X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:59:24 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6031102 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 19:36:40 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.48; envelope-from=weinsweigd@gmail.com Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j8so373971qah.14 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:36:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.27.205 with SMTP id j13mr10907681qac.56.1359246965839; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:36:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.18] (dynamic-acs-24-112-177-176.zoominternet.net. [24.112.177.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hn9sm3269630qab.8.2013.01.26.16.36.02 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:36:04 -0800 (PST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-80730370-DD05-4C47-8D21-62F6A16A61B4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Original-Message-Id: <8272FAE9-71FB-40ED-845A-4ED2469D77F1@gmail.com> X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: David Weinsweig Subject: Re: 4P AUGERING IN X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 19:36:00 -0500 X-Original-To: peter williams --Apple-Mail-80730370-DD05-4C47-8D21-62F6A16A61B4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Please don't bash a plane in which you have never flown. It just perpetuate= s bad stereotypes that the Lancair community does not need. As the original= owner of a propjet, it makes me very concerned every time a propjet(or any L= ancair) goes down. However, I find my propjet to be a very honest airplane i= n that she does exactly what I tell her to do. Yes, the margin for error is= much less than most planes and it must be respected. Sudden large power cha= nges must be avoided, close attention to the ball especially at slow speeds i= s required, and IMHO it is imperative to stay away from stall scenarios. Having followed the Lancair community since 1999 and being a part of it sinc= e I bought kit LIV-501 in 2001, I am convinced that the overwhelming majorit= y of accidents are pilot error-stall/spin, flying into thunderstorms or the o= ccasional fuel deprivation-sometimes running out of fuel or the engine not g= etting the fuel due to poor build or unporting of the engine. The Lancair f= uel system design in the propjet has received mixed reviews due to the belly= tank design. The wings gravity feed the belly tank which then feeds the en= gine. If one empties the wings and uses fuel from the belly tank, stops to r= efuel then takes off before the wings have a chance to fill the belly tank, i= t is possible to unport the engine particularly with a high deck angle on cl= imb out. I have heard the fuel running into my 34 gallon belly tank from th= e wings on the few occasions that I have used fuel from the belly. It can t= ake a while to refill the belly while getting the air out. This can also lea= d to a false sense of full fuel unless watched carefully. I view these issues as lack of situational awareness whether on the ground o= r in the air and not innate problems with the plane as long as one understan= ds their plane. Perhaps this relates to the higher crash rate among second o= wners as well as lower time in a specific plane. As you point out the tail c= an be overpowered by the turbine engine. To help combat this, we installed M= ike Custard's strakes as well as his vertical fin extension thus increasing t= ail authority. I suspect this helps the yaw issue to some degree.=20 The stall scenarios that you describe scare me and should scare any pilot bu= t this situation can happen in any plane though admittedly more likely in a I= V series due to the tight envelope and small margin of error but when we fly= these planes we accept this risk and hopefully do everything to minimize it= and fly them the way they need to be flown. There have been numerous aircraft that have gotten a bad reputation over the= years due to pilots not flying them correctly. The MU-2 and Robinson R22 h= elicopter(in which I have over 500 hours) in particular come to mind. Once p= roper training was mandated the accident rates went way down. If you choose= not to fly in a IVPT, that is a personal choice but please do not equate ba= d(or poorly trained) pilots with a bad aircraft. =20 The IV series and particularly the Propjet is not a docile plane but when fl= own within its envelope there is nothing as efficient and fun for the price i= n a true personal traveling plane.=20 David Weinsweig, MD N750DW Propjet 285 hours On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:07 AM, peter williams wrote: > HI THERE >=20 > THE OSTRICH HAS ITS HEAD IN THE SAND > it seems everyone is avoiding the issue here with this loss of airplane an= d pilot. > there is really only one clue at this point; a witness says that the plane= was rotating when it came out the clouds and descended into the ground. >=20 > i dont pretend to know what happened without the radar track, with the spe= ed readouts. >=20 > A SCENARIO THAT FITS THE DATA WE HAVE SO FAR > stalling a 4P is serious business. >=20 > MAYBE DISORIENTATION; MAYBE AN AUTOPILOT MALFUNCTION; MAYBE UNEXPECTED ICI= NG. MAYBE A TEMPORARY LOSS OF POWER all of which could cause a stall. >=20 > imagine what it would be like to be IFR and stall a Lancair 4/4P/turbine. = Not Fun. OK,=20 >=20 > so here you are. nose pointing straight down. you look over at the airspee= d and you see 100 knots (flying speed right???--- wrong, and maybe wrong) do= you have an AOA? it would tell you if you have lift back on the wings...OH,= by the way, did your Gyro(s) tumble. do you have the ability to cage the Gy= ro?? or is it self righting. OH and how fast does that happen. and 100 knots= is a silly low number and 200 knots is more likely within ten seconds. STRA= IGHT DOWN. What's that? 41 seconds to the ground OR 20,000 feet per minute s= traight down. > (remember that the average 4P stalls and rotates 90-120 degrees and points= straight down) >=20 > SO YOU THINK > ah, stall recovery...add power. well a little power? when that doesnt work= more power. HOW MUCH RIGHT RUDDER DID YOU ADD? BETTER BE A LOT. remember th= e turbine engine puts out 1,950 foot pounds of torque v. the 550 foot pound o= f torque of the piston engine. even at idle, the turbine is putting consider= able torque. My suspicion is a TORQUE ROLL and still in a stalled mode. YO= W. (sorta like a Snap Roll we have all seen at Oshkosh; a snap roll is an a= ccelerated Stall. YES STALL) > so you have twenty seconds at most to learn how to do stall recovery in I= FR conditions. >=20 > BOEING BUILD LANCAIRS > when Boeing built three 4P turbine aircraft for their own purposes; (likel= y a fast chase plane) they found the tail surfaces unsuitable for the purpos= e. (remember the airplane was designed for 350 HP not 750HP) Boeing redesign= ed the tail feathers including using a thicker airfoil for the horizontal su= rface. > SO IN THE OPINION OF THE PROS AT BOEING, THE REAR SURFACES WERE INADEQUATE= FOR THE PURPOSE=20 >=20 > STALLS > personally i believe that every pilot of these Lancair(s) be required to s= ee the stall of their airplane. sit in the plane and let a pro do the job. m= aybe if you are brave, with the "test pilot" next to you try the recovery yo= urself. do it under the hood?? YOW. does your gyro tumble. YOW again. > it is scary just to contemplate. > at what altitude did you do your approach to stall training? 8,500 feet, 1= 2.500 feet. there is a reason. >=20 > personally, i would be disinclined to ride in a 4 Turbine. i'm not smart e= nough. but if the infidels were at the edge of the airport shooting Rocket P= ropelled Grenades at me...then i would gladly take my chances in a Lancair 4= Turbine. >=20 > the airplane that comes to mind in comparison is the GeeBee; Jimmy Doolit= tle said it was the worst airplane he ever flew. AND, just above the runway i= t dropped a wing 90 degrees, pointing straight down. BUT, that wasn't bad en= ough, it did have one worse trait. as the pilot slowed down the nose kept r= ising and required forward stick; just the opposite of any other airplane. > so there is an airplane made to go fast in 1931. >=20 > peter --Apple-Mail-80730370-DD05-4C47-8D21-62F6A16A61B4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Pleas= e don't bash a plane in which you have never flown.  It just perpetuate= s bad stereotypes that the Lancair community does not need.  As the ori= ginal owner of a propjet, it makes me very concerned every time a propjet(or= any Lancair) goes down.  However, I find my propjet to be a very hones= t airplane in that she does exactly what I tell her to do.  Yes, the ma= rgin for error is much less than most planes and it must be respected. Sudde= n large power changes must be avoided, close attention to the ball especiall= y at slow speeds is required, and IMHO it is imperative to stay away from st= all scenarios.

Having followed the Lancair communit= y since 1999 and being a part of it since I bought kit LIV-501 in 2001, I am= convinced that the overwhelming majority of accidents are pilot error-stall= /spin, flying into thunderstorms or the occasional fuel deprivation-sometime= s running out of fuel or the engine not getting the fuel due to poor build o= r unporting of the engine.  The Lancair fuel system design in the propj= et has received mixed reviews due to the belly tank design.  The wings g= ravity feed the belly tank which then feeds the engine.  If one empties= the wings and uses fuel from the belly tank, stops to refuel then takes off= before the wings have a chance to fill the belly tank, it is possible to un= port the engine particularly with a high deck angle on climb out.  I ha= ve heard the fuel running into my 34 gallon belly tank from the wings on the= few occasions that I have used fuel from the belly.  It can take a whi= le to refill the belly while getting the air out. This can also lead to a fa= lse sense of full fuel unless watched carefully.

I v= iew these issues as lack of situational awareness whether on the ground or i= n the air and not innate problems with the plane as long as one understands t= heir plane.  Perhaps this relates to the higher crash rate among second= owners as well as lower time in a specific plane. As you point out the tail= can be overpowered by the turbine engine.  To help combat this, we ins= talled Mike Custard's strakes as well as his vertical fin extension thus inc= reasing tail authority.  I suspect this helps the yaw issue to some deg= ree. 

The stall scenarios that you describe sc= are me and should scare any pilot but this situation can happen in any plane= though admittedly more likely in a IV series due to the tight envelope and s= mall margin of error but when we fly these planes we accept this risk and ho= pefully do everything to minimize it and fly them the way they need to be fl= own.

There have been numerous aircraft that have go= tten a bad reputation over the years due to pilots not flying them correctly= .  The MU-2 and Robinson R22 helicopter(in which I have over 500 hours)= in particular come to mind.  Once proper training was mandated the acc= ident rates went way down.  If you choose not to fly in a IVPT, that is a= personal choice but please do not equate bad(or poorly trained) pilot= s with a bad aircraft.  

The IV series a= nd particularly the Propjet is not a docile plane but when flown within its e= nvelope there is nothing as efficient and fun for the price in a true person= al traveling plane. 

David Weinsweig, MD
N750DW Propje= t  285 hours

On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:07 AM, peter williams &= lt;peterpaw@aol.com> wrote:
HI THERE

THE OSTRICH HAS ITS HEAD IN THE SAND
it seems everyone is avoiding the issue he= re with this loss of airplane and pilot.
there is really only one clue at this poin= t; a witness says that the plane was rotating when it came out the clouds and descended into the ground.

i dont pretend to know what happened witho= ut the radar track, with t= he speed readouts.

A SCENARIO THAT FITS THE DATA WE HAVE SO FAR
stalling a 4P is serious business.

MAYBE DISORIENTATION; MAYBE AN AUTOPILOT MALFUNCTION; MAYBE UNEXPECTED ICING. MAYBE A TEMPORARY LOSS OF POWER all of which could c= ause a stall.=

imagine what it would be like to be IFR and stall a Lancair= 4/4P/turbine.  Not Fun. OK,

so here you are. nose pointing straight do= wn. you look over at the airspeed and you see 100 knots (flying speed right???--- wrong, and maybe wrong) do you have a= n AOA? it would tell you if you have lift back on the wings...OH, by the way, did your Gyro(s) tumble. do you have the= ability to cage the Gyro?? or is it self righting. OH and how fast does that happen= . and 100 knots is a silly low number and 200 knots is more= likely within ten seconds. STRAIGHT DOWN.= What's that? 41 seconds t= o the ground OR 20,000 feet per minute str= aight down.
(remember that the average 4P stalls and rotates 90-120 deg= rees and points straight down)

SO YOU THINK
ah, stall recovery...add p= ower. well a little power? when that doesnt work more power= . HOW MUCH RIGHT RUDDER DID YOU ADD? BETTER BE A LOT. remember the turbine e= ngine puts out 1,950 foot pounds of torque v. the 550 foot pound of torque of the piston engine. even at idle, the turbine is putting considerable torque. My suspi= cion is a TORQUE ROLL  and still in a= stalled mode.  YOW.  (sorta lik= e a Snap Roll we have all seen at Oshkosh;= a snap roll is an accelerated Stall. YES STALL)
 so you have twenty seconds at most to learn how to do stall recovery in IFR conditions.

BOEING BUILD LA= NCAIRS
when Boeing built three 4P turbine aircraf= t for their own purposes; (likely a fast chase plane) they f= ound the tail surfaces unsuitable for the p= urpose. (remember the airplane was designed for 350 HP not 750HP) Boeing redesigned t= he tail feathers including using a thicker airfoil for the horizontal surface.
SO IN THE OPINION OF THE PROS AT BOEING, THE REAR SURFACES WERE INADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE<= /font>=

STALLS
personally i believe that every pilot of these Lancair(s) be required to see the stall of their airplane. sit in the pl= ane and let a pro do the job. maybe if you are brave, with the "test pilot" <= font size=3D"2">next to you try the recovery yourself. do it under the hood?= ? YOW. does your gyro tumble. YOW again.
it is scary just to contemplate.
at what altitude did you do your approach t= o stall training? 8,500 feet, 12.500 feet.= there is a reason.

personally, i would be disinclined to ride in a 4 Turbine. i'm not smart enough. but if the infidels were at the edge of the airport shooting <= font size=3D"2">Rocket Propelled Grenades a= t me...then i would gladly take my chances in a Lancair 4 Turbine.

the airplane that comes to mind in compari= son is the GeeBee; Jimmy  Doolittle said it was the worst airplan= e he ever flew. AND, just above the runway i= t dropped a wing 90 degrees, pointing straight down. BUT, that wasn't bad enough,  it did have one worse trait. as the pilo= t slowed down the nose kept rising and required forward sti= ck; just the opposite of a= ny other airplane.
so there is an airplane made to go fast in 1931.

peter
= --Apple-Mail-80730370-DD05-4C47-8D21-62F6A16A61B4--