X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:45:12 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4180360 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:40:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.15; envelope-from=n5zq@verizon.net Received: from userb4f768e51f ([unknown] [173.72.167.62]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0KZX00HLJ3A2NTA1@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:39:39 -0500 (CDT) Reply-to: From: "Bill N5ZQ" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Fox Article X-Original-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:39:48 -0400 X-Original-Message-id: <360C12A531E94F34AFBCBFC3A10C8915@userb4f768e51f> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01CACD2C.DBF65710" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01CACD2C.DBF65710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lynn, Everything you say below is absolutely true. The reason that 61 knots is even marginally significant is that is the max Vso allowed for single engine airplanes certificated under part 23. Since we are not bound by part 23 our Vso can be higher. Hence, this is just one of the many differences one might find between certificated and experimental aircraft. Why FAA jumped on this number that has no particular significance for experimental aircraft, I have no idea. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1.750 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of farnsworth Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:06 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Fox Article My reply to Fox News There is nothing holy, sacred or even significant about a 61 mph stalling speed. Why not pick 41 or 51 or 161 mph? All aircraft that are used by the airlines have a stalling speed greater than 61 mph. Does that make their aircraft unsafe? The fact of the matter is that a given aircraft has many "stalling speeds". The speed varies with weight, number or "G" forces and even altitude and temperature will affect the true airspeed at which an aircraft will stall. It appears to me, that the person who wrote this article did so with an eye toward damning Lancairs and experimental aircraft in general. The Lancair aircraft that landed on the beach did not do so as a result of a stall, but mechanical failure. So why the fascination with stall speeds? Even the widely referenced "Piper Cub" will stall with just enough speed to kill a person! I can address this article from many many years of flying experience that include: Piper Cubs, jet fighters, airliners and Lancair aircraft. I have often stated that the Lancair Legacy, that I fly, is one of the best flying aircraft I have ever flown. Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Powered Race #44 ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01CACD2C.DBF65710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Lynn,
 
Everything you say below is absolutely true. The reason = that 61 knots=20 is even marginally significant is that is the max Vso allowed for single = engine=20 airplanes certificated under part 23. Since we are not bound by part 23 = our Vso=20 can be higher. Hence, this is just one of the many differences one = might=20 find between certificated and experimental aircraft. Why FAA jumped = on this=20 number that has no particular significance for experimental aircraft,=20 I have no idea.
 
Bill=20 Harrelson
N5ZQ=20 320 1.750 hrs
N6ZQ  IV under construction
 
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of=20 farnsworth
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:06 = PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Fox=20 Article

My reply to Fox=20 News

 

There is nothing holy, = sacred or=20 even significant about a 61 mph stalling speed. Why not pick 41 or 51 = or 161=20 mph? All aircraft that are used by the airlines have a stalling speed = greater=20 than 61 mph. Does that make their aircraft unsafe?=20

 

The fact of the matter = is that a=20 given aircraft has many "stalling speeds". The speed varies with = weight,=20 number or "G" forces and even altitude and temperature will affect the = true=20 airspeed at which an aircraft will stall.

 

It appears to me, that = the person=20 who wrote this article did so with an eye toward damning Lancairs and=20 experimental aircraft in general. The Lancair aircraft that landed on = the=20 beach did not do so as a result of a stall, but mechanical failure. So = why the=20 fascination with stall speeds? Even the widely referenced "Piper Cub" = will=20 stall with just enough speed to kill a = person!

 

I can address this = article from=20 many many years of flying experience that include: Piper Cubs, jet = fighters,=20 airliners and Lancair aircraft. I have often stated that the Lancair = Legacy,=20 that I fly, is one of the best flying aircraft I have ever=20 flown.

 

Lynn=20 Farnsworth

Super Legacy=20 #235

TSIO-550=20 Powered

Race=20 #44

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01CACD2C.DBF65710--