Lance vx. 6/300

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Bridgadoon" wrote in message
...
Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2


What is funny about it?

I flew the DA-20 Katana with a T-tail and it was sweet as could be at speeds
as slow as it could be gotten.

I guess "alleged" is the key word.


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Bridgadoon" wrote in message
...
Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2

I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
it is in the area behind the main wings. Makes sense to me, but you want to
read up on it. Losing elevator control in a slow speed, high angle of attack
situation is something I don't want from a plane. And I guess there are a
lot pilots who don't like that kind of behavior. If you fly the plane by the
numbers it doesn't matter but things happen, and then...???

It is funny, or at least interesting, that well trained pilots have no
problem with T-taill airplanes. Since a T-tail Lance will rotate the
airplane, even with the cg beyond the forward limit, at a speed below stall,
how can anyone say that it lacks "elevator authority" or that the stabilator
is too small? I have flown a T-tail Lance with trim only as a training
exercise and I have flown without trim when the trim cable failed, neither
presented any control problems.

Mike
MU-2


"Nobody" wrote in message
om...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Bridgadoon" wrote in message
...
Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the
location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2


What is funny about it?

It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack, not at
take off. Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings. That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the tail and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced! A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope. This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.
Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can draw you
a picture. No offense...


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
It is funny, or at least interesting, that well trained pilots have no
problem with T-taill airplanes. Since a T-tail Lance will rotate the
airplane, even with the cg beyond the forward limit, at a speed below
stall,
how can anyone say that it lacks "elevator authority" or that the
stabilator
is too small? I have flown a T-tail Lance with trim only as a training
exercise and I have flown without trim when the trim cable failed, neither
presented any control problems.

Mike
MU-2


"Nobody" wrote in message
om...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Bridgadoon" wrote in message
...
Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability
at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower
value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so
all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the
location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2


What is funny about it?

absolute bull****....

"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack, not
at
take off.

Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement were
true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is just
fine
in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and accelerated
stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as any
pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.


Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings.

Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
*not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane would
pitch down, not up.



That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high
angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the tail
and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced! A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.

You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind the
main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
that angle of attack.



This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.

I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting behind
the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can get
behind
the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You need
to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.


Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can draw
you
a picture. No offense...


Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the angle of
attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is reduced.

don

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Bridgadoon" wrote in message
...
Lance: straight wing, T-tail, retract, older(78-79)
Saratoga: tapered wing, straight tail, retract or fixed, newer(80
onward)

A LOT of pilots are against the T-tail for the alleged instability at
low speeds, and I think that's the biggest reason for the lower value.
It flies and carries roughly the same as the Saratoga, though, so all
other things considered about equal, I might have gone with a Lance,
until......


Funny that you never hear Gulfstream pilots complaining about the
location
of the tail on their aircraft, or King Air 200 pilots.

Mike
MU-2

I notice, too, that Cessna changed the tail on the CJ/CJ1/CJ2 (early 90's)
as well as the Citation X, to a T-tail from the earlier cruciform (and on
the earlier 650 series C-III/VI/VII) and left it in place on the
Bravo/Encore/Excel.

Read it the Aviation Consumer Guide you ****ing ignorant know-it-all Car
Salesman.

If elevator control is fine, there would be no problem and they would still
build it like that, wouldn't they. I haven't seen a Saratoga with a T-tail,
have you?

If I look at an airplane rotating to climb or take off, the tail comes down
and moves in the axis behind the wings. I never said why. I very well know
that the tail generates downforce to reach equilibrium - but the issue is
the tail moves down relative to the axis to climb. Period. And yes, it does
it by generating even more downforce than is needed at level flight.

And you don't loose total elevator control, only some authority if you get
near the area, if you want the details. And the area is more than 3 ****ing
degrees in bumpy air.

And the plane should pitch down and it does if you approach the stall
slowly. Yes it should (FAA) and does. But if you compensate and hence get
into the area of extreme high attack (of the main wings), the elevator moves
down even further, into the full airflow BELOW and the plane pitches up
violently. Why? Because you compensate for some loss of elevator control and
pull real hard. I know you shouldn't do it but people did and didn't like
how it felt, ok?

Your statement about 30 to 40 degrees would lead to a stall is totally wrong
without connecting it to speed. I pull up a Cessna 152 to 90 degrees
(vertical) if I have the airspeed and if I am crazy enough. (My instructor
did). Before I run out of steam I push and avoid a stall. It's a nice ride
but doesn't last long if you want to live.



"CarSalesman" wrote in message
...
absolute bull****....

"Renzoni Papaloni" wrote in message
om...
It loses elevator control in slow flight with high angles of attack, not
at
take off.

Obviously, you've never flown one of these things. If your statement were
true, it would be impossible to stall the plane. Elevator control is just
fine
in all phases of slow flight, landing configuration stalls, and
accelerated
stalls - exactly as required for FAA certification. Also exactly as any
pilot is trained when checked out on a new type.


Then the tail comes down and gets no air because it is in the
horizontal axis right behind the main wings.

Now, you're really showing your innocence. The stabilator does
*not* hold the back of the airplane up, it holds it *down*. If you
really lost elevator control for the reason described, the airplane would
pitch down, not up.



That makes the tail less
effective, because the airflow it gets is partly deflected by the high
angle
of attack of the main wing and the airflow does not even reach the tail
and
is also turbulent. The use of flaps makes this even more pronounced! A
straight tail in comparison would be way lower in totally undisturbed
airflow and more effective in this kind of flight envelope.

You better go look at one of these things on the ramp. If you were to
get the nose so high, that the T-tail stabilator were totally behind the
main wing, you'd have an angle of attack of about 30 to 40 degrees,
which is about 3 times greater than the stall. The condition you
describe is impossible. You'd be in a spin long before you reached
that angle of attack.



This happens
when you have to ad power to fly slower, it's called getting behind the
power curve. This does NOT happen when you take off.

I hope you're not an active pilot. Do you really think that getting
behind
the power curve is limited to the tail design of the plane? You can get
behind
the power curve in any airplane, especially any piston airplane. You need
to get some training on that phase of flight, soon.


Other airplanes don't have the same problem because of their different
geometry. (Longer fuselage and higher or lower t-tail.)
It really has nothing to do with 'well trained pilots'. If you were well
trained you would know that! Maybe you should find somebody who can draw
you
a picture. No offense...


Better look at your own picture. With a much longer fuselage, the angle
of
attack required to get the T-tail down behind the main wing, is reduced.

don

Nobody wrote:
: I haven't flown one but read in the "Aviation Consumer guide" that at slow
: speeds with high angle of attacks, the tail does not get enough air because
: it is in the area behind the main wings. Makes sense to me, but you want to
: read up on it. Losing elevator control in a slow speed, high angle of attack
: situation is something I don't want from a plane. And I guess there are a
: lot pilots who don't like that kind of behavior. If you fly the plane by the
: numbers it doesn't matter but things happen, and then...???

This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail aircraft. You
might do a Google on "Trident Staines" to find out what happens when it is
taken to an extreme. A deep stall is generally considered to be unrecoverable.
This phenomenon has been experienced on B-727 airplanes as well. If memory
serves, the last occurrence was in New York in 1974 or so (there were
mitigtating features, having to do with pitot heat and erroneous airspeed
indications). NTSB report AAR-75-13 has more details.

I would have a hard time believing that any partially competent pilot in
a piston single can get it into a deep stall situation. I haven't flown
a T-tail lance, but I have flown a T-tail turbo arrow, and I didn't
notice a big deal. Set the trim correctly and it flies off the runway.
I didn't notice any untoward stall behavior, either, but I had only 70
hours of flight time at the time (I was considering buying it, but it
was out of my price range at the time).

--
Aaron Coolidge

Aaron Coolidge writes:

This is called a "deep stall", and only can happen on T-tail
aircraft.

Is that the same as a tail stall? Those can happen on a low tail as
well, especially if there's icing or if the CG is too far back.
Here's a good description:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab....ec-too-far-aft


All the best,


David