Apparently FOX got this off the AP and it's all wrong. Stall speed had nothing to do with the accident. The plane lost the propeller and because of this there was oil covering his windshield (the constant speed prop uses oil to change the pitch of the prop). He landed safely on the beach and he and his wife walked away. Unfortunately, he hit the man walking on the beach (who he couldn't see) and killed him. Another fine story of misinformation supplied by our wonderful unbiased media.

 

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