|
|
J Johnson you appear to be correct. This documents lists the number as an old CAR requirement (quote below)
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/CRD%202008-08.pdf
This document is part of the petition for EASA to adopt a higher stall speed for Pilatus and other SE turboprops as the FAA has permitted. In it, the Pilatus asserts that survivability is not related to stall speed but on the energy absorption capability of the aircraft (also noted by Farnsworth on LML).
In my experience, Socata sought and won a 64 knot stall for the newer TBM on the basis of improved structure, Hi-G seats with demonstrated survivability and a number of other additions to the airframe. They argued that aircraft was safer than the 61 knot version and I think they are correct. Pilatus and others want the same rules in Europe. It is interesting reading on this topic and perhaps it would cause the AP author to pen a slightly different story. Personally, I don't think the recent IV-P accident is any different than the Hudson River ditching not long ago and I wonder why that comparison isn't made as both aircraft landed successfully in low-population areas but one had a horrible and, probably, unavoidable outcome. Perhaps the Lancair pilot was simply making a wise choice of picking a long beach, contrasted water/sand making it easier to see that line through a contaminated windshield. Perhaps choosing that route was deemed safer to all versus proceeding inland where trees, town, roads or other possible landing spots could involve people or the ocean where survivability was an avoidable additional risk.
Quotation:
"The origin of the 61 kts stall speed limitation for single engined aircraft dates
back to the US CAR3 regulations, which specified this limit as 70 mph. It was
just a "common sense" qualitative limit, defining an arbitrary number to reduce
the effects of a crash landing, not based on any rational motivation. This
number has since become gospel and has remained unchanged in the
subsequent FAR23, JAR23 and nos CS23, but its arbitrary nature is still
evident.
This limitation has the unfortunate effect to limit the wing loading in the
neighborhood of 100 kg/m2, and therefore to influence the design of the
aircraft tying it to a wing dimension which might be excessive. It is our belief
that a high speed touring aircraft should go to a wing loading of 130140
kg/m2 to obtain a better speed and a reduced turbulence/gust response, but
this would entail a stalling speed above the regulatory limit. Even worse is the
situation for the forthcoming single personal jets, which should go to an even
higher wing loading to have acceptable performance and gust response
characteristics."
Paul Miller
N357V Legacy
H & J Johnson wrote:
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
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2777 - Release Date: 03/29/10 02:32:00
|
|