X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:49:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from neutron.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTPS id 3881748 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:55:03 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.180; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from pps.filterd (neutron [127.0.0.1]) by neutron.sasknet.sk.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n9AGrLlG010985 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:29 -0600 Received: from bgmpomr2.sasknet.sk.ca (bgmpOMR2.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.72.23]) by neutron.sasknet.sk.ca with ESMTP id havmp3sph-1 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:29 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr2.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0KRB00G455MTSY20@bgmpomr2.sasknet.sk.ca> for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.25] (Forwarded-For: [207.47.194.112]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:54:29 -0500 X-Original-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:54:29 -0500 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA RESCINDS INFO LETTER X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: <86fe0ae05be8.4ad075f5@sasktel.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2009-10-10_01:2009-09-29,2009-10-10,2009-10-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-0910100106

I don't think this question will ever get fully resolved. It's certianly not the first time it's been discussed here. I'm firmly in the 'know how your airplane stalls' camp, primarily because I feel it's my due diligence to know how my airplane preforms in that region of flight. The reality is, we can all go there. Every airplane can only go so fast.. but it can always [try to] go slower. Unless your an aerobatics pilot, we all know that not many good things happen when we stall the airplane and it's not a 'normal' area of the flight envelope. However, there 'could' be that time, sometime down the road where we'll need to know due to some emergency/event and the knowledge could save one's life.

Lynn, it's safe to say that those aircraft you listed had been 'well tested' and their approach to stalls well documented. Did you ever do stalls or approach to stalls in any? Did you have Betty telling you to "push"? The difference between the airframes you listed and a Lancair is significant. A fighter aircraft is not one that flys in the 'normal' catagory, it's not something you take your wife/kids out for a ride in and it's designed to be agile and manuverable and these all lead to an airplane that can perform poorly in slow speed and at that edge of the envelope.You were hired to fly them due to your skill, age and abilites.

ANYONE can buy a lancair and if they have more money than skill it would be prudent for them to aquire the skills required to fly their airplane safely. Every lancair flys differently to 'some degree' I'd hazard a guess that there are some out there that have nasty habit's in slow flight, yet no-one knows for sure because they are too scared to go find out.

I don't think anyone is 'name calling' per-say, I think it's more a vested interest to see everyone fly safely and it does have an impact on ones pocket book when it comes to get insurance. Up here in Canada, if your not willing to fly a plane in unusual attitudes [spins] you'll not get your 'ticket' to fly. I'm not saying this needs apply to Lancairs [knowing their spin charactoristics] but to spin, one needs to stall.. so if we know how the a/c behaves in a stall [or the approach to one] then we should be able to avoid the 'spin' stage.

Curious, are you telling us that your flying low, fast and turning left.. yet you don't know how or when that beauty is going to let go while pulling G's?

No expert, just one mans opinion

J. Johnson

320- 55% [and holding... for now...]

> There is a big difference between being "afraid to stall your
> airplane" and
> knowing that not too many good things will happen to you or your
> airplane in
> that flight regime.
>
>
>
> Following your logic, I should never have flown the T-38, F-100, F-
> 4 or
> F-105, because intentional spins were prohibited. I did my best to
> not spin
> any of those aircraft and as a result I never had to follow the other
> warning associated with this maneuver; eject no lower than 10,000'
> AGL.Though I did step over the side of a couple for other reasons.
>
>
>
> Be my guest and stall your Lancair to your heart's content, but it
> would be
> nice if you would refrain from calling names just because others
> prefer to
> avoid that part of the flight envelope.
>
>
>
> Lynn Farnsworth
>
> Super Legacy #235
>
> TSIO-550 Powered
>
> Race #44
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> Taylor, David
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:10 PM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: FAA RESCINDS INFO LETTER
>
>
>
> What Bill B said below. Amen a hundred times.
>
>
>
> If you're afraid to stall your airplane you should not be flying
> it. (Or
> the Legacy anyway. The Legacy stalls just fine - predictable and
> controllable.)
>
>
>
> Dave T
>
> Lancair Legacy RG
>
>
>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill
> Bradburry
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 16:26
> 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
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> marv@lancair.net
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:09 AM
> To: lml
> Subject: [LML] Re: FAA RESCINDS INFO LETTER
>
> Posted for "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@Glasair.org>:
>
> Does this mean the information is wrong or someone applied political
> pressure?
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
> [It probably just means that the common sense applied by our
> anonymous LOBO
> person must have sunken in... hardly any accidents have been
> caused by
> airframe failures... in other words, it's not the airplane's
> fault, it's a
> training and piloting issue. Remember many years ago when they
> called the
> Bonanza the "doctor killer"? Same principal... lack of training,
> poorjudgment, just because you're good at one thing doesn't
> automatically make
> you good at (and prepared for the challenges of) everything else.
> <Marv>]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> Tom McNerney
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:08 PM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] FAA RESCINDS INFO LETTER
>
> See link:
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-10-08_lancair.asp
>
> Tom
>
> --
> For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>
>
> --
>
> For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html