Lancair down at VNY

Dav8or said:
You really need to consider this airplane's flight characteristics. It lands at a 152's cruise speed. If you slow it down close to it's stall speed, it sinks like a brick. Keep the speed up and you can glide longer, but things are coming at you quicker. Choices are, horizontally fast, or vertically fast. If the airplane hits the ground hard, it explodes.

This is not an engine out in a 172. IMO, his aircraft choice stacked the odds against him in this scenario assuming it was an engine failure.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I feel much more confident in walking away from this scenario in my pa-28 variant than a glasair/lancair. Still a moot point since I can't afford the 4 seater versions/equivalents of the latter. :rolleyes:

I hear RVs have more benign left side of the power curve characteristics, which may sway people into the RV camp.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Agreed, I feel much more confident in walking away from this scenario in my pa-28 variant than a glasair/lancair. Still a moot point since I can't afford the 4 seater versions/equivalents of the latter. :rolleyes:

I hear RVs have more benign left side of the power curve characteristics, which may sway people into the RV camp.
Click to expand...


Rv's can come down REAL hard too...

Been there,, seen the aftermath..:sad::sad::sad::sad::sad:

Trick is.....

DON'T let it stall.... Fly it as far into the crash as you can....
 
hindsight2020 said:
Agreed, I feel much more confident in walking away from this scenario in my pa-28 variant than a glasair/lancair. Still a moot point since I can't afford the 4 seater versions/equivalents of the latter. :rolleyes:

I hear RVs have more benign left side of the power curve characteristics, which may sway people into the RV camp.
Click to expand...

I was originally planning for a Velocity. We have lost many RV's including -10's due to LOC. We strive to keep our speed up, don't load up in the turn and stay coordinated whether our engine is powered up or not...the same in your Piper too. Know your limits as well as your aircraft's. Practice X 10.
 
Didn't they just get done building the prop park at VNY? I don't think that airport is going anywhere. It is home to a LOT of exec jets and has expanded in the last decade. I thought at one time it was the country's busiest GA airport.
 
RV10flyer said:
I was originally planning for a Velocity. We have lost many RV's including -10's due to LOC. We strive to keep our speed up, don't load up in the turn and stay coordinated whether our engine is powered up or not...the same in your Piper too. Know your limits as well as your aircraft's. Practice X 10.
Click to expand...

A Velocity is much more survivable. Even if you panic and keep the stick full aft you're coming down fully controlled at only 500 FPM and 55-60 kts.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I hear RVs have more benign left side of the power curve characteristics, which may sway people into the RV camp.
Click to expand...

I think it may be a factor for some people buying a kit, but I don't get the feeling too many people that buy a kit to build, think all that much about safety. It's all about performance, price and build time, ie, it's more about can it do a loop, or what blistering speed does it have, rather than will I survive a dead stick landing in this thing?

I think the RV is more successful due to the huge support group, the aluminum construction vs. fiberglass, lower cost and the precision "snap fit" assembly as it were. The perception and perhaps reality is faster time to fly and at a lower cost.

Oh, yeah. There's also the RV's lower landing speed that makes it more grass/short field friendly. Kit builders tend to put a premium on being able to land anywhere.
 
Velocity173 said:
A Velocity is much more survivable. Even if you panic and keep the stick full aft you're coming down fully controlled at only 500 FPM and 55-60 kts.
Click to expand...

Really??!! Only 500 fpm??! That seems incredible for a full "stall" orientation. If it's true that is fantastic! If it weren't for the long take off and landing rolls and some CG issues, the various canard planes would seriously take over!
 
Velocity173 said:
A Velocity is much more survivable. Even if you panic and keep the stick full aft you're coming down fully controlled at only 500 FPM and 55-60 kts.
Click to expand...

If only I had the extra time, money and runway length. It is a beautiful aircraft.

If I pulled the stick back to our 54 kias full flap stall, we would come down around 1200+ fpm. Not likely to survive with 30 gal on each side of us. Our short wings don't do well slow.
 
Dav8or said:
Really??!! Only 500 fpm??! That seems incredible for a full "stall" orientation. If it's true that is fantastic! If it weren't for the long take off and landing rolls and some CG issues, the various canard planes would seriously take over!
Click to expand...

Well it depends on the model. The 173 I come down at around 500-600 FPM between 58-62 kts. It's hard to get exact numbers because of the pitch buck. In the Velocity promo DVD you can see an XL stalling and if you look closely at the VSI, it's pitch bucking between 500-1000 FPM so I'd say it averages 750.

Three very important things though. 1.) the descent rate is far less than a conventional aircraft that is in a spin. It's been proven that with most GA aircraft, if you get in a spin at or below pattern altitude, you won't be able to recover prior to impact. 2.) During the stall for a canard, it is completely controllable. Therefore if indeed you do impact between 500-1000 FPM, you have the ability to fly it stalled to a more suitable crash site. Instead of spiraling in with a wing down at a high rate of descent, you can land flat with the G forces spread out over two axis instead of one. A much more survivable scenario in an engine out. 3.) if we're talking a stall spin from a steep climb with the engine running, the canard design if far superior as well. In a Velocity, if you screw up the climb and pull back to stall, the aircraft will continue to climb in that 60 kt stalled attitude while the stick is full aft. Once again completely controllable during that condition. You can bank it left or right in that condition with stick or pedal.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well it depends on the model. The 173 I come down at around 500-600 FPM between 58-62 kts. It's hard to get exact numbers because of the pitch buck. In the Velocity promo DVD you can see an XL stalling and if you look closely at the VSI, it's pitch bucking between 500-1000 FPM so I'd say it averages 750.

Three very important things though. 1.) the descent rate is far less than a conventional aircraft that is in a spin. It's been proven that with most GA aircraft, if you get in a spin at or below pattern altitude, you won't be able to recover prior to impact. 2.) During the stall for a canard, it is completely controllable. Therefore if indeed you do impact between 500-1000 FPM, you have the ability to fly it stalled to a more suitable crash site. Instead of spiraling in with a wing down at a high rate of descent, you can land flat with the G forces spread out over two axis instead of one. A much more survivable scenario in an engine out. 3.) if we're talking a stall spin from a steep climb with the engine running, the canard design if far superior as well. In a Velocity, if you screw up the climb and pull back to stall, the aircraft will continue to climb in that 60 kt stalled attitude while the stick is full aft. Once again completely controllable during that condition. You can bank it left or right in that condition with stick or pedal.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of strong arguments for the canard design. Perhaps the Vans RV-15 should be an all aluminum canard design with their legendary relative ease of construction and factory support!!
 
Dav8or said:
There are a lot of strong arguments for the canard design. Perhaps the Vans RV-15 should be an all aluminum canard design with their legendary relative ease of construction and factory support!!
Click to expand...

Yeah a lot of arguments from RV guys against it as well. I can understand both sides of the debate. Does a typical RV stall a lot slower than an canard? Sure they do and if the pilot doesn't panic and spin it, they can come down at a slower speed. I'd say 55 kts in an RV would be more survivable than say 65-70 kts in a Velocity.

Then again a typical canard has a far greater glide ratio than an RV. Not sure why Velocity doesn't publish that. I've read Long EZs have like an 18:1 glide ratio. At altitude that could be the difference of landing in a field or making a runway. Not sure what mine is but I know it's pretty ridiculous. Come in too fast on final and she'll float half way down the runway.

Personally, I just like the looks of a canard.:wink2:
 
Dav8or said:
You really need to consider this airplane's flight characteristics. It lands at a 152's cruise speed.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. I fly my Lancair 235/320 at 80 knots on final, landing at less than 70 knots. It has been a while since I've flown a Cessna 152 but I recall they fly significantly faster than 70 knots.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah a lot of arguments from RV guys against it as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but here's the thing- They already have their ultimate planes and Vans is not likely to stop production of the legacy kits anytime soon. So where do they go from here? There are tons of ways they could go with the next design, but maybe there are a lot of people that would like a canard type plane but get turned off by fiberglass and the companies now making them.

Guys like you-

Personally, I just like the looks of a canard.:wink2:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top