X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:59:04 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5027508 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:02:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.124; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=IOX921YOuPvYFce5aSLzPVIStpiCPR9M8R83dyHW74w= c=1 sm=0 a=jFoEUCS45NAA:10 a=ttCsPuSJ-FAA:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=RnOZ9p3EAAAA:8 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=uhPMnebkAAAA:8 a=rTjvlri0AAAA:8 a=acjPJU2zAAAA:8 a=MwWsI94oAAAA:8 a=mNoqcP6fNwsBD2HET6wA:9 a=MZ_DvxdfYAguLpDYjLsA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=M161-GTZjJIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=Hs9J3SXIuHcA:10 a=Dr9Wx-Q63l4A:10 a=-Zujgq040EwA:10 a=p45ZmE7HcyjoegxX:21 a=uFTSIn9DMw9ZaYQQ:21 a=Auk80feYdawMm4HdQtkA:9 a=0eT7NWgVI29_mrWNuyYA:7 a=nHtmOKE5YEMA:10 a=AqZ1frAUbxMA:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:4563] helo=lobo) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 30/EA-09596-762B00E4; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:01:59 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <00a101cc3024$26ec2d70$6401a8c0@lobo> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: References: Subject: Re: [LML] Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L... X-Original-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:01:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01CC3002.9FAD3BE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CC3002.9FAD3BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have to agree 100%.=20 I prefer to know what happens at the edges of the envelope. The stall characteristics may well be tamed by the larger tail. Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: H & J Johnson=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex = Generators for L... Agreed, approach to stall is not the same as an all out stall. = However, if its a required proceedure on an aircraft that is concidered = a 'slick' [certified] airframe then shouldn't it be done on any = aircraft? The answer in my mind is, yes. Then comes the question of.. = what is the stall?[what speed, in what configuration, at what weight, = with what identifiable indicators? etc] In the case of the certified a/c = I fly, there is an aural Warning [first indicator for us] at that point = it's max power, maintain pitch and fly out of the stall. Alot of people = in this conversation are saying.. " I don't know at what speed it stalls = at" or " I'm not going to try and find out" etc. So in effect, they = cannot perform this training proceedure [approach to stall] to a similar = standard since it's never been tested on their airframe, sure you can = slow to 110-115knts and recover but what does that 'learn' you? Zilch.. = nadda.. nothing.. The approach to stall is a 'reactionary' training = proceedure required observance of a changing flight condition and = 'action' to initial a recovery, slowing down and then speeding up is not = the same proceedure. As I see it, the reality of experimental Aviation is that it is = 'Experimental' in nature. IF you start building a plane w/ the intent of = flying it yourself, you KNOW with a certainty that at some point either = you or someone you designate, is going to become a test pilot. If the = certified world was to take the same approach as is going on here in = regards to stalling [avoidance of the required testing] don't you think = the FAA would decline to certify the airframe? Yet it seems to be the = accepted norm for a large part of the Lancair community to do this very = thing while certifying their aircraft [yes flight testing is infact a = step in the certification process, the airframe is signed off after the = flight testing is complete]. The fact that 'they are killers at slow = speed, and thats ok.' {Just don't fly slow and it won't be a problem, = [until at some point it is and you can't avoid it]} is tantamount to = 'kicking the can down the road'. Fly fast is all fine and dandy until = you the day you can't or inadvertantly don't and aren't able to = recognise the signs of impending doom. Because you've never tested in = that region of the envelope, now your a test pilot w/ the wife and kids = onboard.=20 http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf is = good reading. Infact, as listed there, hrs 10-20 have a large part = dedicated to stalls and stability tests. WE as the original test pilots are responsible to certify that the = aircraft is safe to fly in all corners of the envelope [to define the = envelope]. This is why they mandate 25 or 40 hrs of TEST FLYING in a = restricted area! Most see this as just a temporary limitation to hold = them back from enjoying the new plane. Something they just have to 'fly = off' so they can start going places w/ their new 'ride'. The fact that = the general concensus is to take a red marker and highlight the region = of the envelope where lost of lift occurs as 'danger do not enter' is = kinda ridiculous [in my opinion]. There are people [on list I believe] = who have put efforts into taming the stall on their aircraft and have = done so successfully. Someone mentioned having plans for stalls strips = which produce buffet upon approach to stall. Others have tested their = airframes and made wing incidence or rigging adjustments and now are not = uncomfortable w/ slower flight speeds. It's n ot that they fly slow all = the time but they KNOW where the limitations are and how the airframe = behaves on approach to stall. Honestly, if these airframes are that dangerous in the slow speed = region of the envelope, I'd think there would be a concerted effort to = address it [maybe that was what the FAA was getting at there a couple = years back.. or whom-ever it was that had started to push for some form = of a limitaion against Lancairs]. Heck, someone should put together a = plan for a temporary spin chute attachment used for flight testing and = send it around like was done w/ the rudder cable lubricator. Lets be = honest w/ ourselves and realize that 'yes, as factory new [just built] = airframes they are a bit of a handful' and address the issue such that = they become 'less of a handful after flight testing and airframe = adjustments'. I've not looked for an answer to this but I'm curious to know. How = many crash's or deaths have been marked as 'due to loss of control while = flight testing' vs ' simply loss of control'? I'm thinking the answer = is the latter number is the larger of the two. Doesn't that tell us = something? Or were they all just 'poor pilots', unlike 'me', cause that = will never happen to 'me' ? [I'm speaking figuratively here, I know I'm = not Scott Crossfield, hence why I train as much as I do ] I can't think = 'poor skills' is the only answer. Poor planning and decision making in = regards to testing of [and knowing] the airframe limits? Maybe. Poor = pilotages skills..? It just doesn't seem likely. Bottom line, in my opinion, avoidance of a problem is not a solution. Ok, I see PETA's at the door.. I'll stop beating this dead horse = now... Jarrett Johnson=20 235/320 55% [and holding] ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 Date: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:00 am=20 Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex = Generators for L...=20 > Approach to stall is not Stall.=20 >=20 >=20 > In a message dated 6/19/2011 6:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 > hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes:=20 >=20 > Grayhawk, I've got my own opinion of topic but it's been beat=20 > enough that I=20 > heard PETA is looking into this 'dead horse'.. I will correct=20 > one thing =20 > however, in the high performance world you still have to=20 > demonstrate=20 > approach to stall and recovery. I'm flying a Corporate Jet A=20 > burner and have done =20 > approach to stalls in the Sim AND the actualy a/c. Infact I have=20 > to do it=20 > every 6months.=20 > Fwiw=20 >=20 > Jarrett Johnson=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- =20 > From: Sky2high@aol.com =20 > Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:30 am =20 > Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex=20 > Generators for Lanca... =20 > > Wolfgang,=20 > >=20 > > It is not disturbing. Lancairs demand respect. High=20 > performance =20 > > sometimes requires a tradeoff in low speed controlability. =20 > Every=20 > > amateur built has=20 > > different flight characteristics (actually spam cans may differ=20 >=20 > > somewhat=20 > > also). High performance jets don't require stall training =20 > > either. =20 > >=20 > > Stalls should be avoided because slick airplanes speed response=20 > is=20 > > very =20 > > quick. These airplanes generally don't stall in cruise - only=20 > in=20 > > the slow=20 > > flight regime around the stinking airport. Why drag these in=20 > > during approach =20 > > and close to stall when turbulence, microbursts or sudden wind =20 > > shifts=20 > > (shear) leave you in the lurch. If it goes wrong, it goes =20 > wrong=20 > > very fast. It=20 > > is the uninformed pilot that can lose control because of slow=20 > > speed =20 > > maneuvering that has led the way to distressing accident stats.=20 >=20 > >=20 > > It is always interesting to look at the speed range of standard=20 >=20 > > aircraft. =20 > > Most span cans have a minimal range. Lancairs and their ilk=20 > have=20 > > a rather=20 > > broad range (max cruise to landing) and, as such, require =20 > > compromises. I=20 > > like to fly at max speeds and am willing to respect the=20 > > limitations at=20 > > lower speeds. This ain't no Cub (or LSA).=20 > >=20 > > Grayhawk =20 > >=20 > > In a message dated 6/18/2011 7:34:40 P.M. Central Daylight=20 > Time, =20 > > Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:=20 > >=20 > > Is it just me or does anyone else find it just a bit disturbing=20 > > that the =20 > > Lancairs have such "fearsome" stall characteristics ?=20 > >=20 > > Wolfgang=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > From: _Sky2high@aol.com_ (Sky2high@aol.com) =20 > > To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (lml@lancaironline.net) =20 > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:46 PM=20 > > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex=20 > > Generators for=20 > > Lancair 4p =20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Bruce,=20 > >=20 > > Au contraire, mon ami......=20 > >=20 > > The Advanced Systems AOA does not require stalling the=20 > aircraft. =20 > > Read for=20 > > theory and calibration: =20 > > _http://www.advanced-flight-=20 > > systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf_=20 > > (http://www.advanced-flight-=20 > > systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf)=20 > >=20 > > Grayhawk=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > In a message dated 6/17/2011 12:07:47 P.M. Central Daylight=20 > Time,=20 > > _BGray@glasair.org_ (BGray@glasair.org) writes:=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Every single AOA I know of requires you to stall the aircraft=20 > to=20 > > calibrate=20 > > the AOA. =20 > >=20 > > Bruce=20 > > WWW.Glasair.org =20 > > -----Original Message-----=20 > > From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf=20 > Of=20 > > Bob=20 > > Rickard=20 > > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:24 PM=20 > > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > > Subject: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators=20 > > for Lancair=20 > > 4p=20 > >=20 > > One of the main reasons all of us IV-P owners have a hell of a=20 > > time=20 > > getting insurance for our airplanes is because too many guys=20 > > "explored" the stall=20 > > characteristics of their airplane (and for many it was their=20 > last=20 > > flight).=20 > > I fly another airplane that can fly comfortably at 60 degrees=20 > > AOA, and =20 > > have a good bit of time as an operational test pilot, but I will=20 >=20 > > never stall=20 > > my IV-P intentionally. Or even get close. Like Colyn and =20 > John,=20 > > I'm 120 on=20 > > downwind, 110 at the base turn and 100 on final until the =20 > runway=20 > > is =20 > > assured. Unless we fly the pattern at 8000 feet AGL, a stall=20 > > will probably be=20 > > fatal for any of us. Please don't be the next one to prove=20 > this=20 > > point !=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Bob Rickard=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > --=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > For archives and unsub=20 > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=20 > ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CC3002.9FAD3BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have to agree 100%.
I prefer to know what happens at the = edges of the=20 envelope.
The stall characteristics may well be = tamed by the=20 larger tail.
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 H & J=20 Johnson
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 = 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fw: = [LML] Re:=20 Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...

Agreed, approach to stall is not the same as an all out=20 stall. However, if its a required proceedure on an aircraft that = is=20 concidered a 'slick' [certified] airframe then shouldn't it be = done on=20 any aircraft?  The answer in my mind is, yes. Then comes the = question=20 of.. what is the stall?[what speed, in what configuration, at = what=20 weight, with what identifiable indicators? etc] In the case = of the=20 certified a/c I fly, there is an aural Warning [first indicator = for us]=20 at that point it's max power, maintain pitch and fly out of the stall. = Alot of=20 people in this conversation are saying.. " I don't know at what speed = it=20 stalls at" or " I'm not going to try and find out" etc. So in effect, = they=20 cannot perform this training proceedure [approach to stall] to a = similar=20 standard since it's never been tested on their airframe, sure you can = slow to=20 110-115knts and recover but what does that 'learn' you? Zilch.. = nadda..=20 nothing..  The approach to stall is a 'reactionary' training = proceedure=20 required observance of a changing flight condition and 'action' to = initial=20 a recovery, slowing down and then speeding up is not the same=20 proceedure.

As I see it, the reality of experimental Aviation is that it is=20 'Experimental' in nature. IF you start building a plane w/ the intent = of=20 flying it yourself, you KNOW with a certainty that at some point = either you or=20 someone you designate, is going to become a test pilot.  If the = certified=20 world was to take the same approach as is going on here in = regards=20 to stalling [avoidance of the required testing] don't you = think the=20 FAA would decline to certify the airframe?  Yet it seems to be = the=20 accepted norm for a large part of the Lancair community to do = this very=20 thing while certifying their aircraft [yes flight testing is infact=20 a step in the certification process, the airframe is signed = off=20 after the flight testing is complete]. The fact that 'they are = killers at=20 slow speed, and thats ok.' {Just = don't=20 fly slow and it won't be a problem, [until at some point it is and you = can't=20 avoid it]} is tantamount to 'kicking the can down the road'. Fly = fast is=20 all fine and dandy until you the day you can't or inadvertantly don't = and=20 aren't able to recognise the signs of impending doom. Because you've = never=20 tested in that region of the envelope, now your a test pilot w/ the = wife and=20 kids onboard. 

 h= ttp://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf is= =20 good reading. Infact, as listed there, hrs 10-20 have a large = part=20 dedicated to stalls and stability tests.

WE as the original test pilots are = responsible to=20 certify that the aircraft is safe to fly in all corners of the = envelope [to=20 define the envelope].  This is why they mandate 25 or 40 hrs of = TEST=20 FLYING in a restricted area! Most see this as just a temporary = limitation to=20 hold them back from enjoying the new plane. Something they just = have to=20 'fly off' so they can start going places w/ their new 'ride'. The fact = that=20 the general concensus is to take a red marker and highlight the region = of the=20 envelope where lost of lift occurs as 'danger do not enter' is kinda=20 ridiculous [in my opinion]. There are people [on list I believe] who = have put=20 efforts into taming the stall on their aircraft and have done so=20 successfully. Someone mentioned having plans for stalls strips which = produce=20 buffet upon approach to stall. Others have tested their airframes and = made=20 wing incidence or rigging adjustments and now are not = uncomfortable=20 w/ slower flight speeds.  It's n ot that they fly slow all the = time but=20 they KNOW where the limitations are and how the airframe behaves on = approach=20 to stall.

Honestly, if these airframes are that dangerous in the slow speed = region of=20 the envelope, I'd think there would be a concerted effort to address = it [maybe=20 that was what the FAA was getting at there a couple years back.. or = whom-ever=20 it was that had started to push for some form of a limitaion against=20 Lancairs]. Heck, someone should put together a plan for a temporary = spin chute=20 attachment used for flight testing and send it around like was done w/ = the=20 rudder cable lubricator. Lets be honest w/ ourselves and realize that = 'yes, as=20 factory new [just built] airframes they are a bit of a handful' and = address=20 the issue such that they become 'less of a handful after flight = testing and=20 airframe adjustments'.

I've not looked for an answer to this but I'm curious to = know.  How=20 many crash's or deaths have been marked as 'due to loss of control = while=20 flight testing' vs ' simply loss of control'?  I'm thinking the = answer is=20 the latter number is the larger of the two. Doesn't that tell us = something? Or=20 were they all just 'poor pilots', unlike 'me', cause that will never = happen to=20 'me' ? [I'm speaking figuratively here, I know I'm not Scott = Crossfield, hence=20 why I train as much as I do ] I can't think 'poor skills'=20 is the only answer. Poor planning and decision making in regards = to=20 testing of [and knowing] the airframe limits? Maybe. Poor pilotages=20 skills..?  It just doesn't seem likely.

Bottom line, in my opinion, avoidance of a problem is not a = solution.

Ok, I see PETA's at the door.. I'll stop beating this dead horse=20 now...

Jarrett Johnson

235/320 55% [and holding]

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Sky2high@aol.com=20

Date: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:00 am=20

Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing = Cuffs,=20 Vortex Generators for L...=20

> Approach to stall is not Stall.
>
>
> = In a=20 message dated 6/19/2011 6:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  =
>=20 hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes:
>
> Grayhawk, I've got my = own=20 opinion of topic but it's been beat
> enough that I
> = heard PETA=20 is looking into this 'dead horse'..  I will correct
> one=20 thing 
> however, in the high performance world you still = have to=20
> demonstrate
> approach  to stall and recovery. = I'm flying=20 a Corporate Jet A
> burner and have done 
> = approach to=20 stalls in the Sim AND the actualy a/c.  Infact I have
> to = do  it
> every 6months.
> Fwiw
>
> = Jarrett=20 Johnson
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----  =
>=20 From: Sky2high@aol.com 
> Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:30 = am 
> Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing=20 Cuffs,  Vortex
> Generators for Lanca... 
> = >=20 Wolfgang,
> >
> > It is not disturbing. =20 Lancairs  demand respect.  High
> performance  =
>=20 > sometimes requires a  tradeoff in low speed = controlability. =20
> Every
> > amateur  built  has
> = >=20 different flight characteristics (actually spam cans may  differ =
>=20
> > somewhat
> > also).  High performance = jets =20 don't require stall training 
> > either.  =
> >=20
> >  Stalls should be avoided because slick airplanes = speed=20 response
> is
> >  very 
> > = quick. =20 These airplanes generally don't stall in  cruise - only
> = in=20
> > the  slow
> > flight regime around = the =20 stinking airport.  Why drag these in
> > during =20 approach 
> > and close to stall when turbulence, = microbursts=20 or sudden wind  
> > shifts
> > (shear) = leave=20 you in the lurch.  If it goes  wrong, it goes 
> = wrong=20
> > very fast.  It
> > is the  = uninformed pilot=20 that can lose control  because of slow
> > speed  =
>=20 > maneuvering that has led the way to distressing  accident = stats.=20
>
> >
> > It is always interesting to look = at the=20 speed range of  standard
>
> > aircraft.  =
>=20 > Most span cans have a minimal  range.  Lancairs and = their =20 ilk
> have
> > a rather
> >  broad = range (max=20 cruise to landing) and, as such, require 
> > =20 compromises.  I
> > like to fly at max speeds and am = willing=20 to  respect  the
> > limitations at
> > = lower=20 speeds.  This  ain't no Cub (or LSA).
> >
> = >=20 Grayhawk 
> >
> > In a  message dated = 6/18/2011=20 7:34:40 P.M. Central Daylight
> Time, 
> >  = Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:
> >
> > Is it just me = or does=20 anyone else  find it just a bit disturbing
> > that = the =20
> > Lancairs have  such "fearsome" stall = characteristics ?=20
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > 
> > =
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > = From:  =20 _Sky2high@aol.com_ (Sky2high@aol.com) 
> > To: =20 _lml@lancaironline.net_ (lml@lancaironline.net) 
> > = Sent:=20 Friday,  June 17, 2011 1:46  PM
> > Subject: Re: = [LML] Re:=20 Stall  Speeds,  Wing Cuffs, Vortex
> > Generators = for=20
> > Lancair 4p 
> >
> >
> = >=20 Bruce,
> >
> > Au contraire, mon  ami...... =
>=20 >
> > The Advanced Systems AOA does not require = stalling =20 the
> aircraft.  
> > Read for
> = > theory=20 and calibration: 
> > _http://www.advanced-flight- =
>=20 >  systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf_ =
>=20 >  (http://www.advanced-flight-
> > =20 systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf)
> > =
>=20 >  Grayhawk
> >
> >
> > In a = message=20 dated 6/17/2011 12:07:47 P.M.  Central Daylight
> Time, =
>=20 > _BGray@glasair.org_ (BGray@glasair.org)   writes: =
> >=20
> >
> > Every single AOA  I know of = requires =20 you to stall the aircraft
> to
> > calibrate
> = >=20 the  AOA. 
> >
> > Bruce
> >=20 WWW.Glasair.org 
> >  -----Original  = Message-----=20
> > From:  Lancair Mailing List  = [lml@lancaironline.net]=20 On Behalf
> Of
> > Bob
> > Rickard
> = >  Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:24  PM
> >=20 To:   lml@lancaironline.net
> > Subject: [LML] Re: = Stall=20 Speeds, Wing   Cuffs, Vortex Generators
> > for = Lancair=20
> > 4p
> >
> >  One of the = main =20 reasons all of us IV-P owners have a hell of a
> >  = time=20
> > getting insurance for  our airplanes is because too = many  guys
> > "explored" the stall
> >=20 characteristics of their airplane  (and for many it was their =
>=20 last
> > flight).
> > I fly another  airplane = that=20 can fly comfortably at 60 degrees
> > AOA,  and  =
>=20 > have a good bit of time as an operational test pilot, but I will =
>=20
> > never  stall
> > my IV-P = intentionally.  Or=20 even get  close.  Like Colyn and 
> John, =
> >=20 I'm 120 on
> > downwind,  110 at the base turn and 100 = on final=20 until the 
> runway
> > is 
> >=20 assured.   Unless we fly the pattern at 8000 feet AGL,  = a =20 stall
> > will probably be
> > fatal for any of=20 us.   Please don't be the next  one to prove
> = this=20
> > point !
> > 
> >
> > =
>=20 > Bob Rickard
> >
> >
> >
> = > =20
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =
>=20 >
> >
> > 
> >
> = > =20
> --
>
>
>
> For archives and unsub =
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
> = ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CC3002.9FAD3BE0--