Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:28:33 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 601615 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:10:22 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id q.8c.1df1b475 (3972) for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:10:01 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <8c.1df1b475.2f13e6b9@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:10:01 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Guys, again... X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1105366201" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5000 -------------------------------1105366201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:15:32 A.M. Central Standard Time, wdodson@bak.rr.com writes: Design is king when flying heavy, tho excess horsepower is nice. IVP's aren't designed for it. Drooping ailerons sould be a great compliment to the very effective slotted Fowler flaps on the IVP and help out with SAFETY for these overweight Lancairs. Walter, Yes, design is king. We must never forget that we fly "experimental high performance" airplanes. Stress on the "high performance". They were meant to be sport cars (a 500 SL has more room in the back than a IVP), not station wagons (there are plenty of those available from the STC aircraft market). They weren't designed to the same low speed idiot proof standards as that used for most other aircraft. And, we know they operate quite nicely at high speeds. Some of us have flown over the recommended gross weight under carefully thought out conditions. If that resulted in a rearward CG, it wasn't fun. Fixing the wing for more weight isn't enough if the tail is too small. The AK 10% over GWT rule is interesting. For a 320, the original GWT of 1680 would make that 1848. I set my GWT at 1800 (I think that was a later Lancair recommendation also) and believe me, there is not another 10% available above that for safe flight unless everybody's shoes are very heavy. If IVP's GWT was originally 3200, setting it at 3500 is not out of the realm of reason except that another 10%, to 3850, seems to be way beyond the design limitations. Pretty much, it is best to "stay between the lines." Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) Fair and Balanced Opinions at No Charge! There is an oxymoron in that, somewhere... -------------------------------1105366201 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:15:32 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 wdodson@bak.rr.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Design=20 is king when flying heavy, tho excess horsepower is nice. IVP's=20
aren't designed for it. Drooping ailerons sould be a great=20 compliment to
the very effective slotted Fowler flaps on the IVP and h= elp=20 out with SAFETY
for these overweight Lancairs.
=

Walter,

Yes, design is king.

We must never forget that we fly "experimental high performance"=20 airplanes. Stress on the "high performance". They were meant to=20= be=20 sport cars (a 500 SL has more room in the back than a IVP), not station wago= ns=20 (there are plenty of those available from the STC aircraft market). Th= ey=20 weren't designed to the same low speed idiot proof standards as that us= ed=20 for most other aircraft. And, we know they operate quite nicely at hig= h=20 speeds.

Some of us have flown over the recommended gross weight under carefully= =20 thought out conditions. If that resulted in a rearward CG, it wasn't=20 fun. Fixing the wing for more weight isn't enough if the tail is=20= too=20 small.

The AK 10% over GWT rule is interesting. For a 320, the original=20= GWT=20 of 1680 would make that 1848. I set my GWT at 1800 (I think=20= that=20 was a later Lancair recommendation also) and believe me, there is not anothe= r=20 10% available above that for safe flight unless everybody's shoes are v= ery=20 heavy. If IVP's GWT was originally 3200, setting it at 3500 is not out of th= e=20 realm of reason except that another 10%, to 3850, seems to be way beyond the= =20 design limitations.

Pretty much, it is best to "stay between the lines."=20

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR)

Fair and Balanc= ed=20 Opinions at No Charge!
There is an oxymoron in that,=20 somewhere...

-------------------------------1105366201--