Lancair IV-P lost near Lansing MI

"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

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:45:09 +1000, "s3" wrote:

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.

Interesting information. It verifies what I read long ago about the
first Lancair 200's. They were very fast, as befitting their minimal
cross section and tiny wings, and also, according to the initial
flight reports, stalled extremely suddenly with no forewarning.

I also recall reading that the stall speed seemed to vary a bit. This
could be due to the laminar flow being tripped suddenly while at slow
speed by a gust of wind or whatever.

The result was that some Lancair 200's scared their pilots so badly
that they did not fly them much.

Corky Scott

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? I think
homebuilts operate under a much tighter equipment, budget and powerplant
constraints.


"s3" wrote in
:


"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

"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

"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.

"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.

On 2 Jun 2004 20:26:52 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

(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.

I've always interpreted the "doctor killer" tag as something that
refered generically to someone who has plenty of disposable income but
limited time, interest or motiviation to pusue proper training and to
maintain proficiency. I never took the term too literally. Doctors
are a convenient example of the genus. It's similar to soccer moms.
Not all soccer moms actually have kids playing soccer.
Rich Russell

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...

On 2 Jun 2004 20:26:52 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

I've always interpreted the "doctor killer" tag as something that
refered generically to someone who has plenty of disposable income but
limited time, interest or motiviation to pusue proper training and to

Well as both a doctor and a CFII I will agree with that... there are good
and bad doctor pilots an the same is true of most other professions.

What I have noticed, however, in doing instruction with pilots who own high
performance airplanes is that one demographic factor which seems to put
pilots at risk is to have the money to fly a high performance airplane but
without a vocational background which requires regular self-study. The
generic prototype would be someone with a limited education who inherited a
lot of money. Sometimes these pilots can be mentored to begin a lifelong
process of reading/learning about aviation, but sometimes it is just foreign
to them and that pilot might do well in a routine flight situation but may
have difficulty working through an unanticipated problem.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote

Well as both a doctor and a CFII I will agree with that...
there are good and bad doctor pilots an the same is true
of most other professions.

Hmmmm...and all of this time, I thought that you were a
physician, properly addressed as Doctor Kaplan. :-)
That's OK though, my AME, good friend, and next door
neighbor thinks that he is a "doctor" also. We get together
every two years and swap a Flight Review for a Third Class
Medical Examination. The third member of our group is also
properly addressed as Doctor Caldwell, but he is really just
an Electrical Engineer with a PhD. As for me, I'm not really
a CFII, just a Flight Instructor with an Instrument Airplane
rating on my certificate.

Bob Moore

The whole money 'n doctors 'n Bonanzas thing makes a nice mantra, but it
totally ignores the most important factor in the equation...

True, many doctors have a high income level.

True, many doctors own expensive toys like Porches, Mercedes, Nikon cameras,
and other such things.

And a Bonanza is an expensive toy. But it does require a certain level of
skill to fly it.

Guess what else takes a certain level of skill? Sawing a man's chest open,
yanking out his heart, cutting the heart open, putting in a few valves,
sticking it back in his chest, and having the patient wake up good as new.

Yes, it takes skill, knowledge, and training. But it takes one more thing to
enable you to do something that could very well kill another human being:
balls! Or more correctly, it takes a very high level of self-confidence.

Some of us are born self-confident; some of us develop self-confidence. But
doctors, during their training, have self-confidence pounded into them.
Simply because a doctor cannot do his/her job without a high degree of
self-confidence.

Military jet-jockeys are also force-fed self-confidence, although many of
them come into the service with a high level. When the wheels come off the
runway that pilot is the best one in the air. But you see quite a few
accidents involving military or ex-military pilots. Why is that? "I can fly
an F-18, I can fly a stinking ultralight!"

I don't do sports, but from what I read, Thurman Munson was a very good
baseball player. It would be reasonable to believe that when he walked onto
the field he was self-confident in his ability to win ball games, and that
he was one of the best in the business. And I'm sure he had plenty of
self-confidence when he pushed the throttles forward on that Citation.
Unfortunately, once he pushed the throttles forward, self-esteem wasn't that
important any more; a different set of traits were needed.

There's an old joke:

Q: "What's the difference between God and a doctor?"

A: "God doesn't think he's a doctor!"

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot whose skills are somewhat below
those necessary to fly the aircraft to it's maximum capabilities. As long as
that pilot recognizes his limitations and flies the aircraft within his
limitations, he will probably come out O.K.

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot who one hour previously was
sewing somebody's heart closed...






"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.