPart_000_0045_01CF6B64.C8359490--