Lancair Legacy Design Flaw?

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.

************************************************** *************

Any one ever look at the little tail on the ME-109?

A bitch to land but was told that was caused by the main gear
configuration.

Big John

On Oct 29, 11:46*am, Alan Baker wrote:
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...ncairLegacy200...

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

It's kinda simple. Assuming the main wheels are under the wing and the
a/c still rests on those and the nose wheel then wings are aft of the
cg and the horizontal stabilisers are there for down force to keep the
nose up. Not sure what Gregory is banging on about here.

In article
,
JohnO wrote:

On Oct 29, 11:46*am, Alan Baker wrote:
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.
snip

It's kinda simple. Assuming the main wheels are under the wing and the
a/c still rests on those and the nose wheel then wings are aft of the
cg and the horizontal stabilisers are there for down force to keep the
nose up. Not sure what Gregory is banging on about here.

Well, it's not quite *that* simple. There's no rule that the wheels need
to be directly under the centre of lift of the wing, but yeah...
....basically that's it.

I have no idea how anyone can get the wrong headed idea that the centre
of mass of a rigid body can move around.

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

"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.

I find your strange posting to be quite offensive in its serious charges
which are totally unfounded. As others have already pointed out, you are
fundamentally incorrect about the purpose of the horizontal stabilizer. The
horizontal tail holds the nose up, not down. Your assertion about the
Legacy's stall recovery just makes no sense at all.

By the way, the Lancair Legacy is the most fun civilian airplane I've flown
and is the main reason I returned to general aviation after a decades-long
absence. I'm sure there is a Legacy near you and I'll bet its pilot would
be happy to take you for a ride. You can see for yourself what a great
airplane it is.

Dennis

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.

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

Unfortunately, there are several factors at work that would reduce the chance of
success in a lawsuit against Lancair.

First, of course, there's nothing to say the size of the horizontal tail had any
bearing on this accident.

Second, Bill had been flying this aircraft for several years with nothing but
praise for the way it handled.

Third, Lancair wasn't the manufacturer of this airplane. All they did was
supply parts.

Finally, the situation is strongly muddied by the fact that aircraft was built
by a hired gun. The FAA doesn't list the certification category for Bill's
airplane (not uncommon...John Ammeter's RV-6 was the same way). But the builder
of his plane built two other Lancair Legacies completed at the same time as
Bill's and registered them as Amateur-Built (N36XX and N272AG).

*If* N151HT was also carried an Amateur-Built registration, I think Lancair
would have a strong case that the airplane was built under fraudulent
circumstances. I think it would be hard to show that Bill was unaware of it...

http://tinyurl.com/5atovq

....and I suspect most judges wouldn't be sympathetic.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

But the builder of his plane built two other Lancair Legacies completed
at the same time as Bill's...

I'd meant to post "at *about* the same time." Bill's was completed in
early 2006, Legacy N36XX is also listed as a 2006 model, and Legacy
N272AG as a 2007. N36XX has a co-manufacturer listed and has a
significantly lower serial number; I'd speculate that this might have
been a previously-started project. Legacy N272AG and Legacy N151HT have
serial numbers just five numbers apart (L2K-267 and L2K-272).

Ron Wanttaja

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

I find your strange posting to be quite offensive in its serious charges
which are totally unfounded. As others have already pointed out, you are
fundamentally incorrect about the purpose of the horizontal stabilizer.
The horizontal tail holds the nose up, not down. Your assertion about the
Legacy's stall recovery just makes no sense at all.


I think it makes good sense. Look at the size of that engine up front. Looks
like a P-51 Mustang for pity sake. When you're being pulled along by that
big prop and heavy, powerful engine it pulls the nose of the aircraft down.
The horizontal stabilizers have to counteract this force by putting an
upward force on the nose by pushing the tail down. If and when the engine
suddenly dies the aircraft will pitch up suddenly and since the size of the
stabilizers are so puny they might easily stall and be unable to counteract
the upward pitch at the nose resulting in a tail down death spiral.

By the way, the Lancair Legacy is the most fun civilian airplane I've
flown and is the main reason I returned to general aviation after a
decades-long absence. I'm sure there is a Legacy near you and I'll bet
its pilot would be happy to take you for a ride. You can see for yourself
what a great airplane it is.

It looks too much like an irresponsible, hot rod, stunt plane to me. Is it
any wonder so many companies offering homebuilt aircraft have gone out of
business?

http://www.homebuilt.org/aircraft/nolonger.html

This is the safest homebuilt IMO.(VariEze ). The canard makes it foolproof.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...77166441&hl=en

--
Gregory Hall

"Gregory Hall" wrote in message
...


It looks too much like an irresponsible, hot rod, stunt plane to me.

Well, you sucked me in at first, so on a troll scale of zero-to-10 you rate
at least a five. How are things in France?

Vaughn

In article ,
"Gregory Hall" wrote:

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

I find your strange posting to be quite offensive in its serious charges
which are totally unfounded. As others have already pointed out, you are
fundamentally incorrect about the purpose of the horizontal stabilizer.
The horizontal tail holds the nose up, not down. Your assertion about the
Legacy's stall recovery just makes no sense at all.

I think it makes good sense.

It makes absolutely backwards sense.

You need to do a bit more handwaving. Really.

Better, go find a local park and play on the teeter-totter for a while.

I'm serious.

Look at the size of that engine up front. Looks
like a P-51 Mustang for pity sake.

For fairly vague, and small, values of "P-51".

When you're being pulled along by that
big prop and heavy, powerful engine it pulls the nose of the aircraft down.

Even when the engine is not running, it's pulling the nose down. It's
called "weight", and it's constant.

The horizontal stabilizers have to counteract this force by putting an
upward force on the nose by pushing the tail down.

Good so far.

If and when the engine suddenly dies the aircraft will pitch up suddenly

Nope. It will pitch *down* as the aircraft decelerates.

Think about it; the airflow over the stabilizer/stabilator/tail feathers
provides the down force at one end of the lever to compensate for the
downforce (engine/prop) at the other end of the lever.

Slow down and the down force at the tail end decreases, so that the down
force provided by the engine/prop is no longer exactly counterbalanced.

The aircraft will begin to accelerate downward as it pitches down (*not*
up). Given time and altitude, it will eventually stabilize in a descent,
at whatever speed it was trimmed for at the time the engine quit.

and since the size of the
stabilizers are so puny they might easily stall and be unable to counteract
the upward pitch at the nose resulting in a tail down death spiral.

How in the world do you get this upward pitch? The engine is heavy, not
lighter than air, you know.

By the way, the Lancair Legacy is the most fun civilian airplane I've
flown and is the main reason I returned to general aviation after a
decades-long absence. I'm sure there is a Legacy near you and I'll bet
its pilot would be happy to take you for a ride. You can see for yourself
what a great airplane it is.

It looks too much like an irresponsible, hot rod, stunt plane to me.

Looks like an aircraft designed for moderately high cruise speeds.

Is it any wonder so many companies offering homebuilt aircraft have gone out of
business?

http://www.homebuilt.org/aircraft/nolonger.html

They mostly failed due to not enough customers, or by being inadequately
capitalized, and for other business reasons.

Or are you arguing that aircraft similar to the old Aeronca 7AC, Chief
or Sedan are gone now because they were all "irresponsible, hot rod,
stunt planes"?

[ Say, you're not related to the fellow who was trying to drum up
support for closing down airpark housing developments for being too
dangerous, are you? ]

This is the safest homebuilt IMO.(VariEze ). The canard makes it foolproof.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...77166441&hl=en

Tell it to some users of that type of aircraft who found more excitement
than they'd bargained for if they flew into light rain...

Or, say, John Denver, who was killed flying one a couple years back.

The canard didn't save him, did it?

As for your movie, do you have any idea what the aircraft's sink rate
might be while it isn't stalling there?

In article ,
"Gregory Hall" wrote:

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"Gregory Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

I find your strange posting to be quite offensive in its serious charges
which are totally unfounded. As others have already pointed out, you are
fundamentally incorrect about the purpose of the horizontal stabilizer.
The horizontal tail holds the nose up, not down. Your assertion about the
Legacy's stall recovery just makes no sense at all.


I think it makes good sense. Look at the size of that engine up front. Looks
like a P-51 Mustang for pity sake. When you're being pulled along by that
big prop and heavy, powerful engine it pulls the nose of the aircraft down.
The horizontal stabilizers have to counteract this force by putting an
upward force on the nose by pushing the tail down. If and when the engine
suddenly dies the aircraft will pitch up suddenly and since the size of the
stabilizers are so puny they might easily stall and be unable to counteract
the upward pitch at the nose resulting in a tail down death spiral.

More nonsense. The loss of thrust won't result in a sudden pitch-up. The
engines mass and the force of gravity acting on that mass don't
disappear when it stops producing power.


By the way, the Lancair Legacy is the most fun civilian airplane I've
flown and is the main reason I returned to general aviation after a
decades-long absence. I'm sure there is a Legacy near you and I'll bet
its pilot would be happy to take you for a ride. You can see for yourself
what a great airplane it is.

It looks too much like an irresponsible, hot rod, stunt plane to me. Is it
any wonder so many companies offering homebuilt aircraft have gone out of
business?

http://www.homebuilt.org/aircraft/nolonger.html

This is the safest homebuilt IMO.(VariEze ). The canard makes it foolproof.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...77166441&hl=en

Anyone who thinks an aircraft can be made "foolproof" is a fool who
shouldn't be flying.

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