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