X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:37:01 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from col0-omc3-s11.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4025002 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:01:50 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.149; envelope-from=bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Received: from COL108-W18 ([65.55.34.137]) by col0-omc3-s11.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:01:12 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d205ef34-f908-4d26-b110-f7e951cf8b2e_" X-Originating-IP: [71.111.139.49] From: Bill Kennedy X-Original-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville? X-Original-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:01:12 -0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2009 04:01:12.0154 (UTC) FILETIME=[924F33A0:01CA7ECD] --_d205ef34-f908-4d26-b110-f7e951cf8b2e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you really want cheap insurance=2C learn how to glide and make a power o= ff landing. Glide performance in a spin is really poor and the landing is n= o better (always fatal as far as I know). The kind of prop doesn't really m= atter. The pilot should be able to tell pretty quickly whether he can make = a field or not=2C certainly 7=2C000 feet gives you plenty of time to analyz= e your glide. If you can't make it to the spot you want=2C land in a field.= Airmanship is the best insurance I can think of.=20 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Tue=2C 15 Dec 2009 16:33:59 -0500 > From: farnsworth@charter.net > Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Watsonville? >=20 >=20 >=20 > It is my understanding that the crash occurred close to the airport. I th= ink > 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. >=20 > I believe it was reported that the pilot said he was at 7=2C000' 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 automaticall= y. > It does not require me to pull the prop control back. >=20 > Three years ago=2C at the Reno Air Races=2C Lee Behel was flying his Lega= cy in > the valley to the West of Stead when he had an engine failure. It was tou= ch > 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. =20 >=20 > I just think a feathering prop is cheap insurance. >=20 > > > > Lynn Farnsworth > > Super Legacy #235 > > TSIO-550 Powered > > Race #44 > > Mmo .6 Mach > > Feathering Prop >=20 >=20 > -- >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml = --_d205ef34-f908-4d26-b110-f7e951cf8b2e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you really want cheap insurance=2C learn how to glide and make a power o= ff landing. Glide performance in a spin is really poor and the landing is n= o better (always fatal as far as I know). The kind of prop doesn't really m= atter. The pilot should be able to tell pretty quickly whether he can make = a field or not=2C certainly 7=2C000 feet gives you plenty of time to analyz= e your glide. If you can't make it to the spot you want=2C land in a field.= Airmanship is the best insurance I can think of.

>=3B To: lml@la= ncaironline.net
>=3B Date: Tue=2C 15 Dec 2009 16:33:59 -0500
>=3B= From: farnsworth@charter.net
>=3B Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Crash Wat= sonville?
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B It is my understanding= that the crash occurred close to the airport. I think
>=3B I read it = was about 1 mile. If that is true I think that the glide range
>=3B di= fference between a standard constant speed prop and a feathering prop
&g= t=3B would have made the difference between making the airport and not.
= >=3B
>=3B I believe it was reported that the pilot said he was at 7= =2C000' when the
>=3B problem occurred. The fact that he made it to wi= thin 1 mile of a safe
>=3B landing with a standard prop (I don't know = if he pulled his prop control
>=3B back of not. I think the engine was= not turning at the time of ground
>=3B contact.)is evidence that the = higher glide ratio of the feathering prop
>=3B would have extended his= range enough to land at the airport. With loss of
>=3B oil pressure t= he feathering prop I have in my plane feathers automatically.
>=3B It = does not require me to pull the prop control back.
>=3B
>=3B Thr= ee years ago=2C at the Reno Air Races=2C Lee Behel was flying his Legacy in=
>=3B the valley to the West of Stead when he had an engine failure. I= t was touch
>=3B and go on whether he would have an off airport landin= g or not. The
>=3B difference was the feathering prop on his plane. If= he had had a standard
>=3B prop he would not have made the airport fo= r an uneventful landing.
>=3B
>=3B I just think a feathering p= rop is cheap insurance.
>=3B
>=3B >=3B
>=3B >=3B Lynn F= arnsworth
>=3B >=3B Super Legacy #235
>=3B >=3B TSIO-550 Powe= red
>=3B >=3B Race #44
>=3B >=3B Mmo .6 Mach
>=3B >=3B= Feathering Prop
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B --
>=3B
>=3B >=3B --
>=3B For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:= 81/lists/lml/List.html
= --_d205ef34-f908-4d26-b110-f7e951cf8b2e_--