X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:19:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta31.charter.net ([216.33.127.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4180801 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:26:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.82; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from imp11 ([10.20.200.11]) by mta31.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.02.04 201-2219-117-106-20090629) with ESMTP id <20100327142600.NYYY22217.mta31.charter.net@imp11> for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:26:00 -0400 Received: from Farnsworth ([75.139.158.86]) by imp11 with smtp.charter.net id yERz1d0041s7vFP05ERzdP; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:59 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=VZopuACYvF9n610fTzMA:9 a=zjLfecIxJszElAWqHssA:7 a=mjgrO_gCj9gbNNVTwiLvN71_dYYA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=CpwJhVEO2YjnFN2s:21 a=mYVoF3CWd0gAPyvr:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=tlHnlS_AXJI3dYToi3IA:9 a=KGQCInETADIeEDSQ4msA:7 a=P2oYGFk5ttN3S3lE1bbkGaUSP84A:4 a=MD0QfstMO_mH6F2Y:21 a=r5-miSi2RosS-MCF:21 From: "farnsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Fox Article X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:26:12 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <1EDCFA21EAC64F0ABE707785472F5461@Farnsworth> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_094A_01CACD97.ED04C8F0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcrNV4y0Exaej1D8TieOneN/PuFCfgAYHKiA This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_094A_01CACD97.ED04C8F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, The point I was trying to make is; 61 was a number that the feds came up with out of the blue when they set that figure as the minimum Vso for the certification. They could have picked a different number just as easily. That is why I said that the number was not significant. However, the article's case was built around that number as if there was something magic about it. Regards, (: Lynn _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill N5ZQ Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:45 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Fox Article Lynn, Everything you say below is absolutely true. The reason that 61 knots is even marginally significant is that is the max Vso allowed for single engine airplanes certificated under part 23. Since we are not bound by part 23 our Vso can be higher. Hence, this is just one of the many differences one might find between certificated and experimental aircraft. Why FAA jumped on this number that has no particular significance for experimental aircraft, I have no idea. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1.750 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of farnsworth Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:06 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Fox Article My reply to Fox News There is nothing holy, sacred or even significant about a 61 mph stalling speed. Why not pick 41 or 51 or 161 mph? All aircraft that are used by the airlines have a stalling speed greater than 61 mph. Does that make their aircraft unsafe? The fact of the matter is that a given aircraft has many "stalling speeds". The speed varies with weight, number or "G" forces and even altitude and temperature will affect the true airspeed at which an aircraft will stall. It appears to me, that the person who wrote this article did so with an eye toward damning Lancairs and experimental aircraft in general. The Lancair aircraft that landed on the beach did not do so as a result of a stall, but mechanical failure. So why the fascination with stall speeds? Even the widely referenced "Piper Cub" will stall with just enough speed to kill a person! I can address this article from many many years of flying experience that include: Piper Cubs, jet fighters, airliners and Lancair aircraft. I have often stated that the Lancair Legacy, that I fly, is one of the best flying aircraft I have ever flown. Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Powered Race #44 ------=_NextPart_000_094A_01CACD97.ED04C8F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Bill,

 

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

 

Regards,  = (:

 

Lynn

 

 

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

 

Lynn,

 

Everything you say below is = absolutely true. The reason that 61 knots is even marginally significant is that is = the max Vso allowed for single engine airplanes certificated under part 23. = Since we are not bound by part 23 our Vso can be higher. Hence, this is = just one of the many differences one might find between certificated and = experimental aircraft. Why FAA jumped on this number that has no particular = significance for experimental aircraft, I have no idea. =

 

Bill = Harrelson

N5ZQ 320 1.750 = hrs

N6ZQ  IV under = construction

 

 

 -----Original = Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of farnsworth
Sent: Friday, March 26, = 2010 4:06 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Fox = Article

My reply to Fox News

 

There is nothing holy, sacred or even significant = about a 61 mph stalling speed. Why not pick 41 or 51 or 161 mph? All aircraft that = are used by the airlines have a stalling speed greater than 61 mph. Does = that make their aircraft unsafe?

 

The fact of the matter is that a given aircraft has = many "stalling speeds". The speed varies with weight, number or "G" forces and even altitude and temperature will affect the = true airspeed at which an aircraft will stall.

 

It appears to me, that the person who wrote this = article did so with an eye toward damning Lancairs and experimental aircraft in = general. The Lancair aircraft that landed on the beach did not do so as a result = of a stall, but mechanical failure. So why the fascination with stall speeds? = Even the widely referenced "Piper Cub" will stall with just enough = speed to kill a person!

 

I can address this article from many many years of = flying experience that include: Piper Cubs, jet fighters, airliners and Lancair aircraft. I have often stated that the Lancair Legacy, that I fly, is = one of the best flying aircraft I have ever flown.

 

Lynn Farnsworth

Super Legacy #235

TSIO-550 Powered

Race #44

------=_NextPart_000_094A_01CACD97.ED04C8F0--