Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com ([66.75.160.17] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2579344 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:38:07 -0400 Received: from IIPMOBILE (cpe-24-161-141-153.hawaii.rr.com [24.161.141.153]) by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h8ENXiQ21256 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "IIP" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: [LML] Re: Gross Weight & Balance of IV-P, Other considerations for Lancairs X-Original-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:40:16 -1000 X-Original-Message-ID: <030b01c37b19$8d7d3de0$6701a8c0@hawaii.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 We had this discussion about a year ago, and I was surprised at the lack of conclusions I was able to draw. We rated our IV-PT at a GW of 4,000#. Our empty CG is about 1" forward of the forward CG "limit". With 4,000# reasonably distributed (4 heavy guys and 150# in the cargo compartment), we were just forward of aft CG. That was our logic for the GW rating, and the DAR thought it was fine. Flying is another matter. We intend to do a lot of flight testing to draw data curves for increasing GW's from 3,000 to 4,000, and with several loading configurations. Lancair's comment was that the IV gear had been landed over 4,000# many times over the years, with no damage. I believe, as others have stated, that the gear load on touchdown is THE critical element. I intend to be able to "grease it on" regularly before I attempt GW's higher than about 3,200#. Someone more qualified than I will do the stall regimes. I'm still confused about the applicability of the static test. So, Lancair put 12,000# on a wing (the story goes that the FAA wouldn't pass it until it broke, so after they had 12,000# on it then they sawed about 1/3 through the spar to get it to break!). Does that tell us much of ANYTHING, really? In the first place, the sand bags on a wing can hardly replicate the distribution of flight forces acting on it. And a wing is rarely static in flight anyway. It tells us nothing about the negative strength of the wing. It doesn't tell us much about the strength of 2 wings properly held together by a spar box. Which brings me back to a question I asked (and got no response to) last time: If one wing is static tested to +12,000#, won't 2 wings support +24,000#? It seems to me the weight of the fuselage is supported by the wing spars equally on both sides. So, if the fuselage is the net weight we are concerned with (as opposed to the weight of the wings, which is largely equalized by lift), then wouldn't we ADD the weight of the wings to 24,000# to get the GW and G limits we should be worrying about in clear air? Hopefully one of you rocket scientists out there can clear this one up! (or can tell me I'm an idiot and to read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" again.) Brian Barbata N104PT, 50+ hours