Lancair IV-P lost near Lansing MI

"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.

"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

"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

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.

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.

As the saying goes, homebuilts are very safe aircraft -- they can just
barely kill you.

Good post, Chris -- drop me an email if you would.

Ed Wischmeyer

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

"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.

"s3" wrote:
Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 4:45 AM
Message-id:


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.


I wouldn't mind seeing a list of homebuilts you have found to have the worst
habbits.

-- Charlie Springer