172driver wrote:
What I can’t remember now (and don’t have time to watch the video again) is if at that point he was VFR-on-top or VFR-over-the-top
He had (inexplicably) cancelled IFR so was VFR over the top….
He made the video as part of the PilotWorkshop series of videos which he often features in….
Peter wrote:
But the USA has a different culture, with the VFR-on-top being “IFR” but still allowing you to “move around” whereas, presumably, if you were “IFR” then you have to do a precise track coordinated with ATC
The VFR on Top IFR clearance only gives the pilot the choice of (VFR) altitudes (as long as he remains in VMC)….he still has to advise ATC of altitude changes and he still has to comply with the track and/or heading clearance elements of his IFR clearance.
His other option (instead of a VFR on Top clearance), if trying to stay between layers is to request a block altitude, which would dispense with the need to advise of altitude changes (within the block range). All while maintaining his IFR clearance…
I don’t think anyone is “bashing”. It’s a good learning experience.
The reason I started writing up my stuff and later co-founded EuroGA is because some 99% of what I know about flying came from the internet, not from any flight instruction.
Back in the old days it was Usenet, mostly American, and today some of it comes from Youtube…
Personally, I have this nagging feeling that the video and the flight were prepared for this. Everything has been perfectly documented and the pilot even shared his thoughts. This is not something you would normally do when sorting out a difficult situation. Then, I felt the narrator made it look more serious than it looked to me. To the right there always seemed to be an escape and in various instances one could see that the cloud layer was thin.
I think it was prepared as a practical lessons video about usual mistakes pilots do, hopefully helping us all avoiding to them.
placido wrote:
Then, I felt the narrator made it look more serious than it looked to me
My thoughts as well. The laminar flow comments are ignorant, and only made to make the fight more “spectacular”. Icing is no worse in a Lancair than in a more traditional aircraft. It is a bit difficult to grasp the logic of the flight. He wanted to fly VFR to have some “head room”, still he decided to fly on top of a thin icing layer instead of flying below it, requiring IFR clearance to cross, hence all “head room” is lost, and nothing is gained except sunlight (enough maybe, but still, the dude was worried about getting home, due to that layer). I mean, it was excellent VFR conditions below the layer up to at least 10k, probably all the way up to 11 or 12, flying VFR (or IFR) below the layer, and he would make it home with 100% certainty.
It seems very much made up the whole video (but I’m not sure who did the editing and narration).
The laminar flow comments are ignorant, and only made to make the fight more “spectacular”. Icing is no worse in a Lancair than in a more traditional aircraft
Hmmmmmmmmm…… you may like to read some reports from owners.
The wing is not 100% laminar though.
Peter wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmm…… you may like to read some reports from owners.The wing is not 100% laminar though.
Every Lancair owner knows this, or at least the initial builders. The advanced (brand new at the time), and safe, laminar flow air foil was the main aspect of the Lancair. Lots of speed, yet fully operational in rain and with dirt, with only a bit more drag. On the other hand, the main “problem” with the Lancair is the small wings and the high stall speed, but this is true in icing or no icing. The foil does not lose any lift when fully turbulent, but drag is increased. It will be like flying with air brakes, which may feel scary I guess. Yet, this is nothing like a more non compromise laminar air foil that looses 30-40% of the lift. Besides, icing has a huge effect on the performance of the wing in any aircraft, and the reports are similar. The narrator has no clue here, or he is simply trying to make this more “interesting” than it is.
The 6 series airfoils like on the Grumman AA-5, the Sonex’es and lots of other aircraft, are also laminar flow airfoils. The transition point from laminar to turbulent is well beyond 30% MAC in cruising condition, and this is what gives them the low drag. They also work excellent when the flow is fully turbulent, so they are not “true” laminar flow foils, they are sometimes called semi-laminar foils. The Lancair foil is very much the same, only more developed, it creates more lift than the 6 series, enabling a small wing (even more reduced drag). The Lancair wing is also composite, exact shape, so it is more or less guarantied to utilize the laminar flow, unlike the metal wing of the AA-5 for instance where only some of the benefit is utilized.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If fact, if we look at the following three distinctions:VFR – IFR
VMC – IMC
Visual flight – Instrument flight
you can find situations (legal, but not necessarily safe) corresponding to each of the possible eight combinations!
Eight combinations?
Anyway, this confusion is IMO, made by the way VFR PPL is taught. VFR is taught as map and compass flying by comparing the map with the ground. But traditionally people also used VOR/ADF/DME, ATC (radar) when flying VFR (when finished training), VFR on top for instance, VFR over the sea and other fuzzy surfaces. Today we use moving maps and GPS. VFR has always been instrument flying at it’s core, even though the basic skill is map and compass. VMC is a very fuzzy term also, almost useless with several different minima dependent on alt and airspace. It’s almost impossible to conceptually visualize it, thus impossible to remember. How do you judge if you are 1500 m from clouds, or 1000 ft above them and not 3000 m and 2000 ft? The only thing you can be sure of is if you are clear of clouds or not and can see the surface or not – period. Does anyone bother with more accuracy than that in a real situation? I think not.
LeSving wrote:
Icing is no worse in a Lancair than in a more traditional aircraft.
Hmm, really ? Isn’t a laminar profile with a rather sharp, spiky wing leading edge more prone to icing than the leading edge of a rounded off profile of, say, a Piper or Beech ?
EuroFlyer wrote:
Hmm, really ? Isn’t a laminar profile with a rather sharp, spiky wing leading edge more prone to icing than the leading edge of a rounded off profile of, say, a Piper or Beech ?
I meant the effect of icing. Why should a spiky object be more prone to icing than a less spiky object?
EuroFlyer wrote:
Hmm, really ? Isn’t a laminar profile with a rather sharp, spiky wing leading edge more prone to icing than the leading edge of a rounded off profile of, say, a Piper or Beech ?
Yes. Not just more prone to collecting ice more quickly but the deleterious effects of the (same thickness of) ice on say a Mooney wing vs a TB20 wing are more pronounced I believe. A double whammy.
