Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:33:59 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-4022536@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.82; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net
From: "farnsworth" <farnsworth@charter.net>
References: <list-4020876@logan.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-4020876@logan.com>
Thread-Index: Acp9OgzPZ+p4KnbPQfmSy265fQJi5AAiJ8qA


It is my understanding that the crash occurred close to the airport. I think
I read it was about 1 mile. If that is true I think that the glide range
difference between a standard constant speed prop and a feathering prop
would have made the difference between making the airport and not.

I believe it was reported that the pilot said he was at 7,000' when the
problem occurred. The fact that he made it to within 1 mile of a safe
landing with a standard prop (I don't know if he pulled his prop control
back of not. I think the engine was not turning at the time of ground
contact.)is evidence that the higher glide ratio of the feathering prop
would have extended his range enough to land at the airport. With loss of
oil pressure the feathering prop I have in my plane feathers automatically.
It does not require me to pull the prop control back.

Three years ago, at the Reno Air Races, Lee Behel was flying his Legacy in
the valley to the West of Stead when he had an engine failure. It was touch
and go on whether he would have an off airport landing or not. The
difference was the feathering prop on his plane. If he had had a standard
prop he would not have made the airport for an uneventful landing.  

I just think a feathering prop is cheap insurance.

>
> Lynn Farnsworth
> Super Legacy #235
> TSIO-550 Powered
> Race #44
> Mmo .6 Mach
> Feathering Prop


--