Pirep Lancair IV

[Kevin Clarke]

Anybody fly one of these?

KC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> Anybody fly one of these?
>

Flew a P model built by a retired A&P from Lockheed a couple years back.

Incredible machine. Handles like a dream and faster than a scalded greyhound
:~)

[Kevin Clarke]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Anybody fly one of these?
>>
>>
>
> Flew a P model built by a retired A&P from Lockheed a couple years back.
>
> Incredible machine. Handles like a dream and faster than a scalded greyhound
> :~)
>
>
Thanks Matt. Did you land it? It looks like about 80kts over the fence,
is that for real?

Can anybody speculate why this 300kt aircraft is not being certified and
remains in the X category? Right now my partners and I are figuring
where we want to go next.

KC

[Ray Andraka]

Kevin Clarke wrote:
> KC

If the 80kts over the fence is for real, that would be a reason why it
isn't getting certified. IIRC, certified aircraft have to have a stall
speed of no greater than 63kts.

[Kevin Clarke]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> Kevin Clarke wrote:
>> KC
>
> If the 80kts over the fence is for real, that would be a reason why it
> isn't getting certified. IIRC, certified aircraft have to have a
> stall speed of no greater than 63kts.
It is 63kts with the optional winglets (they claim 73mph). But that
might be the reason. I don't enough about it. Either way, it is an
amazing aircraft.

KC

KC

[Dennis Johnson]

The Lancair IV is a "homebuilt" airplane, certificated as an experimental
amateur built aircraft. If you want to know about it, you might have better
luck at the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup.

Dennis

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Anybody fly one of these?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Flew a P model built by a retired A&P from Lockheed a couple years back.
>>
>> Incredible machine. Handles like a dream and faster than a scalded
>> greyhound :~)
>>
> Thanks Matt. Did you land it? It looks like about 80kts over the fence, is
> that for real?

I don't recall the approach and final speeds, but it does ahve quite nice
slow speed characteristics.
>
> Can anybody speculate why this 300kt aircraft is not being certified and
> remains in the X category?
Probably because to certify it and then build it commercially would put the
price well over $1million. There's not likely too much market for it at that
price,

> Right now my partners and I are figuring where we want to go next.

Are you talking about buying one, or building one?
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Clarke wrote:
>> KC
>
> If the 80kts over the fence is for real, that would be a reason why it
> isn't getting certified. IIRC, certified aircraft have to have a stall
> speed of no greater than 63kts.

Ummm...ANAICT, "over the fence" and stall speed are a few, to several,
knots apart.

Unless you like to stall INTO THE FENCE.

I find that hurts my tushie.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
> The Lancair IV is a "homebuilt" airplane, certificated as an experimental
> amateur built aircraft. If you want to know about it, you might have
> better luck at the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup.

IF what he wants to do is build one. He may just be liking what he's seen.

They can be purchased used, of course, such as this one
http://tinyurl.com/28unzw (links to ASO).

[Kevin Clarke]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Right now my partners and I are figuring where we want to go next.
>>
>
> Are you talking about buying one, or building one?
>
Not sure, just window shopping right now. I was shocked at what I read.
I thought it was a typo at first. I've been reading about the building
experiences, they seem to take much more time than I could put into one
at this point in my life. Not sure I'd want to be without a pony for 5-8
years. :-)

Thanks for the info though.

KC

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Kevin Clarke" wrote:

> Anybody fly one of these?
>


In my dreams...



--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>> Right now my partners and I are figuring where we want to go next.
>>>
>>
>> Are you talking about buying one, or building one?
>>
> Not sure, just window shopping right now. I was shocked at what I read. I
> thought it was a typo at first. I've been reading about the building
> experiences, they seem to take much more time than I could put into one at
> this point in my life. Not sure I'd want to be without a pony for 5-8
> years. :-)
>
> Thanks for the info though.

Not sure it would take that long, depending on how "handly" (and patient)
you are, and unless you were going to do it yourself, on weekends...

http://www.lancair.com/Main/iv_ivp.html

Also, check that earlier post with a used one for sale on ASO.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Anybody fly one of these?
>>
>
>
> In my dreams...
>
>
And you built one in your nightmares? :~)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kevin,

> they seem to take much more time than I could put into one
> at this point in my life.
>

What's that old saying: If you want to build a plane, do that. If you
want to fly a plane, buy!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kevin,

> Can anybody speculate why this 300kt aircraft is not being certified and
> remains in the X category?
>

You mentioned one of the reasons yourself: Certified aircraft need a lower
stall speed than the Lancair IV can achieve.

You'll have to look at the Columbia to see what changes are required to
make a Lancair certified.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:57 -0400, Kevin Clarke >
wrote:

>Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Anybody fly one of these?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Flew a P model built by a retired A&P from Lockheed a couple years back.
>>
>> Incredible machine. Handles like a dream and faster than a scalded greyhound
>> :~)
>>
>>
>Thanks Matt. Did you land it? It looks like about 80kts over the fence,
>is that for real?

80 over the fence isn't much different than 70, then 60, than 50. You
flare and let it settle. If you want fast over the fence AND a breath
taking rate of descent, land a Glasair III with nearly 30# per sq ft
of wing loading. <:-))

>
>Can anybody speculate why this 300kt aircraft is not being certified and

One word. Columbia. It is fixed gear and still hauls!

>remains in the X category? Right now my partners and I are figuring
>where we want to go next.

To build a P model you'll end up with between a quarter and
half million in it. A certified one would probably be expensive for a
4 passenger plane.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>KC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> 80 over the fence isn't much different than 70, then 60, than 50. You
> flare and let it settle. If you want fast over the fence AND a breath
> taking rate of descent, land a Glasair III with nearly 30# per sq ft
> of wing loading. <:-))

Not so, energy goes up rapidly with speed and you aren't done landing until
you have found a way to dissipate all of it. Every pilot should know and
understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass times Energy Squared. Assume an
all-up weight for your plane, and do the math using different approach speeds
and you will see the importance of approach speed.

Vaughn

[Mike Murdock]

Whoa, there Einstein, I don't think that's correct. The real formula is:

Energy = Mass times the Speed of Light Squared.

Unless you're looking for the formula for kinetic energy, which is:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 times Mass times Velocity Squared, where the energy is
in joules, the mass is in kilograms, and the velocity is in meters per
second. Yeah, I know, velocity is a vector, not a scalar, but let's keep it
simple here.

-Mike

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
> Every pilot should know and understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass
> times Energy Squared. Assume an all-up weight for your plane, and do the
> math using different approach speeds and you will see the importance of
> approach speed.
>
> Vaughn

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:22:29 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>> 80 over the fence isn't much different than 70, then 60, than 50. You
>> flare and let it settle. If you want fast over the fence AND a breath
>> taking rate of descent, land a Glasair III with nearly 30# per sq ft
>> of wing loading. <:-))
>
> Not so, energy goes up rapidly with speed and you aren't done landing until

The thing is you are landing an airplane. Wheter it be 30 or 130 MPH
the function is the same and as long as I have enough runway I don't
care.

>you have found a way to dissipate all of it. Every pilot should know and

I still maintain if you fly it properly there is little difference "to
the pilot" wheter it's 30 or 130.

>understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass times Energy Squared. Assume an
>all-up weight for your plane, and do the math using different approach speeds
>and you will see the importance of approach speed.

The importance of "speed down final" (approach speed is something else
and considerably faster in many planes) is to fly it properly for the
specific aircraft being flown whether it is 30 or 130. Fly it properly
and you'll do well. Fly it wrong and you are likely to break
something.

And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>Vaughn
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:14:52 -0500, "Mike Murdock" >
wrote:

>Whoa, there Einstein, I don't think that's correct. The real formula is:
>
>Energy = Mass times the Speed of Light Squared.
>
>Unless you're looking for the formula for kinetic energy, which is:
>
>Kinetic Energy = 1/2 times Mass times Velocity Squared, where the energy is
>in joules, the mass is in kilograms, and the velocity is in meters per

No, no, no. We're in the US. Over here those terms are meaningless.
<:-))

Roger (K8RI)

>second. Yeah, I know, velocity is a vector, not a scalar, but let's keep it
>simple here.
>
>-Mike
>
>"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
>> Every pilot should know and understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass
>> times Energy Squared. Assume an all-up weight for your plane, and do the
>> math using different approach speeds and you will see the importance of
>> approach speed.
>>
>> Vaughn

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-10-26, Roger (K8RI) > wrote:

> And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
> difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
> because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
> see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
> more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.

I agree, but...

I'm a modest time pilot (Commercial ASEL IA) with about 1100 hours and perhaps
50-100 hours/year who hesitates to undertake a twin specifically because of
landing speed.

Not because of normal landings but off-field. Right or wrong, I think that with
my level of proficency that I'm less likely to kill myself with a slower off-
field landing in a single than a twin.

If I flew every day then I would probably have more confidence that I would
actually get a twin cleaned up and make a "normal landing rather than mow down
the trees at the end of the runway at a higher speed.

[[email protected]]

This is a key concept. We built a Glassair-III and I thought
it was pretty dangerous. If one got slow on final, even 300hp
wouldn't fix it without sacrificing altitude.

With now power at all, it came down really fast.

A forced landing in it would be very frightening. Expert pilots
were lost. It seemed to me that flying it high was the only
solution, so that gliding to an airport was more likely.

Way too much kinetic energy at touchdown.

Bill Hale



On Oct 26, 8:47 am, Doug Carter > wrote:
> On 2007-10-26, Roger (K8RI) > wrote:
>
> > And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
> > difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
> > because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
> > see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
> > more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.
>
> I agree, but...
>
> I'm a modest time pilot (Commercial ASEL IA) with about 1100 hours and perhaps
> 50-100 hours/year who hesitates to undertake a twin specifically because of
> landing speed.
>
> Not because of normal landings but off-field. Right or wrong, I think that with
> my level of proficency that I'm less likely to kill myself with a slower off-
> field landing in a single than a twin.
>
> If I flew every day then I would probably have more confidence that I would
> actually get a twin cleaned up and make a "normal landing rather than mow down
> the trees at the end of the runway at a higher speed.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Whoa, there Einstein, I don't think that's correct. The real formula is:
>
> Energy = Mass times the Speed of Light Squared.
>
> Unless you're looking for the formula for kinetic energy, which is:
>
> Kinetic Energy = 1/2 times Mass times Velocity Squared, where the energy is in
> joules, the mass is in kilograms, and the velocity is in meters per second.
> Yeah, I know, velocity is a vector, not a scalar, but let's keep it simple
> here.

Yes, of course I meant (and should have said) kinetic energy. In this
case, the units are not terribly important because I was trying to compare the
relative magnitudes of the kinetic energies between two landing speeds and show
how a seemingly small difference in landing speed makes a significant difference
in kinetic energy. OK?

Vaughn

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:57:27 -0000, "
> wrote:

>This is a key concept. We built a Glassair-III and I thought
>it was pretty dangerous. If one got slow on final, even 300hp
>wouldn't fix it without sacrificing altitude.

You have to fly it by the numbers.
>
>With now power at all, it came down really fast.

Even with maximum effort for an emergency descent in the Deb I don't
think I could match the rate of descent in the G-III on a power out
best glide although I might come close.

>
>A forced landing in it would be very frightening. Expert pilots
>were lost.

A few, but I could say, "quite a few" in Bonanzas, yet the Bo has a
surprisingly low stall speed and when flown by the numbers (book
landing figures are shorter than some 172s)

However, when it comes to stall speeds the G-III would only need to
lose a maximum (for the typical G-III) of about 7 knots to reach a
speed that would meet certification criteria. That is with the short
wing. With the "training wheels" on it would just about do it.

Remember though that speed was set arbitrarily. Sure there is a big
difference in kinetic energy between landing at 30 MPH and 130, but
it's not all that different between 80 MPH over the fence and 95 MPH
which is the difference between the Deb and the Glasair. If you come
in steep according to the book the touch down speeds are not all that
high. Try to bring either in at best glide 120 in the Deb and IIRC
140 in the G-III you might be in a heap of hurt. Actually, an engine
out landing in the Deb is 90 over the fence which is only 5 MPH less
than the G-III.

Doing this sort of landing is something I practice nearly every time I
go out in the Deb if I'm not going any where except to practice.
Actually almost all of my flying in the last 3 years has only been
practice and very thorough practice as I've not had time to fly much.
Besides, I enjoy doing the maneuvers as well as short field landings
just to test myself.

IF you have room to flare that excess energy can be bled off in the
round out and the G-III has a surprisingly short ground roll. This
means a steep descent just as it does in the Bonanza to get the
shortest ground roll. I rode with a factory pilot who landed and
stopped in well under 1000 feet. The typical pilot doesn't do that in
a Cherokee or 172 although both planes are capable of it.

> It seemed to me that flying it high was the only
>solution, so that gliding to an airport was more likely.
>
>Way too much kinetic energy at touchdown.
>

Something I've never worried about. Like any one else I keep landing
spots in mind, but in the past a good portion of my flying has been
over areas with few or no suitable landing spots. 20 miles South of
here and headed South you have the equivalent of one big landing field
from central Michigan down into Kentucky. North is woods, water, and
swamp. Of course out of all that it'd still be possible to find you'd
picked a freshly plowed field or all that green might turn out to be a
corn field.

I love flying a G-III at maximum cruise around 1000 ft AGL. (That's
just slightly less than the speed limit) The normally aspirated K1A5
Lycombing IO540 can just nicely hit 250 knots(287MPH) at 8000. An
engine that has had a bit of work done might get it to 300, but it'll
be well under that at 1000 to 1500.

I know the risks, I know the odds, and I'm quite comfortable with
those numbers. They are no worse than a lot of warbirds and better
than quite a few. At one time I had contemplated an L39 and some years
prior to that a T-28 so the G-III's numbers don't look all that bad.

But I agree it depends on each individual's comfort factor.
I've let a lot of pilots fly the Deb and demonstrated stalls to them
and followed through on the controls with them doing stalls. After
experiencing the Deb's stall characteristics a couple of them decided
they'd stick with Cherokee's and there is nothing wrong with that.

The aversion to doing stalls in a Bo is quite common and was proven
out when I went to Bo Specific recurrency training. One time only
three out of 60 some Bo and Baron pilots had ever done full stalls and
only two had ever done accelerated stalls in a Bo.

One other thing on the Bo, although it may meet the stall speed
criteria for certification by a wide margin, the speed at which many
if not most Bo pilots land them would indicate a stall speed far
higher than required.

Roger (K8RI)

>Bill Hale
>
>
>
>On Oct 26, 8:47 am, Doug Carter > wrote:
>> On 2007-10-26, Roger (K8RI) > wrote:
>>
>> > And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
>> > difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
>> > because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
>> > see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
>> > more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.
>>
>> I agree, but...
>>
>> I'm a modest time pilot (Commercial ASEL IA) with about 1100 hours and perhaps
>> 50-100 hours/year who hesitates to undertake a twin specifically because of
>> landing speed.
>>
>> Not because of normal landings but off-field. Right or wrong, I think that with
>> my level of proficency that I'm less likely to kill myself with a slower off-
>> field landing in a single than a twin.
>>
>> If I flew every day then I would probably have more confidence that I would
>> actually get a twin cleaned up and make a "normal landing rather than mow down
>> the trees at the end of the runway at a higher speed.
>

[Mike Murdock]

Vaughn,

You absolutely did make a valid and important point, one often neglected in
pilot training.

I was just poking fun because you mis-typed the formula, and said that:

Energy = Mass times ENERGY squared (emphasis added)

When of course you meant

Energy = Mass times VELOCITY squared (assuming by '=' you mean 'is
proportional to')

I can make that joke because I would never make a typogarphical error.

-Mike

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, of course I meant (and should have said) kinetic energy. In
> this case, the units are not terribly important because I was trying to
> compare the relative magnitudes of the kinetic energies between two
> landing speeds and show how a seemingly small difference in landing speed
> makes a significant difference in kinetic energy. OK?
>
> Vaughn

[Vaughn Simon]

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can make that joke because I would never make a typogarphical error.

Never again will I post before drinking my first cup of coffee in the
morning.


Vaughn

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:31:18 -0500, "Mike Murdock" >
wrote:

>
>Vaughn,
>
>You absolutely did make a valid and important point, one often neglected in
>pilot training.
>
>I was just poking fun because you mis-typed the formula, and said that:
>
>Energy = Mass times ENERGY squared (emphasis added)

Isn't that Energy = 1/2M*V^2 ?
IOW Kinetic energy = one half the mass multiplied by the velocity
squared as shown in my physics books.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>When of course you meant
>
>Energy = Mass times VELOCITY squared (assuming by '=' you mean 'is
>proportional to')
>
>I can make that joke because I would never make a typogarphical error.
>
>-Mike
>
>"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>> Yes, of course I meant (and should have said) kinetic energy. In
>> this case, the units are not terribly important because I was trying to
>> compare the relative magnitudes of the kinetic energies between two
>> landing speeds and show how a seemingly small difference in landing speed
>> makes a significant difference in kinetic energy. OK?
>>
>> Vaughn

[Darrel Toepfer]

Kevin Clarke > wrote:

> Not sure, just window shopping right now. I was shocked at what I
> read. I thought it was a typo at first. I've been reading about the
> building experiences, they seem to take much more time than I could
> put into one at this point in my life. Not sure I'd want to be without
> a pony for 5-8 years. :-)
>
> Thanks for the info though.

http://www.legendaircraft.net

Lanny helps knock some of the build time off...

http://www.legendaircraft.net/New%20Owner.htm

The mentioned Lancair Super ES was for a friend of mine. Its approach
speed was about what you quoted...

[[email protected]]

The G-III: It's swell so long as everything keeps running correctly.

The one we had won trophies at KOSH for outstanding construction.
Yet, one day, it sprung a hydraulic leak. Putting the gear down
resulted in the pump not shutting off. The captain quick pulled the
pump breaker.

The gear is held over-center with the hydraulic pressure on sn less
than about 3000 unless they have been updated with a mechanical
downlock. (It's said they are nearly impossible to insure without the
mod).

How would you like to land it with some of the gear not locked down?
At those speeds? And while sitting on fuel, which goes all the way
thru
the wing?

In fact, the new owner of ours hit a power line at Whitman field when
he got
too low and slow and knocked one of the main legs off on a power line.

He went over to
Burbank and landed where there was equipment. Illustrates that
K8RI is right--you simply do NOT let it get slow. No one hurt, but
the
airplane took some repairs!

That said, raising the gear was a religous experience. The thing was
off like a slingshot. And stall characteristics were very nice;
straight
and nice buffet. Ours went about 220Kts at 13 gph. You could tell
if you made a good x-wind landing by smelling for rubber. An ILS
starting at 180kts clean and touchdown at the vasi's was exhilirating.

But then the real cross country utility was diminished by the fact
that
nothing conducts on the thing... could never get a strikefinder to
work
in it; when flying in night anywhere near activity, there were arcs
all
over the place. Another cool feature was that going > 120k IAS in
rain would strip the paint from the leading edges.

You could always tell if you had proper cruise climb attitude,
especially
in the summer time. Hot air from the oil cooler would pour into the
RH cabin air inlet at climb attitude. Man there is a lot of heat
generated by the oil cooler!

< 61 kts stall on more improved, cerficated airplanes is not just the
law, it's a good idea.

Bill Hale
K0QA. Old Timer 'cuz sort of risk averse!




On Oct 26, 9:10 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:57:27 -0000, "
>
> > wrote:
> >This is a key concept. We built a Glassair-III and I thought
> >it was pretty dangerous. If one got slow on final, even 300hp
> >wouldn't fix it without sacrificing altitude.
>
> You have to fly it by the numbers.
>
>
>
> >With now power at all, it came down really fast.
>
> Even with maximum effort for an emergency descent in the Deb I don't
> think I could match the rate of descent in the G-III on a power out
> best glide although I might come close.
>
>
>
> >A forced landing in it would be very frightening. Expert pilots
> >were lost.
>
> A few, but I could say, "quite a few" in Bonanzas, yet the Bo has a
> surprisingly low stall speed and when flown by the numbers (book
> landing figures are shorter than some 172s)
>
> However, when it comes to stall speeds the G-III would only need to
> lose a maximum (for the typical G-III) of about 7 knots to reach a
> speed that would meet certification criteria. That is with the short
> wing. With the "training wheels" on it would just about do it.
>
> Remember though that speed was set arbitrarily. Sure there is a big
> difference in kinetic energy between landing at 30 MPH and 130, but
> it's not all that different between 80 MPH over the fence and 95 MPH
> which is the difference between the Deb and the Glasair. If you come
> in steep according to the book the touch down speeds are not all that
> high. Try to bring either in at best glide 120 in the Deb and IIRC
> 140 in the G-III you might be in a heap of hurt. Actually, an engine
> out landing in the Deb is 90 over the fence which is only 5 MPH less
> than the G-III.
>
> Doing this sort of landing is something I practice nearly every time I
> go out in the Deb if I'm not going any where except to practice.
> Actually almost all of my flying in the last 3 years has only been
> practice and very thorough practice as I've not had time to fly much.
> Besides, I enjoy doing the maneuvers as well as short field landings
> just to test myself.
>
> IF you have room to flare that excess energy can be bled off in the
> round out and the G-III has a surprisingly short ground roll. This
> means a steep descent just as it does in the Bonanza to get the
> shortest ground roll. I rode with a factory pilot who landed and
> stopped in well under 1000 feet. The typical pilot doesn't do that in
> a Cherokee or 172 although both planes are capable of it.
>
> > It seemed to me that flying it high was the only
> >solution, so that gliding to an airport was more likely.
>
> >Way too much kinetic energy at touchdown.
>
> Something I've never worried about. Like any one else I keep landing
> spots in mind, but in the past a good portion of my flying has been
> over areas with few or no suitable landing spots. 20 miles South of
> here and headed South you have the equivalent of one big landing field
> from central Michigan down into Kentucky. North is woods, water, and
> swamp. Of course out of all that it'd still be possible to find you'd
> picked a freshly plowed field or all that green might turn out to be a
> corn field.
>
> I love flying a G-III at maximum cruise around 1000 ft AGL. (That's
> just slightly less than the speed limit) The normally aspirated K1A5
> Lycombing IO540 can just nicely hit 250 knots(287MPH) at 8000. An
> engine that has had a bit of work done might get it to 300, but it'll
> be well under that at 1000 to 1500.
>
> I know the risks, I know the odds, and I'm quite comfortable with
> those numbers. They are no worse than a lot of warbirds and better
> than quite a few. At one time I had contemplated an L39 and some years
> prior to that a T-28 so the G-III's numbers don't look all that bad.
>
> But I agree it depends on each individual's comfort factor.
> I've let a lot of pilots fly the Deb and demonstrated stalls to them
> and followed through on the controls with them doing stalls. After
> experiencing the Deb's stall characteristics a couple of them decided
> they'd stick with Cherokee's and there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> The aversion to doing stalls in a Bo is quite common and was proven
> out when I went to Bo Specific recurrency training. One time only
> three out of 60 some Bo and Baron pilots had ever done full stalls and
> only two had ever done accelerated stalls in a Bo.
>
> One other thing on the Bo, although it may meet the stall speed
> criteria for certification by a wide margin, the speed at which many
> if not most Bo pilots land them would indicate a stall speed far
> higher than required.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>
> >Bill Hale
>
> >On Oct 26, 8:47 am, Doug Carter > wrote:
> >> On 2007-10-26, Roger (K8RI) > wrote:
>
> >> > And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
> >> > difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
> >> > because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
> >> > see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
> >> > more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.
>
> >> I agree, but...
>




> >> I'm a modest time pilot (Commercial ASEL IA) with about 1100 hours and perhaps
> >> 50-100 hours/year who hesitates to undertake a twin specifically because of
> >> landing speed.
>
> >> Not because of normal landings but off-field. Right or wrong, I think that with
> >> my level of proficency that I'm less likely to kill myself with a slower off-
> >> field landing in a single than a twin.
>
> >> If I flew every day then I would probably have more confidence that I would
> >> actually get a twin cleaned up and make a "normal landing rather than mow down
> >> the trees at the end of the runway at a higher speed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:54:21 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>The G-III: It's swell so long as everything keeps running correctly.
>
>The one we had won trophies at KOSH for outstanding construction.
>Yet, one day, it sprung a hydraulic leak. Putting the gear down
>resulted in the pump not shutting off. The captain quick pulled the
>pump breaker.
>
>The gear is held over-center with the hydraulic pressure on sn less
>than about 3000 unless they have been updated with a mechanical

3000 is OLD! <:-)) I'm not sure where they started the serial numbers
but mine is a tad over 3000. I purchased the whole works still in the
crate in 1996. It had probably set in that hangar for between 5 and 10
years. There were two gallons of un promoted resin in sealed cans
that were nothing more than blocks of rubber.

>downlock. (It's said they are nearly impossible to insure without the
>mod).

Mine is old enough I had to add the rear window. They added it just a
few number later. The gear uses a mechanical down lock. In addition
to the over center mechanical lock that requires pressure to "pull it
up" not hold it down they beefed up the mechanical assembly and added
a catch that must be activated before pressure can pull the gear up.


>
>How would you like to land it with some of the gear not locked down?
>At those speeds? And while sitting on fuel, which goes all the way
>thru
>the wing?

Just think of doing the same thing in a Bo with the fuel drains
sticking out below the wing. <:-))

>
>In fact, the new owner of ours hit a power line at Whitman field when
>he got
>too low and slow and knocked one of the main legs off on a power line.

The manual recommends a *steep* final with power all the way to
touchdown and turning final AT pattern altitude. The rate of descent
for a plane with a wing loading of nearly 30# per sq ft can be a bit
breathtaking for the inexperienced. <:-)) For some one who has only
flown Cherokees and 172s it's more like one of those "life altering
experiences" or "Major emotional events".<:-))

A properly executed landing uses little more runway than a Bo or 172,
but the arrival will be *firm*.

>
>He went over to
>Burbank and landed where there was equipment. Illustrates that
>K8RI is right--you simply do NOT let it get slow. No one hurt, but
>the
>airplane took some repairs!
>
>That said, raising the gear was a religous experience. The thing was

Ain't it though<:-))

>off like a slingshot. And stall characteristics were very nice;
>straight
>and nice buffet. Ours went about 220Kts at 13 gph. You could tell

I was amazed at the mild mannered stall, both approach and departure.
The manual warns about power on stalls but the first ones I did were
at 75% I thought I was going to have to file before the thing finally
broke.

OTOH on the familiarization ride I started out doing Dutch rolls to
get aquatinted. The first time I brought the right side up I stepped
on the "top rudder" and ended up flying knife edge with the nose stuck
"wayyyy up there". The thing is so well designed you can do rolls
with almost no top rudder. Actually you can do them without top rudder
unless really slow.

>if you made a good x-wind landing by smelling for rubber. An ILS
>starting at 180kts clean and touchdown at the vasi's was exhilirating.

The only problem with that is having to slow to 140 before you can get
the gear down. Coming down hill and carrying power that thing does not
want to slow down.

>
>But then the real cross country utility was diminished by the fact
>that
>nothing conducts on the thing... could never get a strikefinder to
>work
>in it; when flying in night anywhere near activity, there were arcs
>all
>over the place. Another cool feature was that going > 120k IAS in
>rain would strip the paint from the leading edges.

They started using a thick mill fiber mix and no q-cells on the
leading edges to get rid of that. Of course that means a lot more work
to finish the leading edges.


>
>You could always tell if you had proper cruise climb attitude,
>especially
>in the summer time. Hot air from the oil cooler would pour into the
>RH cabin air inlet at climb attitude. Man there is a lot of heat
>generated by the oil cooler!
>
>< 61 kts stall on more improved, cerficated airplanes is not just the
>law, it's a good idea.

Actually in the G3, solo with flaps down it's only 60 knots, or a hair
over 64 clean. Gross it's a tad faster at nearly 68
OTOH I take the manual with a grain of salt. They talk about the rate
of descent being on the order of 1500 fpm and I'll swear I saw closer
to 2500.

But as to the 61 knots and landing speed. I think that rate of descent
is probably more risky to the uninitiated than the landing speed. They
do recommend the "training wheels" (wing tip extensions) until the
pilot gets familiar with the plane.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>Bill Hale
>K0QA. Old Timer 'cuz sort of risk averse!
>
>
>
>
>On Oct 26, 9:10 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:57:27 -0000, "
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >This is a key concept. We built a Glassair-III and I thought
>> >it was pretty dangerous. If one got slow on final, even 300hp
>> >wouldn't fix it without sacrificing altitude.
>>
>> You have to fly it by the numbers.
>>
>>
>>
>> >With now power at all, it came down really fast.
>>
>> Even with maximum effort for an emergency descent in the Deb I don't
>> think I could match the rate of descent in the G-III on a power out
>> best glide although I might come close.
>>
>>
>>
>> >A forced landing in it would be very frightening. Expert pilots
>> >were lost.
>>
>> A few, but I could say, "quite a few" in Bonanzas, yet the Bo has a
>> surprisingly low stall speed and when flown by the numbers (book
>> landing figures are shorter than some 172s)
>>
>> However, when it comes to stall speeds the G-III would only need to
>> lose a maximum (for the typical G-III) of about 7 knots to reach a
>> speed that would meet certification criteria. That is with the short
>> wing. With the "training wheels" on it would just about do it.
>>
>> Remember though that speed was set arbitrarily. Sure there is a big
>> difference in kinetic energy between landing at 30 MPH and 130, but
>> it's not all that different between 80 MPH over the fence and 95 MPH
>> which is the difference between the Deb and the Glasair. If you come
>> in steep according to the book the touch down speeds are not all that
>> high. Try to bring either in at best glide 120 in the Deb and IIRC
>> 140 in the G-III you might be in a heap of hurt. Actually, an engine
>> out landing in the Deb is 90 over the fence which is only 5 MPH less
>> than the G-III.
>>
>> Doing this sort of landing is something I practice nearly every time I
>> go out in the Deb if I'm not going any where except to practice.
>> Actually almost all of my flying in the last 3 years has only been
>> practice and very thorough practice as I've not had time to fly much.
>> Besides, I enjoy doing the maneuvers as well as short field landings
>> just to test myself.
>>
>> IF you have room to flare that excess energy can be bled off in the
>> round out and the G-III has a surprisingly short ground roll. This
>> means a steep descent just as it does in the Bonanza to get the
>> shortest ground roll. I rode with a factory pilot who landed and
>> stopped in well under 1000 feet. The typical pilot doesn't do that in
>> a Cherokee or 172 although both planes are capable of it.
>>
>> > It seemed to me that flying it high was the only
>> >solution, so that gliding to an airport was more likely.
>>
>> >Way too much kinetic energy at touchdown.
>>
>> Something I've never worried about. Like any one else I keep landing
>> spots in mind, but in the past a good portion of my flying has been
>> over areas with few or no suitable landing spots. 20 miles South of
>> here and headed South you have the equivalent of one big landing field
>> from central Michigan down into Kentucky. North is woods, water, and
>> swamp. Of course out of all that it'd still be possible to find you'd
>> picked a freshly plowed field or all that green might turn out to be a
>> corn field.
>>
>> I love flying a G-III at maximum cruise around 1000 ft AGL. (That's
>> just slightly less than the speed limit) The normally aspirated K1A5
>> Lycombing IO540 can just nicely hit 250 knots(287MPH) at 8000. An
>> engine that has had a bit of work done might get it to 300, but it'll
>> be well under that at 1000 to 1500.
>>
>> I know the risks, I know the odds, and I'm quite comfortable with
>> those numbers. They are no worse than a lot of warbirds and better
>> than quite a few. At one time I had contemplated an L39 and some years
>> prior to that a T-28 so the G-III's numbers don't look all that bad.
>>
>> But I agree it depends on each individual's comfort factor.
>> I've let a lot of pilots fly the Deb and demonstrated stalls to them
>> and followed through on the controls with them doing stalls. After
>> experiencing the Deb's stall characteristics a couple of them decided
>> they'd stick with Cherokee's and there is nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> The aversion to doing stalls in a Bo is quite common and was proven
>> out when I went to Bo Specific recurrency training. One time only
>> three out of 60 some Bo and Baron pilots had ever done full stalls and
>> only two had ever done accelerated stalls in a Bo.
>>
>> One other thing on the Bo, although it may meet the stall speed
>> criteria for certification by a wide margin, the speed at which many
>> if not most Bo pilots land them would indicate a stall speed far
>> higher than required.
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bill Hale
>>
>> >On Oct 26, 8:47 am, Doug Carter > wrote:
>> >> On 2007-10-26, Roger (K8RI) > wrote:
>>
>> >> > And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
>> >> > difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
>> >> > because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
>> >> > see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
>> >> > more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.
>>
>> >> I agree, but...
>>
>
>
>
>
>> >> I'm a modest time pilot (Commercial ASEL IA) with about 1100 hours and perhaps
>> >> 50-100 hours/year who hesitates to undertake a twin specifically because of
>> >> landing speed.
>>
>> >> Not because of normal landings but off-field. Right or wrong, I think that with
>> >> my level of proficency that I'm less likely to kill myself with a slower off-
>> >> field landing in a single than a twin.
>>
>> >> If I flew every day then I would probably have more confidence that I would
>> >> actually get a twin cleaned up and make a "normal landing rather than mow down
>> >> the trees at the end of the runway at a higher speed.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

>>How would you like to land it with some of the gear not locked down?
>>At those speeds? And while sitting on fuel, which goes all the way
>>thru
>>the wing?
>
> Just think of doing the same thing in a Bo with the fuel drains
> sticking out below the wing. <:-))

Not an issue. In a gear up a Bonanza (I dunno nuthin' about those
mal-formed piper-tailed Debonairs ;-) usually mashes the exhaust stacks
and wing tips (or flaps, if they are down). There is is sufficient
clearance for the drains to avoid the pavement.

And, yes, unfortunately, I do have first hand experiance on this topic.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:40:20 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
> wrote:

>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>>>How would you like to land it with some of the gear not locked down?
>>>At those speeds? And while sitting on fuel, which goes all the way
>>>thru
>>>the wing?
>>
>> Just think of doing the same thing in a Bo with the fuel drains
>> sticking out below the wing. <:-))
>
>Not an issue. In a gear up a Bonanza (I dunno nuthin' about those
>mal-formed piper-tailed Debonairs ;-) usually mashes the exhaust stacks
antennas...and step
Now, now, be charitable to the less fortunate<:-))

Actually the Deb is a 35 fuselage and wing mated to a conventional
tail but no resembelance to the pipers. They use a stabalator while
the Deb uses a horizontal stab with elevators.

>and wing tips (or flaps, if they are down). There is is sufficient
>clearance for the drains to avoid the pavement.

I would think if it tips far enough to get the tips it'd take out the
drains. OTOH I have tip tanks on mine.

>
>And, yes, unfortunately, I do have first hand experiance on this topic.

When mine was new some one retracted the gear on the taxiway.
Apparently the squat switch didn't work.

Roger (K8RI)