X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:14:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <5zq@cox.net> Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3092645 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:05:42 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.46; envelope-from=5zq@cox.net Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080825170506.AKZ2096.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:05:06 -0400 Received: from user63078dbb33 ([72.209.225.157]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 6h551a0053QP3uo02h558z; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:05:05 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <178657ECD910495981F03779DC7AA040@user63078dbb33> From: "Bill Harrelson" <5zq@cox.net> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] some MORE thoughts on accidents X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:05:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C906B3.30A6F310" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C906B3.30A6F310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul, Thanks for sharing your stall experience with us. In the IVs that I have = flown I have found very similar numbers and exactly the same stalling = characteristics that you describe. I think that it is important for = folks to understand that stall strips increase stall WARNING, but don't = necessarily improve stall characteristics.=20 I do have a question on one statement that you made. You say "Remember = your stall margin is increased base to final to touchdown because you = are descending and are therefore at less than 1 G." Perhaps I am = misunderstanding what you are trying to say here but I believe that you = are less than 1 G during the TRANSITION from level to descending flight = but that once established in a constant rate descent (or climb for that = matter) you remain at 1 G and therefore, your stall margin would be the = same. Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1,550 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C906B3.30A6F310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul,
 
Thanks for sharing your stall experience with us. In the IVs that I = have=20 flown I have found very similar numbers and exactly the same stalling=20 characteristics that you describe. I think that it is important for = folks=20 to understand that stall strips increase stall WARNING, but don't = necessarily=20 improve stall characteristics.
 
I do have a question on one statement that you made. You = say "Remember=20 your stall margin is increased base to final to touchdown because you = are=20 descending and are therefore at less than 1 G."  Perhaps I am=20 misunderstanding what you are trying to say here but I believe that you = are less=20 than 1 G during the TRANSITION from level to descending flight but that = once=20 established in a constant rate descent (or climb for that matter) you = remain at=20 1 G and therefore, your stall margin would be the same. =  Is there=20 something I'm missing here? Thanks.
 
Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 1,550 hrs
N6ZQ  IV under construction
 
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C906B3.30A6F310--