Lancair IV-P lost near Lansing MI

Not to worry, the stall in the new 400 is supposed to be trainer like.

Can't wait to fly one of those babies. Better than a parachute is a good
stall behavior if you ask me. Besides that parachute is costing Cirrus more
in insurance if you ask me.





"Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)"
wrote in message ...

"Badwater Bill" wrote in message
.. .

Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just
ran
out of gas.

The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like
it
was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the
ground."

Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit
the
control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
(assuming the witness is reliable).


Yeah. Looks like a stall-spin scenario alright. I wonder why they
got it into a stall in the first place?

This is really sad because the ****ing insurance companies are going
to stop insuring the Lancairs because of the high accident rates.
I'll bet you most of them throw in the towel soon. Insurance runs
$12,000 a year now on the Legacy.

The Lancair's have that high aspect ratio wing with high wing
loading. The Legacy is up at about 23 pounds/sq ft, and when it
stalls, it bites hard. Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.
I was talking to a Legacy owner yesterday and he told me he never
stalled his, NEVER. He just didn't want to pursue the flight
characteristics in a stall. So, he just flies it fast all the time.
I guess that's one way of doing it. But, I'd rather be proficient at
recovery from a stall than never try it. That's just the way I feel
about it. I'd stall and spin the **** out of it if I had one. With
the new EFIS panels, you're not going to tumble a $3000 gyro anymore.
I'd spin it until I got proficient at the recovery or proficient at
avoiding a spin if it stalled. If you don't do that, your envelope is
pretty narrow.

BWB




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.

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

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message ...


Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.


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. Now you state essentially the same about
Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

"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
(which take a lot of practice to master) and you get a dangerous mixture.

There is no absolute "true" or "false" to the old saw, as you put it. There
are only tendencies and probabilities. Each person is different. I happen
to know a doctor who is a fantastic pilot and as precise and meticulous as
can be. But there are othere (and not just MDs) who allow themselves to get
way too rusty yet still hop right into the cockpit and launch into difficult
conditions. The difference with those in the higher earnings brackets is
that they can buy, and thus have control over, much more advanced aircraft
than most people. Those who can't afford to own and control such a plane
must rent, and high performance rentals are much harder to find, and when
found, have strict currency and checkout requirements which must be met
before a flight can occur.

"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.

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

"lowflyer" wrote in message
om...
(Badwater Bill) wrote in message
...


Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.


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. Now you state essentially the same about
Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

A neurosurgeon saved himself and 3 skiing buddies by putting his V35 down on
route 7 near Rutland, VT. The Bo's engine quit a week after an annual. He
flew it beneath an overpass and only slightly damaged one wing. All aboard
walked away unhurt. I don't have the link, but if you google some of the
terms above, you can find Newsday's account. The article didn't say how may
hours he had, but this doctor obviously knew what he was doing.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:03:11 GMT, "Joe Johnson"
wrote:

A neurosurgeon saved himself and 3 skiing buddies by putting his V35 down on
route 7 near Rutland, VT. The Bo's engine quit a week after an annual. He
flew it beneath an overpass and only slightly damaged one wing. All aboard
walked away unhurt. I don't have the link, but if you google some of the
terms above, you can find Newsday's account. The article didn't say how may
hours he had, but this doctor obviously knew what he was doing.

I looked for the incident in Google. Turned up an article written in
Anchorage Alaska, but nothing from any papers written here in New
England. Could be the way I arranged the wording of the search.

I remember the incident, but did not recall the details well.

The pilot was lucky, and unlucky at the same time. He was lucky to be
over a nice smooth interstate highway, but unlucky in that he lost
altitude such that he could not clear the one and only overpass on the
highway.

He also blew out both main tires during the landing, must have hit a
bit hard.

Corky Scott

OK, I found it in my email archives:
============ =========== ==========
DIX HILLS
Safe landing after scare


BY COLLIN NASH
STAFF WRITER


March 2, 2004


Just minutes away from touching down at Rutland airport in Vermont on
Sunday, the four Long Island men aboard the single-engine aircraft
talked
excitedly about skiingdown the sun-bathed slopes of Okemo or Killington.


Suddenly an eerie quiet took the place of the drone from the
six-passenger
Beechcraft Bonanza. The engine was dead.


Gliding more than 7,500 feet above the valleys and foothills of the
Green
Mountains and losing altitude at about 700 feet a minute, the pilot, Dr.


Jeffrey Epstein, a neurosurgeon, drew on training from his high-pressure


profession. "I wasn't panicked," he said yesterday, recalling how he
calmly
radioed Albany airport for the nearest site to land the plane. "I was
more
concerned about making it over the mountains and finding a flat place to
land."


Epstein, of Dix Hills, and his three passengers, Dr. Brad Litwak, an
anesthesiologist also of Dix Hills; Ed Garger, an insurance manager from


Glen Cove, and Bob McBride of Northport, made it safely over the
mountains.
And Epstein, skirting under overhead electrical wires and a 16-foot
overpass, found his flat surface to put the plane down - the northbound
lane of U.S. Route 7 in Sunderland.


The plane, which Epstein said underwent its annual maintenance check
just
more than a week ago, blew out its tires and sustained wing damage. No
one,
including Epstein, 52, a father of three, and his passengers, was
injured,
authorities said.


Garger, 52, had agreed on the spur of the moment to join the three
others
on the ski trip when his friend McBride invited him during dinner
Saturday.
It was his maiden voyage in a single-engine aircraft, Garger said.


The takeoff about 8:15 from Farmingdale "was perfect," he said. Epstein
was
very thorough about staying in radio contact with air traffic
controllers
throughout the flight, he said. "We were all calm" when the engine died,
he
said. "I said to myself, 'This is not the day I'm gonna die.'"


His fate didn't cross his mind, Epstein said.


Vermont State Police said the Federal Aviation Administration is
investigating the incident.


Copyright C 2004, Newsday, Inc.

"lowflyer" wrote in message
om...
(Badwater Bill) wrote in message
...


Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.

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.

Cheers,
Chris