mstram
19th Jan 2002, 13:12
Over here across the pond (Toronto), I just picked up the Dec 2001 Flyer with John Farley's article "Stall Warnings".
I was reading with great interest, until I got to the disapointing part : "..continued next month" (:.
If anyone has read the Jan issue part 2, I'm very interested in hearing "the ending" <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
If you haven't read the article, John explained the angle of attack vs Cl curve, very nicely (as usual <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ). He then started to talk about how the stalling speed can vary according to the ac weight, flaps, and mach number.
The article ended with the idea that using a 'stall speed' is "of strictly limited value as a means of avoiding an accidental stall".
The blurb for part 2 was "John takes to the sky to put theory into practice".
Mike
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: mstram ]
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: mstram ]</p>
I was reading with great interest, until I got to the disapointing part : "..continued next month" (:.
If anyone has read the Jan issue part 2, I'm very interested in hearing "the ending" <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
If you haven't read the article, John explained the angle of attack vs Cl curve, very nicely (as usual <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ). He then started to talk about how the stalling speed can vary according to the ac weight, flaps, and mach number.
The article ended with the idea that using a 'stall speed' is "of strictly limited value as a means of avoiding an accidental stall".
The blurb for part 2 was "John takes to the sky to put theory into practice".
Mike
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: mstram ]
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: mstram ]</p>