Lancair Legacy Design Flaw?

http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would result
in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch up making
the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's untimely
demise.

--
Gregory Hall

"Gregory Hall" wrote in message
...
http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's untimely
demise.

With all due respect, that is a terrible idea. I think we already have too
many lawyers involved in GA's affairs. The Lancair is a homebuilt, experimental
aircraft; "You pays your money and you takes your chances" AKA, caveat emptor .

Vaughn

"Gregory Hall" wrote in message
...
http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would
result in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch up
making the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's untimely
demise.

--
Gregory Hall

Are you proposing a Lawyer for horizontal stabilizer design review? My
guess is that if you have been able to do a review of the horizontal stab
from a photo, that BwB would have a good idea of just what he was flying and
as the PIC was responsible for the safe operation of the bird. What a
Lawyer could add to this tragedy without creating a second tragedy is not
clear.

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
That could only happen if the plane was loaded with the CG way aft of
the limit. Otherwise, the plane would pitch DOWN if the stabilizer
stalled because the stabilizer normally produces a down force to keep
the nose up.



If it worked that way it would be a built-in safety factor helping to
forestall a stall of the main wing. But suppose the motor died and the
aircraft was then a glider. One must glide nose down. The horizontal
stabilizer forcing the nose down would then cause the pilot to pull back on
the stick to counteract the forces for aft. If the stabilizer stalled in
this attitude the nose is supposed to pitch down but would it? The tail
might just continue to drop provided the main wing still gets traction??? CG
is dependent upon both lifting both control surfaces as well as weight
distribution.
--
Gregory Hall


In article ,
"Gregory Hall" wrote:

http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would
result
in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch up
making
the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's
untimely
demise.

--
Gregory Hall

--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.

In article ,
"Gregory Hall" wrote:

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
That could only happen if the plane was loaded with the CG way aft of
the limit. Otherwise, the plane would pitch DOWN if the stabilizer
stalled because the stabilizer normally produces a down force to keep
the nose up.



If it worked that way it would be a built-in safety factor helping to
forestall a stall of the main wing. But suppose the motor died and the
aircraft was then a glider. One must glide nose down. The horizontal
stabilizer forcing the nose down would then cause the pilot to pull back on
the stick to counteract the forces for aft. If the stabilizer stalled in
this attitude the nose is supposed to pitch down but would it? The tail
might just continue to drop provided the main wing still gets traction??? CG
is dependent upon both lifting both control surfaces as well as weight
distribution.

Sorry. But centre of *mass* (to use the correct term) is not in any way
dependent on the lift from anything.

The centre of mass is a parameter than is completely fixed by the
distribution of the mass of the aircraft's components. Whether any
surface is providing lift will not change it.

So as long as the main wing is located aft of the centre of mass, the
aircraft will pitch *down* when lift from the tail plane is lost.

Period.

--
Gregory Hall


In article ,
"Gregory Hall" wrote:

http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/ga...Legacy2000.jpg


Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would
result
in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch up
making
the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's
untimely
demise.

--
Gregory Hall

--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

If it worked that way it would be a built-in safety factor helping to
forestall a stall of the main wing. But suppose the motor died and the
aircraft was then a glider. One must glide nose down. The horizontal
stabilizer forcing the nose down would then cause the pilot to pull back on
the stick to counteract the forces for aft. If the stabilizer stalled in
this attitude the nose is supposed to pitch down but would it? The tail
might just continue to drop provided the main wing still gets traction??? CG
is dependent upon both lifting both control surfaces as well as weight
distribution.
--
Gregory Hall


You seem to have the forces on the horizontal stabilizer backwards. The
force on the horizontal is down, (NOT up as with the main wing) which is
why an aircraft is stable in pitch unless improper loading places the CG
too far aft.

Of course, non of this applies to canard designs, which the Lancair is not.

Rip

Gregory Hall wrote:
http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would result
in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch up making
the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's untimely
demise.

--
Gregory Hall



Bill would cuss you out for saying that.

And?

What is the area ratio of stab/wing?

Did you notice that the wing is tiny too?



--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Gregory Hall wrote:
http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would
result in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch
up making the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

A good lawyer needs to get on this with respect to BadWaterBill's
untimely demise.

--
Gregory Hall

Bill would cuss you out for saying that.

And?

What is the area ratio of stab/wing?

Did you notice that the wing is tiny too?



--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

He seems to have missed a great deal, in just a few words.

Peter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:41:35 -0400, Gregory Hall wrote:

http://www.youngeagles.org/photos/gallery/Monoplanes/LancairLegacy2000.jpg

Look at the picture. It's easy to see why the Lancair is dangerous. The
horizontal stabilizers appear to be on the too small side. This would result
in their stalling before the wing. Then the aircraft would pitch up making
the main wing stall. Ill-conceived, IMO.

Greg, no design theorist here but just because the hor stab "appears to
small" isn't much of an argument. The front wing of a canard compared to
the main wings is very small but the combo works in a pusher config. it
wouldn't appear to but it does.

Not knowing the camber and other details including the airflow to the
stabs makes the stalling prior argument unsubstantiated invho.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:12:50 -0400, Gregory Hall wrote:

CG
is dependent upon both lifting both control surfaces as well as weight
distribution.

Thankfully that isn't the case otherwise you would have horrendous times
with energy management, for instance, with an ever evolving mass.