For the record I believe the 'odd' 61knt number comes from 70mph. You have to draw the line someplace, I guess that was the best statistical number, I wouldn't know however.

Fwiw

J Johnson
 
> I am well aware that the faster an object is going the more
> kinetic energy
> it has. The point I was trying to make is, the FAA choose the
> number 61 for
> their benchmark speed. They could as easily chosen some other
> number. Maybe
> 60, or 55, or whatever. From your discussion, would not 55  have been
> better?
>
>
>
> Then the article could have said, Lancairs stall at a higher speed
> than 55.
> The stall speed of the Lancair aircraft had nothing to do with the
> accidentin question. That is why the number 61 was not
> significant. Your statement
> about Lancair aircraft having a higher stalling speed than 61 and
> as a
> result more kinetic energy injects an element that was not in play
> in the
> article I was commenting on. In other words, you changed the subject.
>
>
>
> The subject aircraft did not stall and so, regardless of what its
> stallingspeed might be, it was not relevant or significant to the
> discussion.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Lynn Farnsworth
>
> Super Legacy #235
>
> TSIO-550 Powered
>
> Race #44
>
> Mmo .60 Mach
>
>
>
>
>
>