X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:56:12 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from electron.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.179] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTPS id 4182482 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:45:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.179; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from pps.filterd (electron [127.0.0.1]) by electron.sasknet.sk.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id o2TGi2os032463 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0600 Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (bgmpOMR1.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.72.22]) by electron.sasknet.sk.ca with ESMTP id mu003r0u9-1 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0L010094GYI2DT70@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.25] (Forwarded-For: [24.89.93.210]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0600 X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fox Article X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: <2b7febf3de.4bb0848a@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=2010-03-29_10:2010-02-06,2010-03-29,2010-03-29 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=default score=5 spamscore=5 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1003290161

For the record I believe the 'odd' 61knt number comes from 70mph. You have to draw the line someplace, I guess that was the best statistical number, I wouldn't know however.

Fwiw

J Johnson

> 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
> accidentin 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
> stallingspeed 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
>
>
>
>
>
>