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?

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?

"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.

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...???

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