Posted for "Dominic V. Crain" <domcrain@tpg.com.au>:

 Bill,
 
 May I respectfully suggest that after you exit the aircraft after the first
 flight you kiss the AIRCRAFT - not the ground. It will be the AIRCRAFT, not
 the ground, which you can thank.
 
 Now, in relation to stalls, it never ceases to amaze me that some pilots
 want to fly an aircraft near the stall following type training.
 
 You may rest assured that the philosophy of stall training is designed to
 ensure pilots understand what happens to any given airframe when that
 condition is approached and/or reached.
 
 The very FIRST indication of that condition is bothering to look at - you
 guessed it - AIRSPEED.
 
 The second indication is an audible expression of a four letter word. This
 is generally followed by airframe buffet - unless a stall warning such as I
 have is installed.
 
 Dynamic stall testing forms a part of your test function.
 
 Obviously stall testing is a basic flight test function. You can and we will
 argue 'til hell freezes over the benefits of continued stalling in your
 aircraft for the hell of it.
 
 If you want an aeroplane just to go out and stall it for fun - get a Cessna.
 Lancairs are designed to operate at the other end of the speed spectrum -
 and that's FUN.
 
 As for airframe icing, I assume you mean you haven't encountered icing on
 any aircraft you have flown when actually in cloud. However, you will need
 to have a clear understanding that if you choose to fly IMC there remains
 the distinct possibility you will encounter it, and all YOUR stall testing
 becomes meaningless as the stall characteristics of your airframe will
 change dramatically without you having any knowledge of what the stall point
 is in any given condition of icing. If turbulence is associated with it you
 will slow while your stall speed will increase and you have no idea where
 the coffin corner meets.
 
 Back to basics - in your stall testing, observe and record and KNOW the
 stall speeds in all configurations, commit them to memory, and NEVER forget
 them Then fly your aeroplane for the purpose for which it was designed.
 
 Cheers mate
 Dom Crain
 VH-CZJ

[The idea that the first indication of an impending stall comes from airspeed is basically flawed.  It's why naval aviators fly AOA during the approach.  You can stall a wing at almost any airspeed, but that wing will always stall at its  one and only critical angle of attack.  This means there are innumerable stalling speeds, but still only one critical angle at which the wing will stall.  Just because the airplane won't stall on base at 110 knots (for example)  doesn't mean that it won't stall at that very same airspeed when you try to tighten the turn to final and maybe double the wing loading due to the bank angle... unless you get the nose down to widen the spread between where the critical angle was when straight and level and where it is in that 45+ degree bank, you can bet pretty good money that the likelihood of stalling the bottom wing has gone up considerably and the possibility of finding oneself upside down 400 ft AGL has increased dramatically... that very scenario has killed more than a few pilots, and they didn't even have to be flying a Lancair.   Another example is the high-speed pass down the runway with the sudden pullup at the end... even at 150-160 knots, you make that pullup intense enough and the airspeed indicator will still be ticking its way down its scale long after the wing has stalled due to excessive loading from the abrupt change in AOA (which indication is instantaneous, BTW).  Airspeed remains a pretty good secondary indicator of a potential stall condition, but only if considered in concert with all the other factors that affect wing loading.  Unfortunately our bitty brains can't possibly evaluate all the factors that affect that loading frrom moment to moment, but understanding and using an indication of AOA eliminates the need to do so. Ain't technology grand... Just my $0.02.   <Marv>   ]

 
 
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill
 Bradburry
 Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2009 7:26 AM
 To: lml@lancaironline.net
 Subject: [LML] Re: FAA RESCINDS INFO LETTER
 
 
 
 It seems to me that we have all been scared to death by the admonishments to
 never stall these planes.  As a result, nobody does any stall testing or
 training.  We will die if we stall the plane!  Only do stalls above 10000
 feet because you will not be able to recover prior to impact!
 
 If this stuff is true, then it is not a judgement or training issue.  A
 plane that is too dangerous to stall is too dangerous to fly.  A pilot needs
 to be able to recognize an impending stall in any plane he is flying.  If we
 are scared to stall these Lancairs, we will eventually stall close to the
 ground and become a "training issue".
 
 I am not yet flying my Legacy, but you can be damn well certain that stalls
 will be part of the second flight!  The first flight will be one circuit,
 land, get out and kiss the ground!
 
 The other problem I think is flight into ice.  There have been several
 planes that have suddenly fallen out of the sky.  I suspect that is ice.  I
 don't have thousands of hours, but so far, I have never encountered ice in
 any plane I have ever flown.  I don't plan to change that with my Legacy.
 
 
 
 Bill B