Lancair IV-P lost near Lansing MI

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:56:37 -0700, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:57:58 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

:
:Side stick in the IV-P. I don't remember if it's a joy stick, or true
:side stick. I flew a Cozy that had a joystick just like a video game
:and it was a joy to fly. I found I don't like the side sticks like
:the Cirrus uses.

I'm sorry, Roger, I don't understand. I know what the Cozy side stick
is and how it works - how is the Cirrus sidestick different?

The Cirrus looks like a yoke, but with a single handle and is side
mounted.. You push and pull the thing, while the Cozy I flew has a
joystick that pivots just like a computer joystick.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"s3" wrote in message
...

There
are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall characteristics.

Chris, thanks for the informative post. Can you name the worst offenders, by
aircraft type. I for one would consider that very valuable info.

As the saying goes, homebuilts are very safe aircraft -- they can just
barely kill you.

Ed Wischmeyer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you.
- Max Stanley
Northrop test pilot

http://half.freehomepage.com/humor.html


Barnyard BOb -


Thanks, Bob -- now is there an earlier antecedent than that, or are we at
the source?

Ed

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...
I don't think military jets to homebuilts is a fair comparison. How many
military jets do you know that fly at 200 mph at 8 gph?

Constraints aside, his point is still valid. Changes need to be made to
some designs, to make better control harmony, or stall characteristics, or
whatever, but are not made. Why not? Too much money, more time, or lack of
expertise in knowing what to change. In most cases, it would have little to
no difference in "speed per gallon."
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/29/2004

"goombah" wrote in message
...
"s3" wrote in message
...

There
are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall
characteristics.

Chris, thanks for the informative post. Can you name the worst offenders,
by
aircraft type. I for one would consider that very valuable info.


Prescott Pusher.

"s3" wrote:
Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 4:45 AM
Message-id:


As a test pilot (military trained) I ended up working with a civil
airworthiness authority and have test flown about 50 hombuilt types. There
are a large number of homebuilts out there with appalling handling
characteristics in terms of stability, control, and stall characteristics.
In many cases the homebuilt community considers that these characteristics
are the price you pay for "performance".
In fact, many have characteristics that the military would simple not
accepted in their aircraft unless the performance boost so far outweighed
the flight safety issues that national defence was deemed more important.
The characteristics would certainly not be acceptable for civil
certification.
I have flown, stalled and spun high performance jet aircraft which are pussy
cats compared to some homebuilts.
The not so competent "rich" will kill themselves irrespective, but a number
of competent pilots will die in homebuilts simply because the handling
characteristics of many of these aircraft are well below that acceptable for
even hot shot military pilots.
While many people think of these homebuilts as "high performance" don't
forget that plenty of 18 -19 year old kids with a couple of hundred hours
total have successfully flown aircraft with far higher performance than the
odd Lancair or Glassair etc during military flight training.
Even a test pilot should not have to demonstrate test pilot skill and
ability just to go and have fun in a "high performance" homebuilt.
Irrespective of the above, I have no opinion on the Lancair accident.


I wouldn't mind seeing a list of homebuilts you have found to have the worst
habbits.

-- Charlie Springer

As the saying goes, homebuilts are very safe aircraft -- they can just
barely kill you.

Ed Wischmeyer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you.
- Max Stanley
Northrop test pilot

http://half.freehomepage.com/humor.html


Barnyard BOb -


Thanks, Bob -- now is there an earlier antecedent than that, or are we at
the source?

Ed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We are at the source, from what I've found so far.

However, don't go betting the ranch
or the family jewels on my say so. g



Barnyard BOb -

Lancairs are cool planes, it's too bad this happened. I'm sure your right on
the insurance deal. Not that it matters but I'm surprised Lancair didn't
certify the new 350 and 400 with the parachute like Cirrus just for
insurance purposes.

As far as the fuel exhaustion deal, the articles did mention that witnesses
said the engine wasn't running at times and lack of fire in the photos so it
seems.

Can't do it. Not enough useful load. IN the Legacy with full fuel
and a 220 pound PIC, he can only get in his girlfriend and no baggage
right now. There's really no wieight left for an onboard oxygen
system, let alone a parachute.

BWB

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:21:07 -0700, "Kathryn & Stuart Fields"
wrote:

Rolf: I once opened my parachute in free fall while I was spinning so fast
the ground was a blur. The chute opened with the lines twisted together all
the way to the lower lateral band of the canopy. I almost got sick
unwinding, then overshooting, then unwinding again but the chute did open as
much as it could with the lines wound up and it did unwind coming down.
Stu Fields

Stu:

What were you flying? How did the landing turn out? What happened?

BWB

On 3 Jun 2004 07:18:25 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net...
"lowflyer" wrote in message
om...
(Badwater Bill) wrote in message
...

You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
if it was true.

That would be a complex study indeed.

Do you know many doctors? Many of them do indeed make a lot of money, but
they also work long and stressful hours. This tends to result in pilots who
don't fly enough yet can afford expensive fast airplanes. A fast plane gets
"ahead" of you much quicker than a slow one. Now add in complex avionics

I know a lot of doctors and know what they earn, but that's another
thread. You've re-stated the mantra, which on the surface seems
logical, but is it true? In many walks of life we accept things as
truth never knowing the origen of the "truth", only to discover on
analysis that it's false.


Oh, I have to tell ya, I took a shot at the doctors on that one. It
may be unjustified at this point in time. I don't know it to be a
fact. In fact, doctors don't make the money they used to make in
relation to other businessmen. It's just that I've been a CFI for 30
years and I've never met a medical doctor who remained proficient. As
I sit here to day and think about all my doctor friends who own
Bonanza or Cessna-210's and 310's I can't think of any of them I'd put
my wife in the cockpit with. For some reason they just don't stay
current, proficient or even safe.

Staying proficient in a high performance airplane is a tough thing to
do. It requires you to go flyin a couple times each week and not just
for fun either. You have to go shoot approaches, do some maneuvers
and stay on top and ahead of the machine. If you can't do that , you
have no business owning that level of airplane.

I have a buddy who is a doctor who doesn't fly much at all but what he
did was convert his Cessna 210 into something quite docile in order to
compensate. He put speed breaks on it, a Robertson STOL kit, Flint
tips to increase the aspect ratio. The ailerons droop when you lower
the flaps, etc. He did everything he could to make the airplane into
a C-172 when you slow it down. And I'm here to tell you, it worked.
That old airplane is like an old horse. If you fell asleep, it would
find its way back home. You can't stall it at all (I mean it's hard
to do). With the ASI reading 55 knots and the nose up 20 degrees, at
full flaps it just parachutes down into the runway at about 300
ft/min.

My buddy survives this way because his business is just too demanding
for him to go fly twice a week and stay proficient. So, this airplane
is not beyond his cabability to cope with. The Lancairs are a
completely different ball of wax. You don't have the extra useful
load to install all the safety stuff that makes that wing well behaved
at low speed. So, you has what you has. One hundred knot pattern
speeds and 90 over the fence. More like flying a fighter than an
private airplane. You must stay proficient. Even then it still might
bite you.

BWB



With the