----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
At 11:29 PM 3/3/2005, Ed Burkhead (AKA Bill Bayne) wrote: >The only reason the elevator "had to be restricted" to 9ยบ up was entirely >arbitrary CAA requirement, which directly resulted in the undesirable >increase in landing speed and decreased ability to flare when landing. The >CAA thusly mandated a less safe aircraft for NO defensible reason, While I agree it is somewhat arbitrary, I cannot agree with the "NO defensible reason" part. Given a plane with no chance of recovering from a spin, one must attach special significance to the "incapable of spinning" quality. In the absence of any precedence, someone has to establish the limits. The "CAA weenie" did so, regardless of whether or not any of us agree. I cannot think of a more uncomfortable situation than a fully developed spin, knowing I left my rudder pedals in the other plane. JMO, John Cooper Skyport Services PO Box 249 4996 Delaware Tnpk Rensselaerville, NY 12147 518 797-3064 ========================================================================== ==== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers-tech/
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
