X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:30:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta41.charter.net ([216.33.127.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6031646 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:28:22 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.83; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from imp11 ([10.20.200.11]) by mta41.charter.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.02 201-2260-151-103-20110920) with ESMTP id <20130127152748.SDHK10143.mta41.charter.net@imp11> for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:27:48 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.3] ([75.132.241.174]) by imp11 with smtp.charter.net id t3Tn1k0043mUFT7053ToUG; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:27:48 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=dIr+A5lb c=1 sm=1 a=VxlS/kh5Y2KhHY/Xui1ATg==:17 a=3ECXb6GesPAA:10 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=tNDxKCid19EA:10 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=ddiBWVS_Gy6mABMoa5UA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=hUswqBWy9Q8A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=7yrLiPPytj7GvWjw:21 a=imZqp6QJSzUMB17g:21 a=ywqjjqlx7cG0sLXicCUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=f8Pix7_sh2V322XN:21 a=VxlS/kh5Y2KhHY/Xui1ATg==:117 X-Auth-id: dHJvbmVpbGxAY2hhcnRlci5uZXQ= Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN References: From: Troneill Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-540F6A82-87F9-4B7C-8478-F7DCE10C8C54 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A523) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:27:47 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-540F6A82-87F9-4B7C-8478-F7DCE10C8C54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't ask the government to keep you safe. Do it yourself, and it gets done n= ow and correctly. Terrence Sent from my iPad On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:59 AM, peter williams wrote: > 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 th= at standard. >=20 > 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 bui= ld prototypes #2 and #3 while at Lancair. >=20 > 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. >=20 > i am appalled by the record of Lancair aircraft. 11% of purchasers of Lanc= airs crash on the way home. > THAT IS ONE OUT OF NINE. > (they did not have Lancair specific training) >=20 > easy to understand why there are only two companies in the Lancair insura= nce 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 tim= e. >=20 > i wish that the FAA would impose something like they did to the MU2 pilots= ; it would keep us all safer. >=20 > 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 >=20 > Just a suggestion to theLNC4 guys: why don;t you dudes get together and f= inance 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 >=20 > On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:07 AM, peter williams wrote: >=20 >> HI THERE >>=20 >> THE OSTRICH HAS ITS HEAD IN THE SAND >> it seems everyone is avoiding the issue here with this loss of airplane a= nd pilot. >> there is really only one clue at this point; a witness says that the plan= e 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 sp= eed 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 IC= ING. 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 airspe= ed and you see 100 knots (flying speed right???--- wrong, and maybe wrong) d= o 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 G= yro?? or is it self righting. OH and how fast does that happen. and 100 knot= s is a silly low number and 200 knots is more likely within ten seconds. STR= AIGHT 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 point= s straight down) >>=20 >> SO YOU THINK >> ah, stall recovery...add power. well a little power? when that doesnt wor= k more power. HOW MUCH RIGHT RUDDER DID YOU ADD? BETTER BE A LOT. remember t= he 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 consid= erable torque. My suspicion is a TORQUE ROLL and still in a stalled mode. Y= OW. (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; (like= ly a fast chase plane) they found the tail surfaces unsuitable for the purpo= se. (remember the airplane was designed for 350 HP not 750HP) Boeing redesig= ned the tail feathers including using a thicker airfoil for the horizontal s= urface. >> SO IN THE OPINION OF THE PROS AT BOEING, THE REAR SURFACES WERE INADEQUAT= E 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 Dooli= ttle 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 e= nough, 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail-540F6A82-87F9-4B7C-8478-F7DCE10C8C54 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don't ask the government to keep you s= afe. Do it yourself, and it gets done now and correctly.
Terrence<= /div>


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:59 A= M, peter williams <peterpaw@aol.com> wrote:

hi there
there is such a product with two or three flying; the promise seems to be a r= olling motion limited to 30 degrees. the ones flying seem to conform to that= standard.

it was developed by someone who worked at Lancair when they converted the La= ncair 4 into a certified airplane with docile stall characteristics. he buil= d prototypes #2 and #3 while at Lancair.

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

i am appalled by the record of Lancair aircraft. 11% of purchasers of Lancai= rs crash on the way home.
THAT IS ONE OUT OF NINE.
<= font size=3D"2">= (they did not have Lancair specific training)

 easy to understand why there are only two companies in the Lancair ins= urance 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 t= ime.

i wish that the FAA would impose somethin= g like they did to the MU2 pilots; it would keep 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 an= d finance a wind tunnel survey of the pitching and yawing moments through th= e AOA range?  Then fix it.
Has Boeing or NASA Lang= ley 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 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
 <= /font>=

= --Apple-Mail-540F6A82-87F9-4B7C-8478-F7DCE10C8C54--