X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:19:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.147] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.5) with ESMTP id 4190194 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:01:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.147; envelope-from=LenS790501@aol.com Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o2V40jxi007601 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:45 -0400 Received: from LenS790501@aol.com by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.d00.7412ce03 (34920) for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-d26.mail.aol.com (magic-d26.mail.aol.com [172.19.146.160]) by cia-da03.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA035-88684bb2c8ea3b5; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:42 -0400 From: LenS790501@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <42554.2f301472.38e422ea@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:42 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fox Article X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_42554.2f301472.38e422ea_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 155 X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 174.18.197.252 X-AOL-IP: 172.19.146.160 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: LenS790501@aol.com --part1_42554.2f301472.38e422ea_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Apparently FOX got this off the AP and it's all wrong. Stall speed had =20 nothing to do with the accident. The plane lost the propeller and because= of =20 this there was oil covering his windshield (the constant speed prop uses= oil=20 to change the pitch of the prop). He landed safely on the beach and he an= d=20 his wife walked away. Unfortunately, he hit the man walking on the beach= =20 (who he couldn't see) and killed him. Another fine story of misinformatio= n=20 supplied by our wonderful unbiased media. =20 =20 In a message dated 3/27/2010 10:19:55 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, =20 farnsworth@charter.net writes: =20 Bill,=20 The point I was trying to make is; 61 was a number that the feds came up= =20 with out of the blue when they set that figure as the minimum Vso for the= =20 certification. They could have picked a different number just as easily.= That=20 is why I said that the number was not significant. However, the article= =E2=80=99s=20 case was built around that number as if there was something magic about= it.=20 =20 Regards, (:=20 Lynn=20 =20 =20 ____________________________________ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of= =20 Bill N5ZQ Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:45 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Fox Article =20 Lynn, =20 =20 Everything you say below is absolutely true. The reason that 61 knots is= =20 even marginally significant is that is the max Vso allowed for single eng= ine=20 airplanes certificated under part 23. Since we are not bound by part 23= =20 our Vso can be higher. Hence, this is just one of the many differences on= e=20 might find between certificated and experimental aircraft. Why FAA jumped= on=20 this number that has no particular significance for experimental aircraft= , =20 I have no idea.=20 =20 =20 Bill Harrelson =20 N5ZQ 320 1.750 hrs =20 N6ZQ IV under construction =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of= =20 farnsworth Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:06 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Fox Article My reply to Fox News=20 There is nothing holy, sacred or even significant about a 61 mph stalling= =20 speed. Why not pick 41 or 51 or 161 mph? All aircraft that are used by th= e=20 airlines have a stalling speed greater than 61 mph. Does that make their= =20 aircraft unsafe? =20 The fact of the matter is that a given aircraft has many "stalling=20 speeds". The speed varies with weight, number or "G" forces and even alti= tude and=20 temperature will affect the true airspeed at which an aircraft will stall= .=20 It appears to me, that the person who wrote this article did so with an= =20 eye toward damning Lancairs and experimental aircraft in general. The Lan= cair=20 aircraft that landed on the beach did not do so as a result of a stall,= =20 but mechanical failure. So why the fascination with stall speeds? Even th= e=20 widely referenced "Piper Cub" will stall with just enough speed to kill= a =20 person!=20 I can address this article from many many years of flying experience that= =20 include: Piper Cubs, jet fighters, airliners and Lancair aircraft. I have= =20 often stated that the Lancair Legacy, that I fly, is one of the best flyi= ng=20 aircraft I have ever flown.=20 Lynn Farnsworth=20 Super Legacy #235=20 TSIO-550 Powered=20 Race #44 --part1_42554.2f301472.38e422ea_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en <= FONT id=3Drole_document color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
Apparently FOX got this off the AP and it's all wrong. Stall speed ha= d=20 nothing to do with the accident. The plane lost the propeller and because= of=20 this there was oil covering his windshield (the constant speed prop uses= oil to=20 change the pitch of the prop). He landed safely on the beach and he and hi= s wife=20 walked away. Unfortunately, he hit the man walking on the beach (who he co= uldn't=20 see) and killed him. Another fine story of misinformation suppli= ed by=20 our wonderful unbiased media.
 
In a message dated 3/27/2010 10:19:55 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,= =20 farnsworth@charter.net writes:

Bill,

 

The point I= was=20 trying to make is; 61 was a number that the feds came up with out of the= blue=20 when they set that figure as the minimum Vso for the certification. They= could=20 have picked a different number just as easily. That is why I said that= the=20 number was not significant. However, the article=E2=80=99s case was buil= t around that=20 number as if there was something magic about it. =20

 

Regards, = ;=20 (:

 

Lynn

 

 

From:=20 Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On= Behalf Of=20 Bill N5ZQ
Sent:=20 Friday, March 26, 2010 10:45
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Fox=20 Article

 

Lynn,

 

Everything yo= u say=20 below is absolutely true. The reason that 61 knots is even marginally=20 significant is that is the max Vso allowed for single engine airplanes= =20 certificated under part 23. Since we are not bound by part 23 our Vso ca= n be=20 higher. Hence, this is just one of the many differences one might= find=20 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 320 1.75= 0=20 hrs

N6ZQ  IV= under=20 construction

 

 

 -= ----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On= Behalf Of=20 farnsworth
Sent:=20 Friday, March 26, 2010 4:06 PM
To: 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= =20 greater 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 weigh= t,=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=20 person who wrote this article did so with an eye toward damning Lancai= rs 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=20 the fascination with stall speeds? Even the widely referenced "Piper= Cub"=20 will stall with just enough speed to kill a=20 person!

 

I can address this article from=20 many many years of flying experience that include: Piper Cubs, jet fig= hters,=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

--part1_42554.2f301472.38e422ea_boundary--