X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:19:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5997757 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:22:57 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.179; envelope-from=toddlong1@gmail.com Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id b14so10776157qcs.24 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:22:22 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.35.137 with SMTP id p9mr39544576qad.85.1357482142109; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:22:22 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [10.232.74.173] (218.sub-174-252-43.myvzw.com. [174.252.43.218]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ek6sm11382820qab.20.2013.01.06.06.22.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:22:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls References: From: Todd Long Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A80345BA-8BEA-4B11-A219-A78ED78AC894 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <77369F60-ABAB-4CDC-902E-CAA8BE73F990@gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 08:22:56 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-A80345BA-8BEA-4B11-A219-A78ED78AC894 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for stall test= ing on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to stalls and re= covery.=20 The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate everyone go o= ut and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high performan= ce aircraft that are not and will never perform like certified airframes. Mo= st got into the IV for the high speed. There were trade offs to get that. No= t necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can not be treated li= ke a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were a bonanza. If y= ou are unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft they are not all t= reated the same go back to certified slower planes. Se of us have spent our c= areers in high performance planes and know there are different operating and= training rules. Know what the plane will do but don't push it over the edge= thinking it will behave nicely.=20 Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone. On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" wrote: > Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate or bu= siness [charter?] aviation. > =20 > My point is/was simply this. All certified types of planes are tested to= aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverable from stall, the appr= opriate stall warning systems are installed and calibrated accordingly. The= n the pilots who fly them day to day are taught [in type] slow flight, appro= ach to stall [identification of impending stall] and recovery. In my experia= nce, most flight departments train in this at least annually if not more reg= ularly [I know some of you jet drivers go to sim courses every 6 months, in m= y case it's either sim or in-plane training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't p= racticed on this side of the border either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' a= s well. > =20 > I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however when= we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test pilots. [if we don'= t want to properly test fly them, then maybe test pilots should be hired who= have the skills to do so, maybe testing apparatus should be used as well; i= e-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we should TEST the airframe= s the same way the test pilots have tested the Citation X's or Hawker-700/80= 0/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've ALL been tested [well, other th= an a large part of the Lancair fleet]. Once testing is complete and the sta= ll warning devices are calibrated then it's practicing approach to stalls on= ly.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled again, granted there is no aero= dynamic alterations ever completed. If there is [such as your Hawker experia= nce] then the a/c needs to have the stall warning devices calibrated again w= hich would require additional stall testing. > =20 > The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't stall t= est and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there is such a l= arge gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flying and or w= hy Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other type of (GA) airc= raft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the stalls on their Lancairs. I= f a select few can do it then it's 'possible' for every single Lancair airfr= ame to have it done to the same degree [in my opinion]. Thats not to say tha= t the 'taming/tuning' will be the same on every airframe but it IS possible.= > =20 > I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' and the= 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [and contin= ual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see things fro= m a angle that most others don't.. I dunno. =20 > =20 > All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any experimental A/c= ] unless I know it's been stall tested and has the proper [calibrated] warni= ng systems on it. I will do these tests on mine before ANYONE else fly's in i= t with me. > =20 > At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do. > =20 > Fwiw > Jarrett Johnson > =20 > 235/320 -55% [and holding] >=20 >=20 > On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long wrote:= > I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops. In neit= her do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely different animals= . We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and shaker get your attention= and just power out. Back in the hawkers when we removed and replaced TKS le= ading panel edges we had to go do full stalls past the stick shaker. One tim= e we did end up on our back, continued the roll around to upright. Only spec= ially trained PICs were authorized to do these tests. I was the lowely SIC a= t the time. I believe the low altitude single engine ops that were discontin= ued in the reference was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There wer= e a number of accidents doing these in training. > I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any aircraft nor= even got close. In high performance airplanes the pilot needs to fly by th= e numbers not the seat of the pants. This goes for jets, turbo props and de= finitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ hours in a Ce-750 Citation X as= PIC and have no idea how it handles in a full stall. Using some people's lo= gic I'm just too scared and shouldn't be flying it. Really? In fortunately= I do know how the Hawker 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want t= o go there again. And that was fully certified. If you can't fly without uni= ntentionally stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going an= y higher from stupid accidents.=20 >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" wrote:= >=20 >> This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned, there i= s no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thick of things in p= ast discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers this time and observ= e the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see [keep in mind I'm Canad= ian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but not by much] and some-more '= opinion' to add to the mix: >> =20 >> 1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall train= ing,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training every year w= hile training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP that I fly [for wo= rk]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to max torque and hold the pitch= angle.. it immediately transitions from many hundreds fpm of decent to a co= uple thousand fpm of climb.. a really interesting experience compared to the= same thing in a single [push, power, recover]. >> 2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in gettin= g your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo spins and has to= be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember the last time I heard o= f a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been many years. >> 3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training curr= iculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine [I've got pi= c's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the breeze] and an app= roach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and signed off= as completed before you'll get your ride approval to take your flight test.= Again, I can't remember the last time I heard of a twin engine training acc= ident due to single engine ops [in Canada]. >> 4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] is fals= e as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being signed off an 're= leased' for production. All pilots in training then fly these maneuvers whil= e doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the tested results]. If= you think that once you get your Airline Transport License your done w/ sta= ll/approach to stall training for the rest of your flying career, your mista= ken. >> =20 >> I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these planes, i= s saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, approach to stall a= nd recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my opinion, valuable training/= testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the stall si= de of the envelope, this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at some poin= t] get to that flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'T= itanic like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests th= ey needed]. >> =20 >> The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are not safe in t= he slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the PC-12 [Cruise at 2= 60-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it a STOL airplane i= n some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, land at less th= an 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu= , Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher performance aircraft out there th= at fly well in all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair'= s mandate was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D program t= o clean these issues up were not pushed as far as they maybe could have been= , at least if they had people would have a better "jumping off point" to tam= e the stalls of their individual aircraft. Couple this with the small varian= ces plane to plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing gross weights= and you get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it= 's not 'tameable' or correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected. >> =20 >> I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my d= uty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convince s= omeone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the testing than p= ossibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter [both of which have be= en 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the 425] or my wife or my mot= her or father etc etc. I want my family to enjoy what I've built but I could= n't feel good/safe about it if I didn't fully vet it and test those [potenti= ally] darker corners of the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd= had an 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'l= oss of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride down to 0 f= rom 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, e= sp w/ a family member along for the ride.. that's the stuff of nightmares..= ] >> =20 >> In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a 'ri= de' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at both ends of t= he envelope prior to their experience. At least tested to the stall point [n= ot nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it but at least know wher= e it stalls and how it recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] t= o ensure there is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of the= se planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there t= o do for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone? >> =20 >> If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane but j= ust go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way you see fit. >> =20 >> I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go as f= ar as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a personal= chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple times] that is, when-ever= it gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ] >> =20 >> Jarrett Johnson >> 235/320 55% [and currently holding] >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey wro= te: >> I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this controver= sy, but here are a couple of observations: >> Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-altitude en= gine-out proficiency. That requirement was dropped and the overall safety i= mproved. Years ago, spin demonstrations were required and then dropped - sa= fety improved. Another observation: All that have sided with stall trainin= g have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the center). I doubt that A= NY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a centered ball. I haven't stalled m= y ES. >> Gary Casey >> =20 >> On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" w= rote: >>> I have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls altogether i= n my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin accident information, I jus= t don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground effect for t= he half second it takes to make it into the green after wheels up; on landin= g, I approach well above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed b= leed off only a few feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I don't e= ven get near a typical slow flight speed. Too many variables in a home built= airplane with no precise envelope, a header tank that is PROBABLY where I t= hink it is, but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if the gauge is stuck; possi= ble extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy rain). >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > www.innovention-tech.com >=20 --Apple-Mail-A80345BA-8BEA-4B11-A219-A78ED78AC894 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
I agree that testing and s= ystems calibration needs to be done for stall testing on new airframes. And n= ew pilots need to learn approach to stalls and recovery. 
The= only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate everyone go out a= nd regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high performance a= ircraft that are not and will never perform like certified airframes. Most g= ot into the IV for the high speed. There were trade offs to get that. Not ne= cessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can not be treated like a= bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were a bonanza. If you a= re unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft they are not all treat= ed the same go back to certified slower planes. Se of us have spent our care= ers in high performance planes and know there are different operating and tr= aining rules. Know what the plane will do but don't push it over the edge th= inking it will behave nicely. 

Typing and grammar errors c= ourtesy of Siri and the iPhone.

On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarr= ett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.= net> wrote:

p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}

Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate or business [charter?] aviation.

 

My point is/was simply this.   All certified types of planes ar= e tested to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverable from stall, the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and calibrated accordingly.  Then the pilots who fly them day to day are taught [in ty= pe] slow flight, approach to stall [identification of impending stall] and recov= ery.=20 In my experiance, most flight departments train in this at least annually if= not more regularly [I know some of you jet drivers go to sim courses every 6 mon= ths, in my case it's either sim or in-plane training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren= 't practiced on this side of the border either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' a= s well.

 

I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however whe= n we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test pilots. [if we don't want to properly test fly them, the= n maybe test pilots should be hired who have the skills to do so, maybe testin= g apparatus should be used as well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we should TEST the airframes the same way the test pilots have test= ed the Citation X's or Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they'v= e ALL been tested [well, other than a large part of the Lancair fleet].  O= nce testing is complete and the stall warning devices are calibrated then it's practicing approach to stalls only.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled= again, granted there is no aerodynamic alterations ever completed. If there i= s [such as your Hawker experiance] then the a/c needs to have the stall warnin= g devices calibrated again which would require additional stall testing.

 

The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't stall= test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there is such a= large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flying and or w= hy Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other type of (GA) aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the stalls on th= eir Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's 'possible' for every= single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same degree [in my opini= on].=20 Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same on every airframe= but it IS possible.

 

I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' and th= e 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [and continu= al training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see things from a angle that most others don't.. I dunno.  

 

All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any experimental A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and has the= proper [calibrated] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on mine bef= ore ANYONE else fly's in it with me.

 

At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do.

 

Fwiw

Jarrett Johnson

 

235/320 -55% [and holding]



On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long <toddlong1@gmail.com> wrote= :

I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops.  = ;In neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely different animals.  We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and shaker get yo= ur attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers when we removed and replac= ed TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full stalls past the stick shaker. O= ne time we did end up on our back, continued the roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs were authorized to do these tests.  I was the lo= wely SIC at the time. I believe the low altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the reference was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now.=20= There were a number of accidents doing these in training.
I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any aircraft n= or even got close.  In high performance airplanes the pilot needs to fly b= y the numbers not the seat of the pants.  This goes for jets, turbo props= and definitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ hours in a Ce-750 Citation X a= s PIC and have no idea how it handles in a full stall. Using some people's log= ic I'm just too scared and shouldn't be flying it.  Really?  In fortunately I do know how the Hawker 1000 can stall in some situations and d= on't want to go there again. And that was fully certified. If you can't fly witho= ut unintentionally stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going= any higher from  stupid accidents. 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net> wrote:

This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned, there i= s no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thick of things in pa= st discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers this time and observe th= e discussion. A couple clarifications that I see [keep in mind I'm Canadian an= d our rules are 'slightly' different, but not by much] and some-more 'opinion'= to add to the mix:

 

1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training every y= ear while training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to max torque and hold the pit= ch angle.. it immediately transitions from many hundreds fpm of decent to a= couple thousand fpm of climb.. a really interesting experience compared to t= he same thing in a single [push, power, recover].

2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in gettin= g your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo spins and has= to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember the last time I heard o= f a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been many years.

3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine [I'= ve got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the breeze] and a= n approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and si= gned off as completed before you'll get your ride approval to take your flight te= st.=20 Again, I can't remember the last time I heard of a twin engine training acci= dent due to single engine ops [in Canada].

4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] is= false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being signed off an= 'released' for production. All pilots in training then fly these maneuvers w= hile doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the tested results]. If y= ou think that once you get your Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to stall training for the rest of your flying career, yo= ur mistaken.

 

I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these= planes, is saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, appr= oach to stall and recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my opinion, valuable= training/testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the= stall side of the envelope, this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at s= ome point] get to that flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion= ] 'Titanic like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests t= hey needed].

 

The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are no= t safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it a ST= OL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, land a= t less than 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher performance aircraft o= ut there that fly well in all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mandate was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&= ;D program to clean these issues up were not pushed as far as th= ey maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a better "jump= ing off point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft. Couple this with= the small variances plane to plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing g= ross weights and you get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say t= hat it's not 'tameable' or correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected.

 

I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my d= uty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convince some= one else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the testing than possibly= myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter [both of which have been 'bite= n' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the 425] or my wife or my mother or= father etc etc. I want my family to enjoy what I've built but I couldn't fee= l good/safe about it if I didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially= ] darker corners of the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd = had an 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'loss o= f life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride down to= 0 from 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a family member along for the ride..  that's the stuff= of nightmares..<shutter>]

 

In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a 'ri= de' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at both ends of t= he envelope prior to their experience. At least tested to the stall point [= not nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it but at least know where i= t stalls and how it recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] t= o ensure there is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these= planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to d= o for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone?

 

If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane but j= ust go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way you see fit.

 

I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go as f= ar as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a person= al chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ]

 

Jarrett Johnson

235/320 55% [and currently holding]

 



On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this controversy, but here are a couple of observations:
Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-altitude engine-out proficiency.  That requirement was dropped and the overall safety improved.  Years ago, spin demonstrations were required and then= dropped - safety improved.  Another observation:  All that have si= ded with stall training have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the center).  I doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a center= ed ball.  I haven't stalled my ES.
Gary Casey
 
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA= " <superdmp@so= nic.net> wrote:
I have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls altogether in my 360.=20= After reading the stall and stall spin accident information, I just don't th= ink it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground effect for the half secon= d it takes to make it into the green after wheels up; on landing, I approach well= above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed bleed off only a fe= w feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I don't even get near a typi= cal slow flight speed. Too many variables in a home built airplane with no preci= se envelope, a header tank that is PROBABLY where I think it is, but could be o= ff by 30 or 40 pounds if the gauge is stuck; possible extra wait in the tail ar= ea (water retention after heavy rain).



 





www.innovention-tech.com<= /a>


= --Apple-Mail-A80345BA-8BEA-4B11-A219-A78ED78AC894--