X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:38:01 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc2-s3.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.139] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2645219 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:52:13 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.139; envelope-from=tbrandetc@hotmail.com Received: from BAY135-W40 ([65.55.140.75]) by bay0-omc2-s3.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:51:34 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: tbrandetc@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6a944b02-154a-446b-b3c9-e5cef9e8e157_" X-Originating-IP: [71.92.137.25] From: T Brand X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail?? X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:51:35 -0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2008 22:51:34.0996 (UTC) FILETIME=[03795940:01C85700] --_6a944b02-154a-446b-b3c9-e5cef9e8e157_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I appreciate the replies to the big vs original horizontal stabilizers. E= xpect that I will work through the building process and mount the large ver= sion. =20 Tom Brand To: lml@lancaironline.netDate: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:30:15 -0500From: domcrai= n@tpg.com.auSubject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail?? The recent comments regarding the Small v. Big tail draw my attention to th= e fact that on a recent visit to the wide brown land up over, LML lister An= gier was privileged to see two examples of large tail Lancair's. One belong= ing to me (didn=92t build it), and the other being the example quoted in th= e attached letter to Rob Wolf=92s post =93A look at Lancair 360 Handling Qu= alities=94. Now owned by another lister here. The only Lancair=92s I have handled in the air were all large tail versions= , with one exception, that being N5ZQ in the States. Bill will undoubtedly = recall that I was =96 let=92s say =93ropey=94 =96 to say the least. While I= am prepared to accept that is my lack of skill, and I reflect long and har= d on this after each flight I have made over forty odd years, I do come to = the conclusion that there is a distinct improvement in stability and handli= ng of the Lancair with the large tail. Over the past few months =96almost a year actually, there has been a slow b= ut steady approach to the improvement of training of, and understanding by,= Lancair pilots here up over, brought on by the historical global accident = rate, and highlighted by two fatals within six days in Australia, 20 months= ago. A Lancair Pilot Group has been established, and having been asked to be inv= olved, I have sought advice from various sources regarding their views on t= he matter of Lancair training and opinions on handling. In this process I have had email discussions with the test pilot who undert= ook some of the test flying on the Lancair which resulted in the recommenda= tion to enlarge the tail. =20 I quote from the email I received from one him on 20 September 2007: =20 =93=85=85.When the first example (a 320 I think?) was evaluated, it was fou= nd to have 2 major design problems/defects. First the aft CG condition was= unrealistic (in excess of 30% MAC), and the horizontal stabiliser was too = small. Combined these resulted in neutral or negative stick free longitudi= nal stability. Also manoeuvre stability (stick force per G) was at best me= asured in ounces per G. Standard comment from then owners was"I like it li= ke that because it has fighter like feel." These pilots had obviously neve= r flown a fighter, at least not one built since about 1920, which all have = positive long stab, and minimum stick forces of about 7 lb/G. =20 =20 CASA insisted (under the good/bad old 101.28 rule) that stability be improv= ed. I think the aft CG limit was moved forward (not sure how much) and big= ger tails were required. The bigger tails (2 local REG 35 solutions by Gra= ham Swannel and Dave Simons) produced adequate solutions, but the practical= ities of keeping CG forward remained. The Lancair 235/230/360 models also = have negative lateral sideslip stability; with a low wing and no dihedral t= he predominant rolling force in a sideslip is due to the rudder. This char= acteristic is rarely seen, and is disturbing when deliberately sideslipping= during cross wind approaches. For IFR approval, CASA insisted this be fix= ed and a rudder/aileron interconnect was developed (I think by Dave Simons)= which produced apparent lateral sideslip stability and hence predictable h= andling qualities in sideslip. =20 The kit manufacturer was not amused by these criticisms of his creation and= refused to have anything to do with them. However, shortly after CASA cam= e the heavy, Aviation Consumer magazine in the US conducted some flight tes= ts on the Lancair, and another fast plastic of similar size and shape, and = concluded their findings with some not very flattering remarks along the li= nes of ......... how dare you foist on the unsuspecting public expensive ma= chines with such bad design features........ - I was very pleased to hear t= his as it vindicated the position taken by CASA and other professional Test= Pilots who had flown the machines. =20 =20 Very quickly the manufacturer of kit X came out with a bigger tail (about 5= 0% bigger!), and some advice on how to fix the CG problem. Lancair eventua= lly did the same=85=85=94 =20 CASA is the current name for the old CAA here up over. Under a Labour Gover= nment, the name changes every few weeks to create jobs. Although the quote = uses the current term CASA, at the time of testing the authority was called= CAA. =20 Hopefully this will help, if not cause the usual broad-ranging hackles rais= ing. =20 Cheers, Dom Crain VH-CZJ Melbourne Not Florida =20 =20 _________________________________________________________________ Watch =93Cause Effect,=94 a show about real people making a real difference= . http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=3Dtext_watchcause= --_6a944b02-154a-446b-b3c9-e5cef9e8e157_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I appreciate the replies to the big  vs original horizontal stabilizer= s.  Expect that I will work through the building process and mount the= large version.


 
Tom Brand

<= BR>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:30:15 -0500
From:= domcrain@tpg.com.au
Subject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail??
=

The recent comm= ents regarding the Small v. Big tail draw my attention to the fact that on = a recent visit to the wide brown land up over, LML lister Angier was privil= eged to see two examples of large tail Lan<= SPAN lang=3DEN-AU style=3D"COLOR: blue">cair's. One belonging to me (didn=92= t build it), and the other being the example quoted in the attached letter = to Rob Wolf=92s post =93A look at Lancair 360 Handling Qualities=94. Now owned= by another lister here.

The only Lancair<= /SPAN>= =92s I have handled in the air were all large tail versions, with one excep= tion, that being N5ZQ in the States. Bill will undoubtedly recall that I wa= s =96 let=92s say =93ropey=94 =96 to say the least. While I am prepared to = accept that is my lack of skill, and I reflect long and hard on this after = each flight I have made over forty odd years, I do come to the conclusion t= hat there is a distinct improvement in stability and handling of the Lancair<= /SPAN> w= ith the large tail.

Over the past f= ew months =96almost a year actually, there has been a slow but steady appro= ach to the improvement of training of, and understanding by, = Lancair pilots he= re up over, brought on by the historical global accident rate, and highligh= ted by two fatals within six days in Australia, 20 months ago.

A Lancair<= /FONT> Pilot Gr= oup has been established, and having been asked to be involved, I have soug= ht advice from various sources regarding their views on the matter of Lancair= = training and opinions on handling.

In this process= I have had email discussions with the test pilot who undertook some of the= test flying on the Lancair which resulted in the recommendation to enlarge th= e tail.

 

I quote from th= e email I received from one him on 20 September 2007:

 

=93=85=85.= When the first example (a 320 I think?) was evaluated, it was found to have= 2 major design problems/defects.  First the aft CG condition was unre= alistic (in excess of 30% MAC), and the horizontal stabiliser was too small= .  Combined these resulted in neutral or negative stick free longitudi= nal stability.  Also manoeuvre stability (stick force per G) was at be= st measured in ounces per G.  Standard comment from then owners was"I = like it like that because it has fighter like feel."  These pilots had= obviously never flown a fighter, at least not one built since about 1920, = which all have positive long stab, and minimum stick forces of about 7 lb/G= . 

 

CASA insis= ted (under the good/bad old 101.28 rule) that stability be improved.  = I think the aft CG limit was moved forward (not sure how much) and bigger t= ails were required.  The bigger tails (2 local REG 35 solutions by Gra= ham Swannel and Dave Simons) produced adequate solutions, but the practical= ities of keeping CG forward remained.  The Lancair 235/230/360 models also have negative lateral sideslip stability; w= ith a low wing and no dihedral the predominant rolling force in a side= slip is due to the rudder.  This characteristic is rarely seen, and is= disturbing when deliberately sideslipping during cross wind approaches.&nb= sp; For IFR approval, CASA insisted this be fixed and a rudder/aileron= interconnect was developed (I think by Dave Simons) which produced apparen= t lateral sideslip stability and hence predictable handling qualities in si= deslip.

 

The kit ma= nufacturer was not amused by these criticisms of his creation and refused t= o have anything to do with them.  However, shortly after CASA came the= heavy, Aviation Consumer magazine in the US conducted some flight tests on= the Lan<= /FONT>cair, and another fast plastic of simila= r size and shape, and concluded their findings with some not very flatterin= g remarks along the lines of ......... how dare you foist on the unsuspecti= ng public expensive machines with such bad design features........ - I was = very pleased to hear this as it vindicated the position taken by CASA and o= ther professional Test Pilots who had flown the machines. 

 

Very quick= ly the manufacturer of kit X came out with a bigger tail (about 50% bigger!= ), and some advice on how to fix the CG problem.  Lancair eventually did the same=85=85=94

 

CASA is the cur= rent name for the old CAA here up over. Under a Labour Government, the name= changes every few weeks to create jobs. Although the quote uses the curren= t term CASA, at the time of testing the authority was called CAA.

 

Hopefully this = will help, if not cause the usual broad-ranging hackles raising.

 

Cheers,<= /FONT>

Dom Crain

VH-CZJ

Melbourne

Not Florida

 

 


Watch =93Cause Effect,=94 a show about real people making a = real difference. Learn more = --_6a944b02-154a-446b-b3c9-e5cef9e8e157_--