X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 00:04:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5530996 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:31:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.70]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q4ACUYTR022749 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:30:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.126] (24-107-65-42.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.65.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 671ECE000083; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:30:33 -0400 (EDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8L1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--283936728 X-Original-Message-Id: <19D19C96-C96F-46B2-A48B-CA9A440DF477@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8L1) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] What Killed Pat and Harry.... X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:30:30 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:500995552:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29464fabb4e975ac X-AOL-IP: 24.107.65.42 --Apple-Mail-2--283936728 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It does not appear there was a fire involved in this accident. Waiting for m= ore facts. Jeff Sent from my iPad On May 10, 2012, at 7:18 AM, "John Hafen" wrote: > Gents: >=20 > =20 >=20 > Correct me if I=E2=80=99m wrong, please, but Harry=E2=80=99s plane came ap= art 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 condi= tioning. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Based on my conversation with Pat Franzen a year ago, it sounds very much l= ike his incident over Redmond where his turbine just caught fire =E2=80=93 a= gain in clear VFR conditions. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Witnesses describe a plane going straight down, with a plume of black smok= e coming from it. That sounds like an engine fire to me. If it just shatte= red into pieces because of the violence of a thunderstorm and a weakened fus= elage because of AC holes, it may or may not have caught fire. >=20 > =20 >=20 > This one was definitely on fire. Just like the one Pat survived last year= , the day before I did HPAT with him. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Interesting to me how quiet things go (no one knows anything) after an inc= ident like this. >=20 > =20 >=20 > John Hafen >=20 > IVP 413AJ 400 Hours >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jos= eph Czabaranek > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:39 AM > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] Re: Necessity of A/C in IV-P? >=20 > =20 >=20 > Who wants to volunteer to be that test pilot? How would you determine if t= he nominal Vne has been reduced from flight testing without exceeding it? A= nd then if you do exceed the new Vne I imagine the odds are greater that fai= lure will be catastrophic and sudden rather than gradual. Flight test is a p= oor choice to determine new structural limits. Validate its within a margin= of safety yes... >=20 > =20 >=20 > I wouldn't turn off the SAS on an F-16 or change its structural modes in f= light 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 c= ontrols should make flight testing an attractive option for structural testi= ng after you've cut new holes in the plane. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Joe Czabaranek >=20 > N424DH >=20 > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Ted Noel wrote: >=20 > I've been watching this thread with considerable interest. And all the con= cerns 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 i= n individual builds. > 3. Flight testing with a competent test pilot.=20 >=20 > I think #3 is best since it deals with the variabilities of the installati= on and creates a hard VNE number. Also, there are a lot of A/C installations= flying. This implies a degree of safety. >=20 > Ted Noel > N540TF >=20 > On 5/8/2012 7:51 AM, Colyn Case wrote: >=20 > Hi Bob, >=20 > =20 >=20 > That would appear to be a huge improvement in that the area of penetration= through the fuselage is greatly reduced. =20 >=20 > Congrats on getting your 8 knots back b.t.w. >=20 > However, given all previous discussion (e.g. read the "flutter" article on= the main lml page) I personally wouldn't be comfortable pronouncing it "saf= e" especially to others, unless I had had the engineering analysis done on t= he resulting entire fuselage structure. =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Colyn >=20 > =20 >=20 > On May 7, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Bob Rickard wrote: >=20 > =20 >=20 > Charlie K / Colyn >=20 > =20 >=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 ga= in in TAS at FL180. My original system was installed in 2001 time frame (1s= t flight in =E2=80=9902), so I don=E2=80=99t know if it was the =E2=80=9Cred= uced drag=E2=80=9D version. I=E2=80=99m very aware of the topic of cutting= holes in the fuselage and took great care to overdesign the modification an= d have a carbon expert build and install it. There are bids of reinforcing c= arbon both inside and outside the fuselage that are cut well beyond the scoo= ps, which are also made of carbon and hysol=E2=80=99d in. A couple of pics= attached, I=E2=80=99m planning a LOBO paper on it sometime soon. It works v= ery well, looks fantastic, is light (except for the fan), and is strong and s= afe. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Bob R >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Cha= rlie Kohler > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] Re: Necessity of A/C in IV-P? >=20 > =20 >=20 > hi Colyn >=20 > Yes-it worked out fine. By that- I mean- it was the best you can do. >=20 > 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 f= rom the engine air cleaner box. Even after moving the intercooler to the fro= nt/left side the air (thanks Don) into the cabin was measured at 105=C2=B0on= the 70=C2=B0 day. >=20 > What I didn't say in the post yesterday was that selecting 11,000 feet on t= he controller put an electrical signal to the outflow valve to open it wide o= pen. You also could use the "dump" switch to open the valve. That helps a lo= t. But the big Issue is to shut off that 105=C2=B0 air from entering the cab= in. >=20 > I liked the idea of the Airflow design--but I heard stories of airspeed pe= nalties with the P51 scoop. I asked Bill Genevro if he had ever considered d= oing wind tunnel testing.Then they did-- at Ohio University. They tucked the= condenser up closer to the fuselage and drag reduced drastically. I bought h= is system. At that time there was no choice. I did testing later and saw le= ss than three knot change--. The only holes cut in the fuselage was a pair o= f 1 inch holes for freon in and out of the condenser. The beautiful part of i= t, is that --it works. Very well! In all regimes. >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Charlie K. >=20 > =20 >=20 > See me on the web at >=20 > www.Lancair-IV.com >=20 > =20 >=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 > =20 >=20 > Charlie, how did that work out? You eventually added the airflow systems= unit right? >=20 > Does that require a hole through the fuselage floor? >=20 > =20 >=20 > On May 3, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Charlie Kohler wrote: >=20 > =20 >=20 > LML gang >=20 > In the years before AC was available, I developed a plan for Summer (hot) f= lying. On take off I set the controller to 11,000 feet with the Pressurized a= ir to the cabin OFF. I opened the air valve from the fresh air from the vert= ical stabilizer. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I took off and climbed to 11,000 feet . At 10,000 feet I closed the fresh a= Him himir from the vertical stabilizer and gradually selected the pressurize= d air to the cabin to the ON position. Then as I continued to climb I select= ed the cruise altitude on the pressurization controller and adjusted the rat= e knob to 200 feet a minute descent. The cabin would then descend and level o= ff 1000 feet above selected altitude. >=20 > On the descent into the landing airport-- I set the controller to 1000 fee= t above field elevation. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Complicated maybe--but it kept the hot turbocharged air out of the cabin u= ntil it was necessary. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Charlie K. >=20 > =20 >=20 > See me on the web at >=20 > www.Lancair-IV.com >=20 > =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 > =20 >=20 > It can be really warn even at 17,000 feet without A/C in an IV-PT. Why? Th= e bleed air is super warm. Absolutely necessary? Not IMHO. But a few letdown= s from 20k+ and a drip drip drip off the end of your nose will tell you it=E2= =80=99s nice. Or in summer heat in Houston, Phoenix or some other sauna, it i= s even better than nice. >=20 > Wouldn=E2=80=99t it be good to use that air to air heat exchanger in line w= ith the bleed air to the cabin?HEAVY. >=20 > 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 > =20 >=20 > LML Gang, >=20 > =20 >=20 > With all the discussion of structural integrity compromises of the IV-P fu= selage by cutting air conditioning holes, I have a question for you seasoned= IV-P drivers=E2=80=A6 How necessary is air conditioning in this aircraft? >=20 > =20 >=20 > I have been flying my 320 for almost 9 years now and certainly would love t= o have had it during ground operations on hot summer days with the green hou= se canopy. However, once moving and at altitude, there is no need. I reali= ze that the IV-P is going to have warmer air because of the pressurization b= ut it is also typically flying much higher (colder ambient) and it doesn=E2=80= =99t have the bubble canopy. >=20 > =20 >=20 > So, in normal cross country cruise operations above FL180, do any of you t= hat don=E2=80=99t have A/C *really* wish that you had it? >=20 > =20 >=20 > I=E2=80=99m early in the building of my IV-P and don=E2=80=99t want to put= it in for several reasons: >=20 > =C2=B7 Weight >=20 > =C2=B7 Potential structural issues >=20 > =C2=B7 Cost >=20 > =C2=B7 One more thing to break down the road >=20 > =20 >=20 > I live in Colorado and will be using this plane as a cross country travele= r with my wife, so comfort is certainly a factor but not at all costs. One t= hought is to get one of those cooler-with-ice-and-a-fan systems to toss in t= he back seat for those few days that are very hot. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I appreciate your input. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Dan Olsen >=20 > Fort Collins, CO >=20 > N320DK =E2=80=93 640hrs >=20 > IV-P =E2=80=93 10% done >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l >=20 > =20 >=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 > =20 --Apple-Mail-2--283936728 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
It does not appear there was a fire inv= olved in this accident. Waiting for more facts.

Jef= f

Sent from my iPad

On May 10, 2012, at 7:18 AM, "John H= afen" <j.hafen@comcast.net>= wrote:

Gents:<= /o:p>

 =

Correct me= if I=E2=80=99m wrong, please, but Harry=E2=80=99s plane came apart in clear= VFR conditions over Sisters, OR.  There was no thunder storm to tear t= he plane apart because of a fuselage weakened by a hole for air conditioning= .

 

Bas= ed on my conversation with Pat Franzen a year ago, it sounds very much like h= is incident over Redmond where his turbine just caught fire =E2=80=93 again i= n clear VFR conditions.

 

Witnesses describe a plane going straight down, with a pl= ume of black smoke coming from it.  That sounds like an engine fire to m= e.  If it just shattered into pieces because of the violence of a thund= erstorm and a weakened fuselage because of AC holes, it may or may not have c= aught fire.

 

This one was definitely on fire.  Just like the one Pat survived l= ast 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

 <= /o:p>

 =

 = ;

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

&nbs= p;

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

 

I wouldn't turn off the SAS on an F-16 or change its structur= al modes in flight to see if the ailerons are coming off without first model= ing it on the ground.  And that's with an ejection seat.  No amoun= t of experience at the controls should make flight testing an attractive opt= ion 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 <te= dnoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

I've been watching this thread with considerable interest. And all the con= cerns 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. Prob= lematic due to cost, and variability in individual builds.
3. Flight test= ing with a competent test pilot.

I think #3 is best since it deals w= ith the variabilities of the installation and creates a hard VNE number. Als= o, there are a lot of A/C installations flying. This implies a degree of saf= ety.

Ted Noel
N540TF

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

Hi Bob,

 

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

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

<= div>

However, given all previous discussion (e.g. read= the "flutter" article on the main lml page) I personally wouldn't be comfor= table pronouncing it "safe" especially to others, unless I had had the engin= eering 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 opposit= e this winter, and removed the Airflow systems scoop from my IV-P and engine= ered 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&n= bsp;flight in =E2=80=9902), so I don=E2=80=99t know if it was the =E2=80=9Cr= educed drag=E2=80=9D version.   I=E2=80=99m very aware of the topi= c of cutting holes in the fuselage and took great care to overdesign the mod= ification and have a carbon expert build and install it.  There are bid= s of reinforcing carbon both inside and outside the fuselage that are cut we= ll beyond the scoops, which are also made of carbon and hysol=E2=80=99d in.&= nbsp;  A couple of pics attached, I=E2=80=99m planning a LOBO paper on i= t sometime soon.  It works very well, looks fantastic, is light (except= for the fan), and is strong and safe.

 

Bob R

 

 

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lanc= aironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie Kohler
Se= nt: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Nec= essity of A/C in IV-P?

 

hi Col= yn

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

<= /div>

In the beginning, The pressurized IVs h= ad 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 aft= er moving the intercooler to the front/left side the air (thanks Don) into t= he cabin was measured at 105=C2=B0on the 70=C2=B0 day.

=

What I didn't say in the post yesterda= y was that selecting 11,000 feet on the controller put an electrical signal t= o the outflow valve to open it wide open. You also could use the "dump" swit= ch to open the valve. That helps a lot. But the big Issue is to shut off tha= t 105=C2=B0 air from entering the cabin.

I liked the idea of the Airflow design--but I heard s= tories of airspeed penalties with the P51 scoop. I asked Bill Genevro if he h= ad ever considered doing wind tunnel testing.Then they did-- at Ohio Univers= ity. They tucked the condenser up closer to the fuselage and drag reduced dr= astically. I bought his system. At that time there was no choice.  I di= d 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 condens= er. The beautiful part of it, is that --it works. Very well! In all regimes.=

 

 

 

Charlie K.

 

See me on the web at

From: Colyn Case &l= t;colyncase@earthlink.net>
To:<= /b> lml@lancaironline.net 
Sen= t: Friday, May 4, 2012 8:08 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Ne= cessity of A/C in IV-P?

 

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

Does that require a hole through the fuse= lage floor?

 

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

 

LML gang

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">In the years before AC was available, I developed a plan for S= ummer (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 fres= h aHim himir from the vertical stabilizer and gradually selected the pressur= ized air to the cabin to the ON position. Then as I continued to climb I sel= ected the cruise altitude on the pressurization controller and adjusted the r= ate knob to 200 feet a minute descent. The cabin would then descend and leve= l off 1000 feet above selected altitude.

On the descent into the landing airport-- I set the c= ontroller 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: Jim Nordin &= lt;panelmaker@earthlink.net>
= To: lml@lancaironline.net 
= Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 8:28 AM
Subject: [LML= ] Necessity of A/C in IV-P?

 

It can be really warn even at 17,00= 0 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 t= he end of your nose will tell you it=E2=80=99s nice. Or in summer heat in Ho= uston, Phoenix or some other sauna, it is even better than nice.

Wouldn=E2= =80=99t it be good to use that air to air heat exchanger in line with the bl= eed air to the cabin?HEAVY.

<= span style=3D"font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Jim

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of&nbs= p;Dan & Kari Olsen
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:0= 5 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Necessity of A/C in IV-P?

 

LML Gang,<= /p>

 

With all the discussion of structural integrity compromises of the= IV-P fuselage by cutting air conditioning holes, I have a question for you s= easoned IV-P drivers=E2=80=A6  How necessary is air conditioning in thi= s aircraft?

 

=

I have been flying m= y 320 for almost 9 years now and certainly would love to have had it during g= round operations on hot summer days with the green house canopy.  Howev= er, once moving and at altitude, there is no need.  I realize that the I= V-P is going to have warmer air because of the pressurization but it is also= typically flying much higher (colder ambient) and it doesn=E2=80=99t have t= he bubble canopy.

 

So, in normal= cross country cruise operations above FL180, do any of you that don=E2=80=99= t have A/C *really* wish that you had it?=

 

I=E2=80=99m early in the building of my IV-P and don=E2=80= =99t want to put it in for several reasons:

=C2=B7    &nb= sp;    Weight

=C2=B7      &= nbsp;  Potential structural issues

=C2=B7    &n= bsp;    Cost

=C2=B7      &n= bsp;  One more thing to break down the road<= /o:p>

&nb= sp;

I live in Colorado and will be using this plane as a c= ross 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 Co= llins, CO

N320DK =E2=80=93 640hrs

IV-P= =E2=80=93 10% done

=

 

=

 

 

<IMG_0568.jpeg><IMG= _0566.jpeg><IMG_0534.jpeg><IMG_0594.jpeg>--
For archives a= nd unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html<= /o:p>

 

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

 

=
= --Apple-Mail-2--283936728--