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 imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6030935 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:04:28 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=peterpaw@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.9]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id C1C1D38000090 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mma004b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mma004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.191.141]) by mtaomg-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 6ACB7E00008A for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:03:52 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: peter williams X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFCA176581107C_1708_6AEA0_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37309-STANDARD Received: from 69.204.230.119 by webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.83) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:03:51 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CFCA1765778AFC-1708-1FD99@webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [69.204.230.119] X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:03:52 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:353111520:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d2909510436a86857 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCA176581107C_1708_6AEA0_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" hi there there is such a product with two or three flying; the promise seems to be a= rolling motion limited to 30 degrees. the ones flying seem to conform to t= hat standard. it was developed by someone who worked at Lancair when they converted the L= ancair 4 into a certified airplane with docile stall characteristics. he bu= ild prototypes #2 and #3 while at Lancair. this is a conversion that you don't need it until you really need it. Ask R= on from Spruce Creek; his airplane is such modified. i am appalled by the record of Lancair aircraft. 11% of purchasers of Lanca= irs crash on the way home. THAT IS ONE OUT OF NINE. (they did not have Lancair specific training) easy to understand why there are only two companies in the Lancair insuran= ce market and i pay $9,000 a year for $200,000 of hull insurance with a $20= ,000 deductible. and, i have 3,700 hours with 2,700 hours of twin Cessna ti= me. i wish that the FAA would impose something like they did to the MU2 pilots;= it would keep us all safer. peter =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Terrence O'Neill To: lml Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 2:25 pm Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN Just a suggestion to theLNC4 guys: why don;t you dudes get together and fi= nance a wind tunnel survey of the pitching and yawing moments through the A= OA range? Then fix it. Has Boeing or NASA Langley already done that? terrence On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:07 AM, peter williams wrote: HI THERE THE OSTRICH HAS ITS HEAD IN THE SAND it seems everyone is avoiding the issue here with this loss of airplane and= 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. i dont pretend to know what happened without the radar track, with the spee= d 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 ICIN= G. MAYBE A TEMPORARY LOSS OF POWER all of which could cause a stall. imagine what it would be like to be IFR and stall a Lancair 4/4P/turbine. = Not Fun. OK,=20 so here you are. nose pointing straight down. you look over at the airspeed= 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 = Gyro?? or is it self righting. OH and how fast does that happen. and 100 kn= ots is a silly low number and 200 knots is more likely within ten seconds. = STRAIGHT DOWN. What's that? 41 seconds to the ground OR 20,000 feet per min= ute straight down. (remember that the average 4P stalls and rotates 90-120 degrees and points = straight down) 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= of torque of the piston engine. even at idle, the turbine is putting consi= derable torque. My suspicion is a TORQUE ROLL and still in a stalled mode.= YOW. (sorta like 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 IF= R conditions. BOEING BUILD LANCAIRS when Boeing built three 4P turbine aircraft for their own purposes; (likely= 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 redesig= ned the 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=20 STALLS personally i believe that every pilot of these Lancair(s) be required to se= e 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 y= ourself. 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, 12= .500 feet. there is a reason. personally, i would be disinclined to ride in a 4 Turbine. i'm not smart en= ough. 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. the airplane that comes to mind in comparison is the GeeBee; Jimmy Doolitt= le said it was the worst airplane he ever flew. AND, just above the runway = it dropped a wing 90 degrees, pointing straight down. BUT, that wasn't bad = enough, it did have one worse trait. as the pilot slowed down the nose kep= t rising and required forward stick; just the opposite of any other airplan= e. so there is an airplane made to go fast in 1931. peter =20 ----------MB_8CFCA176581107C_1708_6AEA0_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" hi there
there is such a product with two or three flying; the promise seems to be a= rolling motion limited to 30 degrees. the ones flying seem to conform to t= hat standard.

it was developed by someone who worked at Lancair when they converted the L= ancair 4 into a certified airplane with docile stall characteristics. he bu= ild prototypes #2 and #3 while at Lancair.

this is a conversion that you don't need it until you really need it. Ask R= on from Spruce Creek; his airplane is such modified.

i am appalled by the record of Lancair aircraft. 11% of purchasers of Lanca= irs crash on the way home.
THAT IS ONE OUT OF NINE.
= (they did not have Lancair specific training)

 easy to understand why there are only two companies in the Lancair in= surance market and i pay $9,000 a year for $200,000 of hull insurance with = a $20,000 deductible. and, i have 3,700 hours with 2,700 hours of twin Cess= na time.

i wish that the FAA would impose some= thing like they did to the MU2 pilots; it would keep <= /font>us all safer.

peter



-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence O'Neill <troneill@charter.net>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 2:25 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN
Just a suggestion to theLNC4 guys:  why don;t you dudes get together a= nd finance a wind tunnel survey of the pitching and yawing moments through = the AOA range?  Then fix it.
Has Boeing or NASA Lan= gley already done that?
terrence

On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:07 AM, peter williams wrote:

HI THERE=

THE OSTRICH HAS ITS HEAD IN THE SAND
it seems everyone is avoiding the issue h= ere with this loss of airplane and pilot.
there is really only one clue at this poi= nt; 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 with= out the radar track, wit= h the speed readouts.

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

MAYBE DISORIENTATION; MAYBE AN AUTOPILOT MALFUNCTION; MAY<= font size=3D"2">BE UNEXPECTED ICING. MAYBE A TEMPORARY LOSS OF POWER all of which cou= ld cause a stall.=

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

so here you are. nose pointing straight d= own. you look over at the airspeed and you see 100 knots (flying speed right???--- wrong, and maybe wrong) do you h= ave 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 h= ave the ability to cage the Gyro?? or is it self righting. OH and how fast does th= at happen. and 100 knots is a silly low number and 200 kno= ts is more likely within ten seconds. STR= AIGHT DOWN. What's that? 41 seconds to the ground OR 20,000 feet per minute straight down.
(remember that the average 4P stalls and rotates 90-120 de= grees and points straight down)
<= /font>
SO YOU THINK
ah, stall recovery...add= power. well a little power? when that doesnt work more po= wer. HOW MUCH RIGHT RUDDER DID YOU ADD? BETTER BE A LOT. remember the turbi= ne engine 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 put= ting considerable torque. My suspicion is a TORQUE ROLL  a= nd still in a stalled mode.  YOW.  (sorta like a Snap Roll we have all seen at Oshkosh; a snap roll is an accel= erated Stall. YES STALL)
 so you have twenty seconds at m= ost to learn how to do stall recovery in IFR conditions.=

= = = = BOEING BUILD LANCAIRS
when Boeing built three 4P turbine aircra= ft for their own purposes; (likely a fast chase plane) the= y found the tail surfaces unsuitable for the purpose. (remember the airplane was designed for 350 <= font size=3D"2">HP not 750HP) Boeing rede= signed the tail feathers including using a thicker airfoil for the horizontal surface.
SO IN THE OPINION OF THE PROS AT BOEING, THE REAR SURFACES WERE <= font size=3D"2">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 th= e plane and let a pro do the job. maybe if you are brave, with the "test pi= lot" next to you try the recovery yourself. do it under th= e 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, 12.500 fe= et. 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 shootin= g Rocket Propelled Grenades at me...then i would gladly take my chances in a Lancair 4 Turbine.

the airplane that comes to mind in compar= ison is the GeeBee; Jimmy  D<= /font>oolittle said it was the worst airp= lane he ever flew. AND, = just above the runway it dropped a wing 90 degrees, pointing straight down. BUT, that wasn't bad enough,  it did have one worse trait. as = the pilot slowed down the nose kept rising and required fo= rward stick; just the op= posite of any other airplane.
so there is an airplane made to go fast in 1931.

peter
<= /font>

----------MB_8CFCA176581107C_1708_6AEA0_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com--