Lancair 360 MkI Aerobatics & Spins
Marco Lange
Hello people,
a few weeks ago I posted a question about Lancair 360 aerobatics and
spins, well I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
Well I just tried it and am still alive ... :-)
I just want to share my experience with every one who wants to read
it:
I went up to 6000 feet AGL in our Lancair 360 MKI, empty wt 1127 lbs,
about 17 gal of fuel (100 lbs), myself flying the aircraft (220 lbs),
so all up wt was about 1450-1500 lbs. The c/g was about 1.5 inches aft
of the forward limit. I reduced to 100 kts (slow decell) then closed
the throttle and pitched the nose up about 20 degrees, waited for the
buffet and kicked in full left rudder and pulled the stick fully aft.
It broke nicely to the left, made half a turn, it flattened out for
half a turn and broke again over left to enter a spin (not a spiral
dive) with nose about 60-75 degrees nose down, turn rate aprox 360
degr every 1-2 sec, and rate of descent aprox 3000-4000 ft/min.
Recovery was easy and quick, just opposite rudder and a bit of down
elevator (past neutral), only resulting dive was pretty nose down (70
+ degrees), pulling out of the dive has to be done carefully (not to
snap out of it).
Note: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME IF YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY SPIN TRAINING
!!!
And remember that the fall down to mother Earth doesn't kill you, it's
the sudden stop at the end that does !
If you want to try this yourself, you have to keep in mind that a
forward c/g will cause a poor spin (won't even stay in the spin) and a
c/g too far aft is dangerous (flat spin can occur !), so remove all
stuff from the back (good idea anyway when you start aerobatics and
spins ...) and make a loadsheet just to see what the c/g is in the
planned configuraion !
Any more people out there who tried this ? (almost all Lancair here in
the Netherlands were spun and none of them had any bad tendencies)
Marco Lange (co-owner of Lancair 360 #244 PH-MYF)
remove -nospam- from E-mail address to send mail !!
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marhil
HornetBall
>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
It seems we have a lot of "pilots" in the U.S. who are afraid of flying. Blame
tepid pilot training (should we teach spins or stall avoidance -- as if this is
a legitimate question).
Bob U.
>
>Hello people,
>
>a few weeks ago I posted a question about Lancair 360 aerobatics and
>spins, well I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
>Well I just tried it and am still alive ... :-)
>Marco Lange (co-owner of Lancair 360 #244 PH-MYF)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Answer this one mature serious question, Marco...
Explain WHY you are not a total and utter fool.
Bob - survivor of one spin short of too many - U.
Bob U.
>>I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
>>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
>
>It seems we have a lot of "pilots" in the U.S. who are afraid of flying. Blame
>tepid pilot training (should we teach spins or stall avoidance -- as if this is
>a legitimate question).
While I'm not in the Guiness Book of records for the most loops, rolls
or spins, I have done my share over many decades.
I'm not a product of trepid pilot training, unless you consider my
USAF pilot training and a decade of crop dusting in that category.
I know MANLY FEAR and I know SERENE STUPIDITY.
Taking a one of a kind homebuilt and surviving this singular event is
worthy only of severe admonishment, not applause.
The next attempt could put the homebuilt movement on the defensive and
this lad in a pine box.
His family, friends and airplane partner deserve better consideration.
This was a most immature, selfish and foolish act.
The risk to benefit ratio is zip, nada, ZERO!
This act speaks to nothing but the pilot's exceptionally poor
judgement.
Bob U.
Dean Dunn
Bob U. wrote in message (mainly snipped)...
>I know MANLY FEAR and I know SERENE STUPIDITY.
>Taking a one of a kind homebuilt and surviving this singular event is
>worthy only of severe admonishment, not applause.
>The next attempt could put the homebuilt movement on the defensive and
>this lad in a pine box.
>His family, friends and airplane partner deserve better consideration.
>This was a most immature, selfish and foolish act.
>
>The risk to benefit ratio is zip, nada, ZERO!
>This act speaks to nothing but the pilot's exceptionally poor
>judgement.
>
As a relative beginner to flying and being very wary of getting into a
stall/spin situation I sort of agree with the above.
I however, would not feel comfortable flying in any plane that could not
safely come out of a spin. Are you saying the Lancair is dangerous and
should not be spun?
Dean
Joe Della Barba
wrote:
>(Marco Lange) wrote:
>
>>
>>Hello people,
>>
>>a few weeks ago I posted a question about Lancair 360 aerobatics and
>>spins, well I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
>>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
>>Well I just tried it and am still alive ... :-)
>
>>Marco Lange (co-owner of Lancair 360 #244 PH-MYF)
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Answer this one mature serious question, Marco...
>Explain WHY you are not a total and utter fool.
>
>
>Bob - survivor of one spin short of too many - U.
I have spun several different aircraft and never thought of it as very
dangerous. Of course these were all approved for spins and recovered
quite nicely. Is the Lancair not supposed to be spun? If the designer
warned you not to spin it, there is a reason. Otherwise, what is the
big deal?
Joe
Rick Macklem
: Note: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME IF YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY SPIN TRAINING
: !!!
I'd say "Don't try this unless you are an experienced spin test pilot and
the aircraft is equipped with a spin recovery chute". (I am assuming here
that the Lancair hasn't had a full spin test evaluation done on it.)
I suggest anyone contemplating this read a book like "Stalls, Spins, and
Safety" by Sammy Mason. He was Lockheed's spin test pilot for over 20
years, among other things. The book is moderately technical, but with no
mathematics and some amazing "been there, done that" stories. There is a
chapter on the very serious business of spin flight testing.
Have fun flying, but recognize that spinning an aircraft that hasn't been
thoroughly spin tested is a very serious business, rick
highflyer
>
> (Marco Lange) wrote:
>
> >
> >Hello people,
> >
> >a few weeks ago I posted a question about Lancair 360 aerobatics and
> >spins, well I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
> >sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
> >Well I just tried it and am still alive ... :-)
>
> >Marco Lange (co-owner of Lancair 360 #244 PH-MYF)
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Answer this one mature serious question, Marco...
> Explain WHY you are not a total and utter fool.
>
> Bob - survivor of one spin short of too many - U.
Bob,
Because Marco is from the Netherlands and the spin test is required
for certification, even for a homebuilt aircraft. <g>
I assume that he wore a chute for the first one at least! <g>
HF
Bob U.
>
>Bob U. wrote in message (mainly snipped)...
>
>>I know MANLY FEAR and I know SERENE STUPIDITY.
>>Taking a one of a kind homebuilt and surviving this singular event is
>>worthy only of severe admonishment, not applause.
>>The next attempt could put the homebuilt movement on the defensive and
>>this lad in a pine box.
>>His family, friends and airplane partner deserve better consideration.
>>This was a most immature, selfish and foolish act.
>>
>>The risk to benefit ratio is zip, nada, ZERO!
>>This act speaks to nothing but the pilot's exceptionally poor
>
>As a relative beginner to flying and being very wary of getting into a
>stall/spin situation I sort of agree with the above.
>
>I however, would not feel comfortable flying in any plane that could not
>safely come out of a spin. Are you saying the Lancair is dangerous and
>should not be spun?
>
>Dean
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not at all, Dean.
Spins in PRODUCTION aircraft certified for such, are one thing.
Spins in homebuilts designed and tested for such are OK too.
But.....
Spinning a typical homebuilt just for grins, is a test pilot thing,
and no two are assured to be alike.
If your going to spin a homebuilt just to see IF it can recover,
is sheer folly IMHO.
Why chance wrecking a perfectly flyable homebuilt plane
AND risk your life out of dumbshit curiosity?
If you screw up and get in a spin inadvertently is one thing, but to
consciously GAMBLE and HOPE for a recovery is dumb, dumb, dumb.
BTW...
You get no high marks for inadvertent spins from the FAA.
Bob - old, bold and highly opinionated pilot - U.
Bob U.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THANK YOU, Rick.
It's possible your post just may save a life that is more precious to
a loved one than the holder of a reckless pilot's lifestyle.
Bob U.
Bob U.
>>>Hello people,
>>>
>>>a few weeks ago I posted a question about Lancair 360 aerobatics and
>>>spins, well I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
>>>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
>>>Well I just tried it and am still alive ... :-)
>>
>>>Marco Lange (co-owner of Lancair 360 #244 PH-MYF)
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Answer this one mature serious question, Marco...
>>Explain WHY you are not a total and utter fool.
>>
>>
>>Bob - survivor of one spin short of too many - U.
>I have spun several different aircraft and never thought of it as very
>dangerous. Of course these were all approved for spins and recovered
>quite nicely. Is the Lancair not supposed to be spun? If the designer
>warned you not to spin it, there is a reason. Otherwise, what is the
>big deal?
>Joe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joe,
You have pretty much intuitively answered your own question.
Marco is alive through no fault of his own from what I can discern.
Bragging about his experience here is just more proof that he has a
way to go before he acquires good judgement.
May I refer you to Rick Macklem's post that appears just after this
question of yours was raised.
You will find his post well worth reading and taking to heart.
Bob U.
James Thursby
Bob U. wrote in message <375286e7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 5 May 1999 14:54:36 GMT, rmac...@uoguelph.ca (Rick Macklem) wrote:
>
>>Marco Lange (marhil...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
>>
>>: Note: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME IF YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY SPIN TRAINING
>>: !!!
>>I'd say "Don't try this unless you are an experienced spin test pilot
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(snipped)
>Bob U.
We get your point Bob. But some of us believe only a fool would fly a
homebuilt around without knowing it's spin recovery characteristics. And
don't feed us that bs about spin avoidance, the statistics speak otherwise.
Furthermore homebuilts typically have a much sharper stall/spin entry than
certified aircraft. That fact alone states that you should or, get someone
better qualified to do it for you, so that the entries are at least
recognizable. My belief is if you fly in a non spin tested homebuilt with a
passenger is recklessness on the PIC's part. Of course it's not my business
how you flight test YOUR homebuilt aircraft. But, from what I've seen, most
planes 25 or 40 hour test periods would be better spent gathering REAL
flight data and not joyriding in their assigned area till the hours are
flown off.
Jim Thursby
Europa N814AT
Mike Yukish
>(snipped)
>>Bob U.
>
>We get your point Bob. But some of us believe only a fool would fly a
>homebuilt around without knowing it's spin recovery characteristics. And
>don't feed us that bs about spin avoidance, the statistics speak otherwise.
The kicker is what if you find out the spin is non-recoverable? This
is a possible outcome. What a bummer to lose your airplane, especially
if it is a go-fast point-to-point plane, not an aerobatic beast.
You'd better at least have a chute on. A spin chute would be nice, to
save the aircraft. How about an aircraft recovery system? A movable
weight to set the CG forward? The only safe way to test is to assume
that the basic mode will be nonrecoverable, and have some sort of plan
"B" ready.
I have 1000+ hours in an aircraft for which I have no idea its spin
recovery characteristics, other than as the manual states. And I
maneuvered it fairly aggressively, just kept it in the envelope.
Now if you are looking for cheap thrills, that's a different story.
: O
*****************************
Mike Yukish
may...@psu.edu
Applied Research Lab/Penn State U.
Bob U.
>>>: Note: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME IF YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY SPIN TRAINING
>>>: !!!
>>>I'd say "Don't try this unless you are an experienced spin test pilot
>and>>thoroughly spin tested is a very serious business, rick
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>(snipped)
>>Bob U.
>
>
>We get your point Bob. But some of us believe only a fool would fly a
>homebuilt around without knowing it's spin recovery characteristics. And
>don't feed us that bs about spin avoidance, the statistics speak otherwise.
>Furthermore homebuilts typically have a much sharper stall/spin entry than
>certified aircraft. That fact alone states that you should or, get someone
>better qualified to do it for you, so that the entries are at least
>recognizable. My belief is if you fly in a non spin tested homebuilt with a
>passenger is recklessness on the PIC's part. Of course it's not my business
>how you flight test YOUR homebuilt aircraft. But, from what I've seen, most
>planes 25 or 40 hour test periods would be better spent gathering REAL
>flight data and not joyriding in their assigned area till the hours are
>flown off.
>
> Jim Thursby
> Europa N814AT
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim,
I've spoken my piece and others are weighing in with their comments.
Hopefully, there will be a discussion with more light than heat.
Mike Yukish has some interesting comments which kind of fits with
those of Rick Macklem.
If the three of us don't give you pause for rethinking, your probably
beyond the reach of this discussion for the moment.
In wrapping things up:
Do you ever fly the airlines?
Got any info on their spin tests....
or even the typical multi-engine G/A aircraft...
Or what about the common Cherokee?
There are bunches of aircraft placarded AGAINST spins.
Surely you have suspicions as to why.
Your rides could be limited, if you don't change your mind. <g>
Cheers,
Bob - don't spin my Ercoupe - U.
Marco Lange
<dean...@dial.pipex.com> wrote
>I however, would not feel comfortable flying in any plane that could not
>safely come out of a spin. Are you saying the Lancair is dangerous and
>should not be spun?
>
>Dean
>
the manual says that spins are not recommended, and in a previous post
of mine I asked if some people had experience with spinning the
Lancair and I got a lot of answers indicating that I was nuts of even
thinking of doing something like that !
Marco
Marco Lange
wrote:
>Not at all, Dean.
>Spins in PRODUCTION aircraft certified for such, are one thing.
>Spins in homebuilts designed and tested for such are OK too.
>But.....
>Spinning a typical homebuilt just for grins, is a test pilot thing,
>and no two are assured to be alike.
>If your going to spin a homebuilt just to see IF it can recover,
>is sheer folly IMHO.
>Why chance wrecking a perfectly flyable homebuilt plane
>AND risk your life out of dumbshit curiosity?
>
>If you screw up and get in a spin inadvertently is one thing, but to
>consciously GAMBLE and HOPE for a recovery is dumb, dumb, dumb.
>
>BTW...
>You get no high marks for inadvertent spins from the FAA.
>
>
>Bob - old, bold and highly opinionated pilot - U.
>
Bob,
You are right, BUT ...
I was not taking a gamble and was not hoping that I could recover, I
asked the guy who has flown the most Lancairs overhere in the
Netherlands (he has testflown them all and he was in the airforce too,
he is an aerobatic champion and flies about anything with wings). So I
knew what the other Lancairs did. You are right saying that none of
the homebuilts are alike (even if they are the same type). My reason
for testing the spin behavior was because of me flying aerobatics in
it. Why trying to find out how it recovers from a spin when you don't
expect it, why not trying it under "controlled" circumstances ?
Marco Lange
Barba) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 May 1999 12:20:57 GMT, ruokN...@mindspring.com (Bob U.)
>wrote:
>
>>(Marco Lange) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hello people,
>>>
>>>a few weeks ago I posted a question about Lancair 360 aerobatics and
>>>spins, well I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
>>>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
>>>Well I just tried it and am still alive ... :-)
>>
>>>Marco Lange (co-owner of Lancair 360 #244 PH-MYF)
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Answer this one mature serious question, Marco...
>>Explain WHY you are not a total and utter fool.
>>
>>
>>Bob - survivor of one spin short of too many - U.
>I have spun several different aircraft and never thought of it as very
>dangerous. Of course these were all approved for spins and recovered
>quite nicely. Is the Lancair not supposed to be spun? If the designer
>warned you not to spin it, there is a reason. Otherwise, what is the
>big deal?
>Joe
>
Joe,
in the manual it reads: spins are not recommended ...
it does NOT read are prohibited.
Marco Lange
I want to post this reply as a general answer to all of your posts:
It was never my intention to "brag" about I did (spinning a Lancair),
but when I posted a question about this matter a few months ago I got
two types of answers (Americain and others):
1. Americain, in general saying I was crazy even to think about doing
this and even saying that doing aerobatics in a Lancair was stupid.
2. Others, people (also some from the States) saying that the Lancair
is a great aerobatics platform (for basic positive manouvres, not the
hot rod negative stuff !) and spinning was nothing special.
The main reason that I wanted to know the spin characteristics of the
Lancair is that when flying aerobatics, there is always a chance of
snapping out of a loop or other manouvre. Dealing with a spin at a
moment you do not expect (don't want and don't need) a spin is alway
different from a "controlled" environment, e.g. putting it in the spin
when you want it at a safe altitude.
Hope I did not offend any one out there,
keep on flying, where ever you are
Bob U.
>You are right, BUT ...
>I was not taking a gamble and was not hoping that I could recover, I
>asked the guy who has flown the most Lancairs overhere in the
>Netherlands (he has testflown them all and he was in the airforce too,
>he is an aerobatic champion and flies about anything with wings). So I
>knew what the other Lancairs did. You are right saying that none of
>the homebuilts are alike (even if they are the same type). My reason
>for testing the spin behavior was because of me flying aerobatics in
>it. Why trying to find out how it recovers from a spin when you don't
>expect it, why not trying it under "controlled" circumstances ?
>
>Marco
Marco, I got a little preachy.
Time for me to back off.
You have your mind made up.
You rolled the dice and you won.... this time.
So be it.
At some future point when your hair turns to silver, you may reflect
on this old pilot with 4.5 decades of aerial antics much dumber than
you can ever imagine and how he crossed your path and wished you well.
Bob - USA - U.
dedebaker
This is the answer I was looking for. We the average don't look to enter
a spin, but we would like to know the spin recovery procedure when we
are there. Most of us, I think build kits and the liability that the
manufacture has precludes them from say anything but "Spins not
Recomended" however they, if responsible must have made a turn.
If I read your answer correctly you wanted to know the spin charastics
and recovery before it was non controlled.
OK what is the bitch? No recovery training?
Lee McGee
aerobatics of any kind, you had better know the spin
regime. Botched maneuvers usually end up in a spin,
and "at least I know how to get out of that...".
The Lancair 360 is a proven aerobatic platform, is even
promoted as such at http://www.lancair.com.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
James Thursby
aircraft, you don't know the envelope until you test it to it's edges or
beyond. The Manual is merely a starting point. YOU need to establish the
limits of the aircraft, not take the book values as a given. And if you
intend to fly acro in it, and I'm implying aerobatics not "aggressive"
maneuvering, you should explore that end of the envelope first. Pulling 4
g.s in a turn is not the place to find out your aircraft has a snap/spin
tendency.
Jim Thursby
Europa N814AT
Mike Yukish wrote in message <3730a328....@news.psu.edu>...
>James Thursby wrote:
>
>>(snipped)
>>>Bob U.
>>
>>We get your point Bob. But some of us believe only a fool would fly a
>>homebuilt around without knowing it's spin recovery characteristics. And
>>don't feed us that bs about spin avoidance, the statistics speak
otherwise.
>
James Thursby
Bob U. wrote in message <375ab1a0...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Do you ever fly the airlines?
>Got any info on their spin tests....
>or even the typical multi-engine G/A aircraft...
>Or what about the common Cherokee?
>>There are bunches of aircraft placarded AGAINST spins.
>Surely you have suspicions as to why.
>Your rides could be limited, if you don't change your mind. <g>
>>Cheers,
>Bob - don't spin my Ercoupe - U.
>
Jim Thursby
Europa N814AT
RobertR237
(Bob U.) writes:
>
>Do you ever fly the airlines?
>Got any info on their spin tests....
>or even the typical multi-engine G/A aircraft...
>Or what about the common Cherokee?
>
>There are bunches of aircraft placarded AGAINST spins.
>Surely you have suspicions as to why.
>Your rides could be limited, if you don't change your mind. <g>
>
>Cheers,
>Bob - don't spin my Ercoupe - U.
>
>
And if that plane is placarded against spins, do YOU go out and spin it anyway
just so you can find out it's spin characteristics or do you make avoidence of
the spin your goal. While I firmly believe that we should all routinely
practice stall and stall recovery as a part of our staying current and
especially a part of testing our new homebuilt's, spins should be left to those
qualified to do such and then only with proper backup provisions. Doing spins
in any aircraft which has not been previously tested for spins or has had any
recommendation against spins is just asking for trouble. The fact that you get
away with it once can be attributed to either skill or luck. The next time may
find the conditions slightly different and the results may differ as well.
Bob (an old but not so bold pilot) Reed
Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh!
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
James Thursby
going out and spinning airplanes specifically placarded against spinning.
What I'm saying is homebuilt's that HAVE been spin tested, Rv's Lancair's,
Europa's, etc, etc, still need to be tested for recoveries if you plan to
fly acro in it. Period. Having flown four different Europa's and having spun
all four of them, I can say they all have different entry and recovery
habits. Of course the Europa as part of it's U.K. certification program was
thoroughly spin tested. If all you do is point a to point b flying, then
it's probably not worth the risk. Again, I NEVER said anything about
spinning aircraft placarded against such.
Jim Thursby
Europa N814AT
dave morss
I was one of the people that answered his post , he didn't understand my
reply. I said that in over 78 spins from one to three turns 90 % of them
recovered normally but with any fuel in the wings the spin characteristics
are unpredictable and using the same technique the results varied wildly
and so spins are not recommended. and with wing fuel really not a good
idea.
also a level entry was one of the most predictable entry's but when
snapping into a spin it got real interesting. Please if you read his post
don't think you can spin your lancair and have it work out ok. this wing is
sensitive to dirt and bug strikes wing fuel and cg location are all
important..
I did the initial spin testing on the lancair and i had a chute and
modified the canopy so i could get out. I started at 10000 ft and did spins
for two days. When i started using my own lancair for air shows I again
rigged the canopy to jettison and just using header fuel did several spin
entries from the places in my routine where i could get in trouble. I
never let these spins develop but just wanted to see what to do in my plane
if i got in a spin entry accidentally. Lastly the spin changes after two
turns and MY lancair didn't spin at all like the factory PROTOTYPE
,although the changes i made in building shouldn't have changed the spin
characteristics much.
In conclusion yes all lancairs will spin and if built exactly to plans
with a clean wing and a cg in range no wing fuel and less than two turns
they should recover most of the time in about half a turn. If you are going
to do acro that could get you in a spin you should test your aircraft by
going high 10000ft + having a chute and rigging your canopy so you can get
out in flight. Then you'll know the spin characteristics for YOUR plane on
a given day temp density alt cg loading wing contour etc.
dave
highflyer
>
>
> As a relative beginner to flying and being very wary of getting into a
> stall/spin situation I sort of agree with the above.
>
> safely come out of a spin. Are you saying the Lancair is dangerous and
> should not be spun?
>
Safely come out of a spin? The only aircraft in this country that
require a spin test for certification are all single engined.
As far as I know, no one has spin tested any of the Boeings in
recent years. At least since the thirties.
No twins are spin tested prior to certification.
Many singles are placarded against spins. Virtually all of the
low wing metal airplanes certified in the US can only be safely
spun under very careful conditions, and some of them, not even
then.
Most of the airplanes that can be spun with impunity are designs
from the thirties and forties.
HF
highflyer
>
> Right Mike, the problem is in a homebuilt, notice I said HOMEBUILT
> aircraft, you don't know the envelope until you test it to it's edges or
> beyond. The Manual is merely a starting point. YOU need to establish the
> limits of the aircraft, not take the book values as a given. And if you
> intend to fly acro in it, and I'm implying aerobatics not "aggressive"
> maneuvering, you should explore that end of the envelope first. Pulling 4
> g.s in a turn is not the place to find out your aircraft has a snap/spin
> tendency.
>
> Jim Thursby
> Europa N814AT
>
So that makes it wise to go up and spin it to see if it will
recover? It is one thing to explore the limits of the envelope
of something like a Pitt's, where the spin characteristics are
quite well none from many instances of the aircraft.
It is a different story with a newer design where these characteristics
are a blank sheet. Expecially something with a rounded fuselage and
slanted tail like the Lancaire. It is NOT designed for spin recovery
or aerobatics.
There are many nice airplanes that are designed for that task and
fulfil it admirably. There are many airplanes that are designed
for a totally different mission. It is rarely wise to take an
airplane designed to go as fast as possible from here to there,
and use it for an aerobatic mount. As well try to convert a Pitts
S1S into a good family cross country machine. <g>
Many certified aircraft have been found lacking in the spin
characteristics department and have been placarded against intentional
spins. My own airplane is so stable that you can't hold it INTO a
spin more than three turns. It was originally certified for a number
of aerobatic maneuvers in the military. When it was licensed as a
civilian aircraft, after WWII, they required a placard warning against
intentional spins be affixed to the panel.
That was because it was not spin tested for certification. It is NOT
required in the US.
HF
Bob U.
One can only hope this post will instill a heavy measure of thought
before committing to spin testing an unproven aircraft.
If nothing else, spin testing an unproven airplane is an admission
that the PILOT IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE THE AIRCRAFT,
if worse comes to worse.
Please think long and hard on this notion.
Some of these aircraft were many years in the making.
I purposely left out the possible loss of life.
There are personalities here that might think twice about the loss of
their aircraft while not once thinking about themselves.........
or their loved ones.
Bob U.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Danda
> It is a different story with a newer design where these characteristics
> are a blank sheet. Expecially something with a rounded fuselage and
> slanted tail like the Lancaire. It is NOT designed for spin recovery
> or aerobatics.
generally speaking, what design factor makes a plane difficult to recover
from a spin?
thanks!
Jeff
--
** Jeff Danda **
** Software Engineer **
** LTX Corp **
** (913) 895-9332 **
Steven Estergreen
Bob.
Seriously, what makes this any more immature, stupid, and foolish than any other
activity in a one-of-a-kind homebuilt aircraft? It would seem that 6000 feet over
the Netherlands gives him about as good a chance of recovery as one can hope for. Or
time to make peace with God if it goes flat and he just can't recover.Until it's
been demonstrated otherwise, any stall in a one-of-a-kind aircraft can develop into
a spin, regardless of the attentiveness and skill of the pilot. Would you have
people fly their experimentals without knowing at what IAS they REALLY stall? I
didn't think so. Where do you draw the line, and who asked you to draw it for Marco?
About the rest, everything we do has the potential of being our last action, whether
it's flying, bathing, driving or eating. Should we all quit each of those activities
out of consideration for those we might leave behind?
I get the feeling Marco did this "because it was there." Call that attitude whatever
you want, but it's why America was first visited by Europeans, why Everest was
climbed, why the speed of sound was first broken in flight, and on and on. The
commercial and scientific reasons commonly given for many of these adventures are
just so people like Marco can skirt the badgering by people like...whomever. Your
reasons for not doing this yourself are valid and understandable, but so are his
reasons for doing it. I'd have preferred to hear that he wore a parachute and took a
canopy-breaker, but it's his butt.
As for the possibility of his becoming another count in some statistic that puts
"the homebuilt movement on the defensive", it's just as likely that you or I will
fall victim to dirt in the fuel or deteriorating weather and do the same. If he had
died doing this, no one would have known why. And those who would attack "the
movement" because he drilled a hole in some pasture wouldn't know the difference
between a spin and a groundloop.
As for the risk to benefit ratio, I'd say it's closer to infinity than to zero (got
to watch which number goes on the top and which on the bottom with those pesky
fractions). But there is a significant benefit in knowing that spins are
recoverable. He doesn't have to spend the rest of his hours in that plane on edge,
wondering what dire fate will descend upon him if his circumstances ever result in a
spin. That's one less irrational fear to live with. Of course, another American
specialty these days seems to be this incessant focus on irrational fear. Just
because it happened to someone else doesn't mean it's bound to happen to me (or
you), but the television news, politicians in Washington, and anyone else who wants
to impose their values and fears on you and me would like us to think it will. Don't
join their ranks so easily.
And finally, maybe his partner knew he was going to do this and told him "Better you
than me." Do you know?
Bob U. wrote:
> On 5 May 1999 12:07:13 GMT, horne...@aol.com (HornetBall) wrote:
>
> >>I got a few answers (comments more likely) of people
> >>sayinf I was nuts of even thinking of doing spins in a Lancair 360.
> >
> >It seems we have a lot of "pilots" in the U.S. who are afraid of flying. Blame
> >tepid pilot training (should we teach spins or stall avoidance -- as if this is
> >a legitimate question).
>
> While I'm not in the Guiness Book of records for the most loops, rolls
> or spins, I have done my share over many decades.
> I'm not a product of trepid pilot training, unless you consider my
> USAF pilot training and a decade of crop dusting in that category.
>
> I know MANLY FEAR and I know SERENE STUPIDITY.
> Taking a one of a kind homebuilt and surviving this singular event is
> worthy only of severe admonishment, not applause.
> The next attempt could put the homebuilt movement on the defensive and
> this lad in a pine box.
> His family, friends and airplane partner deserve better consideration.
> This was a most immature, selfish and foolish act.
>
> The risk to benefit ratio is zip, nada, ZERO!
> This act speaks to nothing but the pilot's exceptionally poor
> judgement.
>
> Bob U.
Bob U.
>It seems like you took his comment about tepid pilot training rather personally,
>Bob.
I didn't take it personally, but my style might make it APPEAR so.
>
>Seriously, what makes this any more immature, stupid, and foolish than any other
>activity in a one-of-a-kind homebuilt aircraft? It would seem that 6000 feet over
>the Netherlands gives him about as good a chance of recovery as one can hope for. Or
>time to make peace with God if it goes flat and he just can't recover.Until it's
>been demonstrated otherwise, any stall in a one-of-a-kind aircraft can develop into
>a spin, regardless of the attentiveness and skill of the pilot. Would you have
>people fly their experimentals without knowing at what IAS they REALLY stall? I
>didn't think so. Where do you draw the line, and who asked you to draw it for Marco?
Your correct.
If Marco or anybody else wants to kill themselves in an act of what I
feel is STUPIDITY, it is not my place to stop them.
BUT... when they bring it to the newsgroup for others like me to see,
surely I can make my feelings known....
Just like you.
>
>About the rest, everything we do has the potential of being our last action, whether
>it's flying, bathing, driving or eating. Should we all quit each of those activities
>out of consideration for those we might leave behind?
This is not about the choice of activities.
It's about MINIMIZING RISK in doing the activities.
It's all about SAFETY.
>
>I get the feeling Marco did this "because it was there." Call that attitude whatever
>you want, but it's why America was first visited by Europeans, why Everest was
>climbed, why the speed of sound was first broken in flight, and on and on. The
>commercial and scientific reasons commonly given for many of these adventures are
>just so people like Marco can skirt the badgering by people like...whomever. Your
>reasons for not doing this yourself are valid and understandable, but so are his
>reasons for doing it. I'd have preferred to hear that he wore a parachute and took a
>canopy-breaker, but it's his butt.
10 to 20% of the people that climb Everest die.
Why?
They all had PREVENTABLE DEADLY ACCIDENTS.
Must be preventible, if 80% keep coming back.
Dumb luck is........ dumb.
>
>As for the possibility of his becoming another count in some statistic that puts
>"the homebuilt movement on the defensive", it's just as likely that you or I will
>fall victim to dirt in the fuel or deteriorating weather and do the same.
I'm not a victim and do not accept the above as my fate.
I will not accept that I must die by my own hand through my own
negligence just because I choose to get out of bed every morning..
> If he had
>died doing this, no one would have known why. And those who would attack "the
>movement" because he drilled a hole in some pasture wouldn't know the difference
>between a spin and a groundloop.
Maybe not, but the NTSB for good for some things.
Wanna guess what?
>
>As for the risk to benefit ratio, I'd say it's closer to infinity than to zero (got
>to watch which number goes on the top and which on the bottom with those pesky
>fractions). But there is a significant benefit in knowing that spins are
>recoverable. He doesn't have to spend the rest of his hours in that plane on edge,
>wondering what dire fate will descend upon him if his circumstances ever result in a
>spin. That's one less irrational fear to live with. Of course, another American
>specialty these days seems to be this incessant focus on irrational fear. Just
>because it happened to someone else doesn't mean it's bound to happen to me (or
>you), but the television news, politicians in Washington, and anyone else who wants
>to impose their values and fears on you and me would like us to think it will. Don't
>join their ranks so easily.
I can teach values.
I can preach values.
I impose no values.
>
>And finally, maybe his partner knew he was going to do this and told him "Better you
>than me." Do you know?
I don't deal in "MAYBE's".
Bob U.
Mike Yukish
<sle...@molalla.net> wrote:
>
>Seriously, what makes this any more immature, stupid, and foolish than any other
>activity in a one-of-a-kind homebuilt aircraft?
>
<snip>
>I get the feeling Marco did this "because it was there." Call that attitude whatever
>you want, but it's why America was first visited by Europeans, why Everest was
>climbed, why the speed of sound was first broken in flight, and on and on.
>
The ultimate example of this is the fellow from Kolb (I forget the
name) who went out and found what his ultralight design's ultimate
load was by actually breaking the airplane...in flight. Just keep
diving and pulling harder and harder until something broke. Deployed
the ARS when one of the wings folded up. Makes the ORM kind of folks
do a full body dry heave, of course.
highflyer
>
> highflyer wrote:
>
> > It is a different story with a newer design where these characteristics
> > are a blank sheet. Expecially something with a rounded fuselage and
> > slanted tail like the Lancaire. It is NOT designed for spin recovery
> > or aerobatics.
>
> generally speaking, what design factor makes a plane difficult to recover
> from a spin?
>
> thanks!
>
Quite a number of things, Jeff. So many and they interact in such
unpredictable ways, that spin characteristics of a new design are
generally considered to be unpredictable and must be determined by
thorough flight testing. Spin testing is dangerous and expensive.
To properly and safely ddo it, you need to provide for adequate
pilot egress in awkward situations, provide a chute for the pilot,
and generally provide a tail chute for the airplane to stop the
rotation when all else fails. Spin testing should be performed
at a range of CG locations, because spin characteristics are very
dependant on CG location.
Lateral polar moments can also have a strong effect on spin recovery
characteristics. Fuel in the wings or tip tanks can drastically
alter the way an airplane spins.
Some of the factors that can make recovery difficult are:
Slanted back vertical surfaces. The vertical surface in an area
roughly sixty degrees back above and the leading edge of the
horizontal tail can be blanked out in a spin and be considered
relatively ineffective. The Mooney tail design is much better for
spin recovery than the Cessna tail design. Tee tails are better
for upright spins but worse for inverted spins.
Sharp edges on the corners of the fuselage usually increase the
spin recovery capability, while smoothly rounded edges decrease
the spin recovery.
Tapered wings decrease spin recovery capability often, but not
necessarily. Partial cuffing of the leading edge can help. Full
cuffing of the leading edge can hinder.
Some airplanes, like a Citabria for example, are older designs with
relatively hard corners on the fuselage and ample vertical tail and
rudder area, and spin quite nicely and recover quite easily. The
Citabria will usually recover in a half turn or less from an upright
spin if you merely release the controls. An instructor and student
died in a Citabria because the instructor did not initiate recovery
in time from an inverted spin. The instructor was demonstrating
the free controls recovery. The Citabria may not recover from an
inverted spin without proper spin recovery procedures being initiated.
Spin recovery is NOT a simple and straightforward think like entering
or leaving a turn, or landing. For example, most singles recovery
best if the rotation is stopped first, and then standard stall
recovery technique utilized to recover from the resulting stalled
condition. This makes the suggested recovery technique Full rudder
against the spin to stop the rotation, then forward on the controls
to break the stall, and then return to level flight to complete the
recovery.
However, this technique may not work well with a twin because of the
different primary axis for the polar moments of inertia. A twin may
recover better if you first pitch down to break the stall, and then
recover from the resulting high speed spiral dive. So the twin may
respond best to full forward controls, then when the stall is broken,
level the wings and gently return to level flight to complete the
recovery.
Sometimes combinations of these techniques are required. Sometimes,
you have to repeat the technique, timing the airplanes response, to
build up enough movement of the airplane to break the condition.
All airplanes do not spin consistently. The P-51 Mustang spins like
a bucking horse. The spin goes flat for part of the revolution and
then the nose plunges down again. To recover you have to initiate
the recovery procedure when the nose is going down. When the nose
is up, you may lock in a flat spin. You can easily lose five or six
thousand feet of altitude while you are recovering.
It is true, that most botched aerobatic maneuvers will leave you in
a spin, either upright or inverted. Sometimes it can be hard to
tell the difference. Several highly skilled aerobatic pilots have
lost their lives because the applied the UPRIGHT recovery procedure
to an INVERTED spin.
Spinning an airplane a couple of times and recovering safely still
doesn't tell you much about the characteristics. Also, it may take
several turns before the spin is fully established. Many airplanes
will recover readily during the entry portion of the spin, and then
become very reluctant to stop spinning once it is well started.
To really do a spin test on an airplane is not trivial. It requires
a lot of thought, planning, and some equipment. Even then, you
sometimes lost the spin test airplane. Hopefully you do NOT lose
the spin test pilot, although that also happens distressingly often.
Great Britain requires homebuilts to be spin tested. The Taylor,
who designed the Taylor Monoplane, and the lovely Taylor Titch, was
killed spin testing his design. Tragically.
HF
Jerry Springer
>
>
> To really do a spin test on an airplane is not trivial. It requires
> a lot of thought, planning, and some equipment. Even then, you
> sometimes lost the spin test airplane. Hopefully you do NOT lose
> the spin test pilot, although that also happens distressingly often.
>
> Great Britain requires homebuilts to be spin tested. The Taylor,
> who designed the Taylor Monoplane, and the lovely Taylor Titch, was
> killed spin testing his design. Tragically.
>
> HF
Very well said HF. Everyone knows how well RV's fly and do aerobatic
but when I finished mine and started flying it I called Van to give
him a report as mine was the second customer built RV-6 to fly. He
told me not to spin it if I didn't have to. In his spin
testing of RV-6 he found that it was a very fast rotation and almost
a straight down attitude. He was reluctant to even do through spin test
on it himself so he hired the late Bob Herendon(sp) to thoroughly spin test
it. What Bob found out is that it would recover fine with normal spin
recovery techniques but that it could take much longer than normal to recover
because of the speed at which it rotated. While I am a instructor and teach
all of my students spin recognition and recovery and have done hundreds of
spins in different airplanes I still to this day after flying my RV-6 ten
years and over a 1000 hr. with a lot aerobatics have not found a
reason to spin my RV-6. I know that people are spinning their RV-6's with
no problems but I still feel if the designer says don't do it unless you
have to that's good enough for me and I have not found a reason to have
spin it yet. The above does not apply to the other models of RV's.
Jerry Springer
RV-6 first flight 7/11/89|Hillsboro,OR| jsf...@teleport.com
Hal Hammond
the swept tail is more likely to be
blanked by the horizontal stabilizer/elevators
in a spin. The resulting loss of rudder authority
makes it difficult to break the spin.
Your comment makes me wonder about the V-tail
Bonanza; is that better or worse for spinning?
(Spins are prohibited in non-aerobatic Bonanzas, BTW.)
I can't speak to the roundedness of the fuselage--
perhaps less of a lawn dart effect?
Hal
Jeff Danda wrote:
> highflyer wrote:
>
> > It is a different story with a newer design where these characteristics
> > are a blank sheet. Expecially something with a rounded fuselage and
> > slanted tail like the Lancaire. It is NOT designed for spin recovery
> > or aerobatics.
>
> generally speaking, what design factor makes a plane difficult to recover
> from a spin?
>
> thanks!
>
highflyer
>
> According to Thurston in "Design for Flying,"
> the swept tail is more likely to be
> blanked by the horizontal stabilizer/elevators
> in a spin. The resulting loss of rudder authority
> makes it difficult to break the spin.
>
> Your comment makes me wonder about the V-tail
> Bonanza; is that better or worse for spinning?
> (Spins are prohibited in non-aerobatic Bonanzas, BTW.)
>
> I can't speak to the roundedness of the fuselage--
> perhaps less of a lawn dart effect?
>
> Hal
>
The rounded fuselage moves sideways easier than one with square
corners. The lack of lateral resistance does less to slow the
rotation in a spin. The faster rotation delays spin recovery.
The reduced lateral resistance may even combine with the blanketing
of a sweepback vertical surface to make it chancy to even stop
the rotation in any reasonable time.
HF
Steven Estergreen
I've got to admit that one makes me a little queasy. As an engineer, I can tell you that
we could have shown in the lab or on a computer, just as certainly what would have failed
first. With about a million times less risk to life and limb and more quantifiable
results. However, our method will always be received with less credibility by some
segments of the population. The unknown actor in this legend met that challenge head on,
if indeed this happened (it's the first time I've heard of it).
However, the engineering models to predict whether Marco's Lancair 320 iconformed well
enough to previous examples to spin safely (or unsafely) just don't exist. There really
wasn't any other way for Marco to answer the question. Bob says the question just wasn't
worth answering, and I say that to some people, getting to do the experiment may be more
important than the answer. Although their viewpoint of the importance may change somewhat
in those last few seconds before impact... Apparently, Marco either was foolish, had a
good idea what the outcome would be, or values his life less than the cost of a ballistic
chute. I don't presume to know the answer to that one, Bob U. did.
Bob U.
>However, the engineering models to predict whether Marco's Lancair 320 iconformed well
>enough to previous examples to spin safely (or unsafely) just don't exist. There really
>wasn't any other way for Marco to answer the question. Bob says the question just wasn't
>worth answering, and I say that to some people, getting to do the experiment may be more
>important than the answer. Although their viewpoint of the importance may change somewhat
>in those last few seconds before impact... Apparently, Marco either was foolish, had a
>good idea what the outcome would be, or values his life less than the cost of a ballistic
>chute. I don't presume to know the answer to that one, Bob U. did.
Silly, presumptious me, eh?
Such is my sin, then.
Time to give this a rest.
DHPHKH
went out and found what his ultralight design's ultimate load was by actually
breaking the airplane...in flight. Just keep diving and pulling harder and
harder until something broke. Deployed
the ARS when one of the wings folded up. >>
This may be one of those "urban legends", or it may refer to a good
friend, John Hauck. Didn't happen quite that way of course. John was doing
unapproved acro manuevers at the time, and did exceed the design limits. Some
nose ribs failed and things went poorly from there. I assure you, he did not
intend to fail them.
These days John advises his friends against aerobatic manuevers in
aircraft not designed for them. He is not a Kolb employee. Actually he's
retired, Army Special Forces and Army Rotary Wing, with one Nam tour on the
ground and another in the air. John does fly demo aircraft for Kolb at Oshkosh
and Sun'nFun, and is a two-time Oshkosh Grand Champion builder.
Dan Horton
Charles K. Scott
dhp...@aol.com (DHPHKH) writes:
> This may be one of those "urban legends", or it may refer to a good
> friend, John Hauck. Didn't happen quite that way of course. John was doing
> unapproved acro manuevers at the time, and did exceed the design limits. Some
> nose ribs failed and things went poorly from there. I assure you, he did not
> intend to fail them.
Urban legends are interesting. When I was attending an anual WACO
fly-in in Ohio a number of years ago. I happened to meet the host and
we were discussing this old Waco that was an air show performer as it
settled into a 3 point landing in front of us. The host told me that
that pilot was so skilled that when he suffered a catastrophic fuselage
failure at the tail, he was able to bring it in safely. He told me the
tail twisted 90 degrees and the pilot had to use the rudder as the
elevators and the elevators as the rudder. I was suitably impressed.
Later the old guy who flew that same airplane was walking around the
Waco I arrived in admiring it. I recognized him and after talking for
a while asked him about the twisted tail story. He chuckled and said
the the host was embelishing A LOT. The tail hadn't twisted 90 degrees
it had failed a couple of tubes and the resulting twist and lengthening
of the fuselage somehow disabled his throttle. He had to bring it in
using the ignition switch and may also have had trouble with the
elevator control. All in all it was a tough airplane to bring in under
the circumstances and required a lot of repair work to bring back to
flight status. But he managed in just a few days of constant work.
This old guy really knew how to fly his airplane. All the airplanes
were landing right in front of everyone on the grass field. We all
stood or sat around watching the landings nodding to each other or
whistling in amazement at some leaps and bounds. Most of the Waco's
landed hot and long. But up in the pattern there was this red Waco
that appeared to be flown differently. The guy turned in from downwind
a lot earlier than the rest of the crowd in the pattern. As a result,
he was right on the tail of the guy in front of him and had to make a
couple of S turns to put some space between him and the guy. That was
unusual in that all other airplanes simply went around.
This airplane was also a lot slower than anyone else (what I mean by
this is he flew closer to the stall speed than others chose to) and as
he touched down, it was in a three point stance, not a wheel landing.
His speed died quickly and he turned off the runway in roughly a third
of the distance all the other airplanes managed.
A thoroughly competant pilot who knew his airplane inside and out.
Corky Scott