X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:11:13 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.59.212] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6312475 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:52:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.59.212; envelope-from=jmorgan1023@comcast.net Received: from omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id lPfc1l0031HzFnQ5EPrnZy; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:51:47 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.115] ([24.11.157.196]) by omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id lPrn1l0044EXR5U3aPrnbP; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:51:47 +0000 From: Jack Morgan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4F7B29C4-F4A3-444F-873C-17AF5107DB47" Subject: LML stall technique X-Original-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 07:51:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) --Apple-Mail=_4F7B29C4-F4A3-444F-873C-17AF5107DB47 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi Peter, I appreciate the dialog on this critical and controversial subject. The point I am trying to make is that in all emergencies, including the = ones you note below, allowing the airspeed to decay into the high sink = part of the IV envelope will result in a fatal crash unless you have = enough altitude to get the nose down and the speed back up. Whatever the = stall speed you end up with you will have such a high sink rate near = that speed that ground contact, even if still wings level, is likely = fatal to those in the airplane. If you review the IV fatal accidents you will find that almost all = occurred with either complete loss of control or high sink rates while = in control. If you have 100 knots or so you can arrest the descent rate = before ground contact, improving survivability. The high sink in the IV is very different than production GA aircraft = due to the high wing loading. GA aircraft really don't have a = significant high sink area in their envelope so us GA types spend a lot = of time worrying about stall characteristics. This sink characteristic = is common in airliners, etc. and they don't spend any time discussing = stall characteristics since it is not an allowable operating part of the = envelope and much training drills it into the pilots to not go there. = Recall the airbus that went into the ocean with full power and full aft = stick to appreciate this high sink region. I think us IV drivers will be safer if we become convinced that below = 100 knots or so is not allowed and that the thinking that there is some = safety margin to be gained by operating the airplane below that speed in = emergencies is taken off the table. Jack Morgan On Jun 7, 2013, at 6:02 AM, Lancair Mailing List wrote: > From: PETER WILLIAMS > Subject: RE: [LML] Stall technique > Date: June 6, 2013 4:44:16 PM EDT > To: lml@lancaironline.net >=20 >=20 > JACK >=20 > My hope is to never need the reduce stall speed or the safe limits = that an AOA shows.=20 > but=20 > say at 300 altitude with a sudden engine stoppage > when i need it. i will really need it > or > at 90 knots in landing configuration. a child runs onto the runway > when i need it. i will really need it >=20 > it is a little like looking in the cowling for a birds nest; i = went 19 years before i saw one that could have started a fire. > were those years of looking wasted? > no > that day i needed it. i really needed it >=20 > to me it is not for the normal situation, it for the unexpected. for = the unwanted situation. for the emergency i did not ask for. > (for the moment when my ability to maintain 100 knots is impaired) >=20 > peter > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_4F7B29C4-F4A3-444F-873C-17AF5107DB47 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi = Peter,

I appreciate the dialog on this critical and = controversial subject.

The point I am trying to = make is that in all emergencies, including the ones you note below, = allowing the airspeed to decay into the high sink part of the IV = envelope will result in a fatal crash unless you have enough altitude to = get the nose down and the speed back up. Whatever the stall speed you = end up with you will have such a high sink rate near that speed that = ground contact, even if still wings level, is likely fatal to those in = the airplane.

If you review the IV fatal = accidents you will find that almost all occurred with either complete = loss of control or high sink rates while in control. If you have 100 = knots or so you can arrest the descent rate before ground contact, = improving survivability.

The high sink in the = IV is very different than production GA aircraft due to the high wing = loading. GA aircraft really don't have a significant high sink area in = their envelope so us GA types spend a lot of time worrying about stall = characteristics. This sink characteristic is common in airliners, etc. = and they don't spend any time discussing stall characteristics since it = is not an allowable operating part of the envelope and much training = drills it into the pilots to not go there. Recall the airbus that went = into the ocean with full power and full aft stick to appreciate this = high sink region.

I think us IV drivers will be = safer if we become convinced that below 100 knots or so is not allowed = and that the thinking that there is some safety margin to be gained by = operating the airplane below that speed in emergencies is taken off the = table.

Jack = Morgan

On Jun 7, 2013, at 6:02 AM, = Lancair Mailing List wrote:

From: PETER WILLIAMS = <Subject: RE: [LML] Stall = technique

= --Apple-Mail=_4F7B29C4-F4A3-444F-873C-17AF5107DB47--