Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:00:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com ([204.127.198.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b1) with ESMTP id 1245758 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 May 2002 09:05:50 -0400 Received: from rwcrwbc55 ([204.127.198.44]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020523130550.FSWR11426.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@rwcrwbc55> for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 13:05:50 +0000 Received: from [12.232.249.129] by rwcrwbc55; Thu, 23 May 2002 13:05:50 +0000 From: billcall3@attbi.com X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Incidence angles X-Original-Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:05:50 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 29 2002) X-Original-Message-Id: <20020523130550.FSWR11426.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@rwcrwbc55> I'm building an ES and am at the point of mounting the horizontal stab. I know there has been a discussion re: incidence angles some time ago. A friend, who built and flies a 4, suggests the "relative" incidence between the wing and the HS is more important than the actual measured incidence of the HS or the wings (now fixed). Since I've noticed, in photos, several 4Ps and ESs appear to have the top edge of the elevator visible in level flight, this seems to make sense. Any comments? Bill Call Super ES N39WG