X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:47:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6032096 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:19:00 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.44; envelope-from=g.weeks550@gmail.com Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hz11so1159612pad.31 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.241.136 with SMTP id wi8mr33046924pbc.95.1359328706276; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.0.14] (184.13.233.220.static.exetel.com.au. [220.233.13.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ay6sm5450748pab.30.2013.01.27.15.18.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN References: From: Gary Weeks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9896D0F1-26D5-42A4-BBDE-A09204A96AFB X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A523) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <280FE7F7-AEC3-4FEF-8F72-1D24A81D3216@gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:18:22 +1100 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-9896D0F1-26D5-42A4-BBDE-A09204A96AFB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well said David. Nothing wrong with any of the Lancair designs, they all need respect but wil= l bite (a little quicker than most other production aircraft) if miss handle= d. Our Lancairs demand a professional approach when it comes to flying and enjo= ying them. Gary Weeks Legacy RG #205. VH-ZYA Sent from my iPad On 27/01/2013, at 10:59 PM, David Weinsweig wrote: > Please don't bash a plane in which you have never flown. It just perpetua= tes bad stereotypes that the Lancair community does not need. As the origin= al owner of a propjet, it makes me very concerned every time a propjet(or an= y Lancair) goes down. However, I find my propjet to be a very honest airpla= ne in that she does exactly what I tell her to do. Yes, the margin for erro= r is much less than most planes and it must be respected. Sudden large power= changes must be avoided, close attention to the ball especially at slow spe= eds is required, and IMHO it is imperative to stay away from stall scenarios= . >=20 > Having followed the Lancair community since 1999 and being a part of it si= nce I bought kit LIV-501 in 2001, I am convinced that the overwhelming major= ity of accidents are pilot error-stall/spin, flying into thunderstorms or th= e occasional fuel deprivation-sometimes running out of fuel or the engine no= t getting the fuel due to poor build or unporting of the engine. The Lancai= r fuel system design in the propjet has received mixed reviews due to the be= lly tank design. The wings gravity feed the belly tank which then feeds the= engine. If one empties the wings and uses fuel from the belly tank, stops t= o refuel then takes off before the wings have a chance to fill the belly tan= k, it is possible to unport the engine particularly with a high deck angle o= n climb out. I have heard the fuel running into my 34 gallon belly tank fro= m the wings on the few occasions that I have used fuel from the belly. It c= an take a while to refill the belly while getting the air out. This can also= lead to a false sense of full fuel unless watched carefully. >=20 > I view these issues as lack of situational awareness whether on the ground= or in the air and not innate problems with the plane as long as one underst= ands their plane. Perhaps this relates to the higher crash rate among secon= d owners as well as lower time in a specific plane. As you point out the tai= l can be overpowered by the turbine engine. To help combat this, we install= ed Mike Custard's strakes as well as his vertical fin extension thus increas= ing tail authority. I suspect this helps the yaw issue to some degree.=20 >=20 > The stall scenarios that you describe scare me and should scare any pilot b= ut this situation can happen in any plane though admittedly more likely in a= IV series due to the tight envelope and small margin of error but when we f= ly these planes we accept this risk and hopefully do everything to minimize i= t and fly them the way they need to be flown. >=20 > There have been numerous aircraft that have gotten a bad reputation over t= he 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. Onc= e proper training was mandated the accident rates went way down. If you cho= ose not to fly in a IVPT, that is a personal choice but please do not equate= bad(or poorly trained) pilots with a bad aircraft. =20 >=20 > The IV series and particularly the Propjet is not a docile plane but when f= lown within its envelope there is nothing as efficient and fun for the price= in a true personal traveling plane.=20 >=20 > David Weinsweig, MD > N750DW Propjet 285 hours >=20 > On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:07 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-9896D0F1-26D5-42A4-BBDE-A09204A96AFB Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well said David.

<= div>Nothing wrong with any of the Lancair designs, they all need respect but= will bite (a little quicker than most other production aircraft) if miss ha= ndled.

Our Lancairs demand a professional approach w= hen it comes to flying and enjoying them.

Gary Week= s

Legacy RG #205. VH-ZYA

<= br>
Sent from my iPad

On 27/01/2013, at 10:59 PM, David Wei= nsweig <weinsweigd@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

<= div>
Please don't bash a plane in which you have never flown.  It just= perpetuates 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 Lancair) goes down.  However, I find my propjet to be a= very honest airplane in 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 respe= cted. Sudden large power changes must be avoided, close attention to the bal= l especially at slow speeds is required, and IMHO it is imperative to stay a= way from stall scenarios.

Having followed the Lanca= ir community 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 e= rror-stall/spin, flying into thunderstorms or the occasional fuel deprivatio= n-sometimes running out of fuel or the engine not getting the fuel due to po= or build or unporting of the engine.  The Lancair fuel 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 engine.  If o= ne 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 poss= ible to unport the engine particularly with a high deck angle on climb out. &= nbsp;I have heard the fuel running into my 34 gallon belly tank from the win= gs 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 g= round or in the air and not innate problems with the plane as long as one un= derstands their plane.  Perhaps this relates to the higher crash rate a= mong second owners as well as lower time in a specific plane. As you point o= ut the tail can be overpowered by the turbine engine.  To help combat t= his, we installed Mike Custard's strakes as well as his vertical fin extensi= on thus increasing tail authority.  I suspect this helps the yaw issue t= o some degree. 

The stall scenarios that you d= escribe scare 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 env= elope and small margin of error but when we fly these planes we accept this r= isk and hopefully do everything to minimize it and fly them the way they nee= d to be flown.

There have been numerous aircraft th= at have gotten 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 5= 00 hours) in particular come to mind.  Once proper training was mandate= d 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 bad(or poorly trai= ned) pilots with a bad aircraft.  

The I= V series and particularly the Propjet is not a docile plane but when flown w= ithin its envelope there is nothing as efficient and fun for the price in a t= rue personal traveling plane. 

David Weinsweig, MD
N75= 0DW Propjet  285 hours

On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:07 AM, peter= williams <peterpaw@aol.com> w= rote:

HI THE= RE

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>=
<= /div>
= --Apple-Mail-9896D0F1-26D5-42A4-BBDE-A09204A96AFB--