X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:54:42 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from gateway1.stoel.com ([198.36.178.141] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 982320 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:59:16 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com Received: from PDX-SMTP.stoel.com (unknown [172.16.103.137]) by gateway1.stoel.com (Firewall Mailer Daemon) with ESMTP id 7B219E9D93 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PDX-MX6.stoel.com ([172.16.103.64]) by PDX-SMTP.stoel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:58:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [LML] Stability of the Legacy FG X-Original-Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:58:29 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB607219814A@PDX-MX6.stoel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Stability of the Legacy FG Thread-Index: AcVnpRCYh5OdgGzWSt6kIxMHMuyCEQ== From: "Halle, John" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2005 18:58:30.0102 (UTC) FILETIME=[10EADF60:01C567A5] I can't speak for the fixed gear but my retractable Legacy is AMAZINGLY = stable. I can trim it up and fly hands off in calm air or mild chop for = a minute or more without control input. There is a difference between = control responsiveness and stability. There is a huge difference in = control responsiveness between a Legacy and a C-182 (or pick your = favorite spam can.) The difference requires some getting used to when = moving from one type to the other but I personally find a very = responsive aircraft easier to fly as long as I have accurate, three-axis = trim. Stability is a characteristic that causes an airplane either to = resist deviation from its current vector or to induce an opposite = response to any such deviation. From what I can tell of my Legacy, it = has excellent stability characteristics, at least equal to most of the = spam cans I have flown. Again, don't know about the FG. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Kennedy [mailto:bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: RE: [LML] Stability of the Legacy FG My Lancair 320 is not comparable to a Cessna 182 in stability either. I=20 wouldn't care to fall asleep at the controls for five minutes and let it = fly=20 itself. That said, I've flown many four plus hour cross country flights = and=20 never suffered mental fatigue from the experience. I don't have an=20 auto-pilot yet, and don't lay awake nights dreaming about how nice it = will=20 be to get one. I have no trouble hand flying the plane to ATP standards = (not=20 true the first twenty hours or so). I suspect the Legacy is a goosy little speedster like the 320. A joy to = fly,=20 but not stable like the C182. Take your pick, but you can't have both. Bill