X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:03:04 -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 4181899 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:34:07 -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 <20100329023332.OADY22217.mta31.charter.net@imp11> for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:33:32 -0400 Received: from Farnsworth ([75.139.158.86]) by imp11 with smtp.charter.net id yqZV1d0061s7vFP05qZY8o; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:33:32 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=TqC4wwfOANVNcQZNErwA:9 a=LzQ2zkNQp6GvOiFvKRcJXb8vQloA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=DFQ292odxlZUjuFA:21 a=AUmmqRT8U0xXCX_a:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=yC3JaDm6P6uG9IZAujoA:9 a=P_8RkCBmkXILXzXb2WEA:7 a=wchHcAPMwiSTAJCpTkohi4_v-3kA:4 From: "farnsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Fox Article X-Original-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:33:46 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <794C3F3F9FE24279B1731CBBCB83F376@Farnsworth> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0B32_01CACEC6.BD05A270" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcrO2pwQIYvy+bJCQC2UlTXnjpwWRwAChbPA This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0B32_01CACEC6.BD05A270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary, "Yes, the 61-knot requirement is all about crash energy" I am well aware that the faster an object is going the more kinetic energy it has. The point I was trying to make is, the FAA choose the number 61 for their benchmark speed. They could as easily chosen some other number. Maybe 60, or 55, or whatever. From your discussion, would not 55 have been better? Then the article could have said, Lancairs stall at a higher speed than 55. The stall speed of the Lancair aircraft had nothing to do with the accident in question. That is why the number 61 was not significant. Your statement about Lancair aircraft having a higher stalling speed than 61 and as a result more kinetic energy injects an element that was not in play in the article I was commenting on. In other words, you changed the subject. The subject aircraft did not stall and so, regardless of what its stalling speed might be, it was not relevant or significant to the discussion. Regards, Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Powered Race #44 Mmo .60 Mach ------=_NextPart_000_0B32_01CACEC6.BD05A270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gary,

“Yes, the 61-knot requirement is all about crash = energy”

I am well aware that the faster an object is going the more = kinetic energy it has. The point I was trying to make is, the FAA choose the = number 61 for their benchmark speed. They could as easily chosen some other = number. Maybe 60, or 55, or whatever. From your discussion, would not 55 have = been better?

Then the article could have said, Lancairs stall at a higher = speed than 55. The stall speed of the Lancair aircraft had nothing to do with the = accident in question. That is why the number 61 was not significant. Your = statement about Lancair aircraft having a higher stalling speed than 61 and as a = result more kinetic energy injects an element that was not in play in the = article I was commenting on. In other words, you changed the = subject.

The subject aircraft did not stall and so, regardless of what = its stalling speed might be, it was not relevant or significant to the = discussion.

Regards,

Lynn Farnsworth

Super Legacy #235

TSIO-550 Powered

Race #44

Mmo .60 Mach

------=_NextPart_000_0B32_01CACEC6.BD05A270--