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-s18.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.154] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2645616 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:38:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.154; envelope-from=n320sierra@msn.com Received: from BAY113-W9 ([65.54.168.109]) by bay0-omc2-s18.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:37:42 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: n320sierra@msn.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_cdcbd312-6a65-4671-8c57-a822ffa6ab01_" X-Originating-IP: [69.226.252.59] From: Bob sinclair X-Original-To: Subject: L-320/360, Large vs small horizontal tail X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:37:42 -0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2008 05:37:42.0535 (UTC) FILETIME=[BFA8B970:01C85738] --_cdcbd312-6a65-4671-8c57-a822ffa6ab01_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Group, To weigh in on behalf of the small tail ........ =20 Maybe I'm missing something but my machine has the small tail and Dick Reic= hels' geared elevator=20 trim mechanism, a little over 1,100 lbs empty weight, the original shorter = engine mount and it seems to handle in a totally predictable way in every flight regime that I've exp= erienced in close to 300 hours flight time. The approach-to-landing behavior is rock solid and well-behaved (even in tu= rbulent air) with no appreciable or unexpected yaw tendencies. I dial in j= ust enough elevator trim force to mostly cancel the forward pitching moment as the flaps are lowered on final approach ....= ... leaving in just enough resistance to provide a solid feel in the stick during the roundout and lan= ding. I have a single axis=20 autopilot but haven't felt the need for the altitude hold or pitch axis con= trol capability as in cruise mode the plane tends to maintain a steady altitude affected only by rising and d= escending air currents. On a few occasions I've flown with full or close to full fuel and seventy p= ounds or thereabouts in the baggage area. No question there is a loss of = stick force in the landing configuration with an extreme aft CG loading condition, particularly at slow speed prior to touchdown. = This is entirely manageable if one remembers that its not 'stick force' that matters ......... its 'des= cent rate' and a soft arrival that counts ......... so easy does it! A final thought ...... maybe there's a call for a "small tail officianados"= subset group. George ........ will you lead the charge? I would hope so, because you saved my small t= ail when those nasty fellow EAA'ers threatened to cut it off with their chain saw at the height of the = mid-ninetys' tail debate! Small tails forever! Bob Sinclair Lancair N320S Lafayette, California n320sierra@m= sn.com To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:46:58 -0500 From: Sky2high@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail?? Dom, =20 My hackles are in shackles. =20 I am not a test pilot (Hmmmmm, not trained anyway), but I stayed in a=20 Holiday Inn once. While the OZ analysis is true, there are ways to=20 ameliorate the unfriendly small tail characteristics. Here are some=20 thoughts gained over 850 hours behind the stick of a 320 and generally with= in a=20 100 feet of a purposely hand held altitude in reasonably smooth air. =20 =20 1. Neutral to negative longitudinal stability confirmed. =20 Recognize it, understand it, deal with it (one way is with a larger tail, t= here=20 are others). 2. Every Lancair 200/300 series is uniquely customized and details of=20 handling may differ while general characteristics could and should be=20 understood. 3. Instrument approaches in smooth air are a moderate challenge and whilst= =20 in turbulent air, they are more interesting. (I believe that is a=20 quote from the Marquis de Sade shortly after he went flying in his 360.) =20 OK, here is a limited description of my components, customization=20 and their consequences. a. Slow built 320, 1200 # empty weight and empty CG a hair forward of=20 specs. b. Properly installed bob-weight with the elevator bell crank arm=20 reduced to 3" (stick throw reduced by 25%, forces increased from none to so= me).=20 60 degree banked (2G) full circle steep turns to the left with cruise trim= =20 untouched require far more than 7 lbs of pull to hold altitude (no opposite= =20 rudder) and the need for the pull is quite delayed after first entering the= =20 turn. Right turns require less force and and the need to=20 apply the full holding force is delayed further than those steep=20 turns to the left. Holding the altitude within 50 feet throughout the=20 360 turn is a real challenge. 720 degree turns are easier because by=20 then you've got it - until you hit your self induced burble. =20 Drat. c. I have the Reichel geared trim wheel with stronger springs to=20 compensate for the shorter arm. In cruise, spring controlled trim=20 characteristics add to the sensitivity in pitch because of the broad dead=20 band of little spring force exerted at the trimmed position, thus the=20 non-holding spring is relaxed and, if the plane is "balanced," even the=20 hold spring is not pushing very hard. In slow flight with flaps at some=20 extension, the holding spring is under greater tension and the sensitivity = is=20 somewhat reduced. I cannot compare my flight=20 characteristics to Lancairs equipped with tabbed-elevator trim=20 systems. d. My horizontal tail surfaces are thinner than the plans call=20 for. Don't ask. I don't know if there is a flight effect from that,=20 but it is different than the design. I also have gap seals with unknown=20 effect on elevator/pitch controlability. e. More forward CG results in a more stabilized pitch control. The=20 rear quarter of the CG range results in much less stability than=20 the front half. Be aware of this when loading the plane. Lancair=20 moved the CG forward 1.5 inches without a detrimental effect (3" longer eng= ine=20 mount to compensate for added weight from the larger tail that=20 moved the CG aftward). So, keep the CG more forward for better=20 flights. =20 Observed behavior and/or techniques to compensate: i. Some have experienced an extreme nose bobbing when slipping at slow air= =20 speeds. Try as I might, I could only induce gentle sinusoidal=20 bobbing, different from left or right (I don't remember which was=20 more). Since I fly differently than others (Don't we all?), I have little= =20 use for slip attitudes until just above the runway. If not on an=20 instrument approach, slow down early, fly a higher pattern, fly a steeper=20 final descent angle, carefully control the speed (AOA has helped). ii. With respect to slow flight when nearing the airfield - in my=20 airplane, throttle back and slow to 160 KIAS early, tick the flaps out of r= eflex=20 (resulting in rapid loss of airspeed and lowering the nose) and re-trim. A= =20 stabilized slow speed approach(110 to 120 KIAS) at low power with flaps at= =20 the takeoff position and everything trimmed is the most=20 stabilized, comfortable and with the least workload. Final at=20 85-90 Kts. iii. The lack of longitudinal stability is a bummer during an=20 approach: Change of speed <=3D> change of attitude <=3D> change of=20 descent rate. Note the double pointed arrows. Instrument approach=20 workload is increased when trying to manage these. Turbulence does=20 not assist the pilot.=20 iv. Gap seals have provided a benefit such=20 that the rudder came alive at a lower airspeed (maybe 5 to 10=20 Kts). I cannot say I noticed a difference with respect to the=20 elevator. Gap seals are high maintenance items unless they are=20 built-in during construction. v. I cannot get my Lancair to enter a turn by applying strong rudder inputs= =20 (Hmmmm, maybe I only tested this at cruise speeds). In other words, I do=20 not feel much, if any, roll tendencies from applying the rudder in level=20 flight at cruise speeds. I don't remember if I had to compensate=20 for roll in the bobbing tests. The feel is different from left to=20 right rudder. =20 The conclusion for me: Yes, in certain flight regimes where stability=20 is desirable, it would be nice to have that stability available by design. = =20 Understanding your steed's characteristics can be useful if you=20 remember to take those into account when flying. There are many=20 experimental and aerobatic planes extant that are twitchy - deal with them= =20 for they are not as forgiving as those designed to be fool-proof. =20 Possible conclusions for others: Man, this ain't no spam can. =20 Experiences will vary. Learn it. Love it. Stay on your toes.=20 Use O2 as needed. Pay attention to Mother Nature. Occasionally=20 look out the window. Don't do noth'n stoopid! =20 Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Pilot=20 not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%. =20 PS: Is it possible the CG range was originally computed from the=20 un-reflexed wing characteristics? That is, computed from the "normal"=20 wing shape and thus set too far aft? =20 =20 In a message dated 1/13/2008 7:31:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 domcrain@tpg.com.au writes: =20 The recent comments regarding=20 the Small v. Big tail draw my attention to the fact that on a recent visi= t to=20 the wide brown land up over, LML lister Angier was privileged to see two= =20 examples of large tail Lancair's. One belonging to me (didn=92t build it)= , and the other=20 being the example quoted in the attached letter to Rob Wolf=92s post =93A= look at=20 Lancair 360 Handling Qualities=94. Now owned by another lister=20 here. The only Lancair=92s I have handled in the air=20 were all large tail versions, with one exception, that being N5ZQ in the= =20 States. Bill will undoubtedly recall that I was =96 let=92s say =93ropey= =94 =96 to say=20 the least. While I am prepared to accept that is my lack of skill, and I= =20 reflect long and hard on this after each flight I have made over forty od= d=20 years, I do come to the conclusion that there is a distinct improvement i= n=20 stability and handling of the Lancair with the large tail. Over the past few months=20 =96almost a year actually, there has been a slow but steady approach to t= he=20 improvement of training of, and understanding by, Lancair pilots here up = over, brought=20 on by the historical global accident rate, and highlighted by two fatals= =20 within six days in Australia, 20 months ago. A Lancair Pilot Group has been=20 established, and having been asked to be involved, I have sought advice f= rom=20 various sources regarding their views on the matter of Lancair training a= nd opinions on=20 handling. In this process I have had=20 email discussions with the test pilot who undertook some of the test flyi= ng on=20 the Lancair which resulted in the recommendation to enlarge the=20 tail. I quote from the email I=20 received from one him on 20 September 2007: =93=85=85.When the=20 first example (a 320 I think?) was evaluated, it was found to have 2 majo= r=20 design problems/defects. First the aft CG condition was unrealistic (in= =20 excess of 30% MAC), and the horizontal stabiliser was too small. =20 Combined these resulted in neutral or negative stick free longitudinal=20 stability. Also manoeuvre stability (stick force per G) was at best=20 measured in ounces per G. Standard comment from then owners was"I like=20 it like that because it has fighter like feel." These pilots had=20 obviously never flown a fighter, at least not one built since about 1920,= =20 which all have positive long stab, and minimum stick forces of about 7=20 lb/G. =20 CASA insisted=20 (under the good/bad old 101.28 rule) that stability be improved. I think= =20 the aft CG limit was moved forward (not sure how much) and bigger tails w= ere=20 required. The bigger tails (2 local REG 35 solutions by Graham Swannel=20 and Dave Simons) produced adequate solutions, but the practicalities of=20 keeping CG forward remained. The Lancair 235/230/360=20 models also have negative lateral sideslip stability; with a low wing and= =20 no dihedral the predominant rolling force in a sideslip is due to the=20 rudder. This characteristic is rarely seen, and is disturbing when=20 deliberately sideslipping during cross wind approaches. For IFR=20 approval, CASA insisted this be fixed and a rudder/aileron interconnect w= as=20 developed (I think by Dave Simons) which produced apparent lateral sidesl= ip=20 stability and hence predictable handling qualities in=20 sideslip. The kit=20 manufacturer was not amused by these criticisms of his creation and refus= ed to=20 have anything to do with them. However, shortly after CASA came the=20 heavy, Aviation Consumer magazine in the US conducted some flight tests o= n the=20 Lancair, and another=20 fast plastic of similar size and shape, and concluded their findings with= some=20 not very flattering remarks along the lines of ......... how dare you foi= st on=20 the unsuspecting public expensive machines with such bad design=20 features........ - I was very pleased to hear this as it vindicated the=20 position taken by CASA and other professional Test Pilots who had flown t= he=20 machines. =20 Very quickly=20 the manufacturer of kit X came out with a bigger tail (about 50% bigger!)= , and=20 some advice on how to fix the CG problem. Lancair eventually=20 did the same=85=85=94 CASA is the current name for=20 the old CAA here up over. Under a Labour Government, the name changes eve= ry=20 few weeks to create jobs. Although the quote uses the current term CASA, = at=20 the time of testing the authority was called CAA. Hopefully this will help, if=20 not cause the usual broad-ranging hackles raising. Cheers, Dom Crain VH-CZJ Melbourne Not Florida Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.=20 --_cdcbd312-6a65-4671-8c57-a822ffa6ab01_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Group,

To weigh in on behalf of the small tail ........ 
Maybe I'm missing something but my machine has the small tail and Dick Re= ichels' geared elevator
trim mechanism, a little over 1,100 lbs empty w= eight, the original shorter engine mount and it seems
to handle in a tot= ally predictable way in every flight regime that I've experienced in close = to 300 hours
flight time.

The approach-to-landing behavior is roc= k solid and well-behaved (even in turbulent air) with no appreciable or une= xpected yaw tendencies.  I dial in just enough elevator trim force to = mostly cancel
the forward pitching moment as the flaps are lowered on fi= nal approach ....... leaving in just enough
resistance to provide a soli= d feel in the stick during the roundout and landing.   I have a s= ingle axis
autopilot but haven't felt the need for the altitude hold or= pitch axis control capability as in cruise mode
the plane tends to main= tain a steady altitude affected only by rising and descending air currents.=

On a few occasions I've flown with full or close to full fuel and s= eventy pounds or thereabouts in the baggage area.   No question t= here is a loss of stick force in the landing configuration with an extreme<= br>aft CG loading condition, particularly at slow speed prior to touchdown.=    This is entirely manageable
if one remembers that its not '= stick force' that matters ......... its 'descent rate' and a soft arrival t= hat
counts ......... so easy= does it!

A final thought ...... maybe there's a call for a "= small tail officianados" subset group.    George ........will you lead the charge?    I would hope so,  because= you saved my small tail when those nasty fellow
EAA'ers threatened to c= ut it off with their chain saw at the height of the mid-ninetys' tail debat= e!
Small tails forever!
Bob Sinclair     Lancair N320S    =   Lafayette, California      n320sierra@msn.c= om


To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 14 Ja= n 2008 12:46:58 -0500
From: Sky2high@aol.com
Subject: [LML] Re: MKII = tail vs original tail??

Dom,
 
My hackles are in shackles.
 
I am not a test pilot (Hmmmmm, not trained anyway), but I stayed in a= =20 Holiday Inn once.  While the OZ analysis is true, there are ways to=20 ameliorate the unfriendly small tail characteristics.  Here are some=20 thoughts gained over 850 hours behind the stick of a 320 and generally with= in a=20 100 feet of a purposely hand held altitude in reasonably smooth air.&n= bsp;=20
 
1. Neutral to negative longitudinal stability confirmed. =20 Recognize it, understand it, deal with it (one way is with a larger tail, t= here=20 are others).
2. Every Lancair 200/300 series is uniquely customized and details of= =20 handling may differ while general characteristics could and should be=20 understood.
3. Instrument approaches in smooth air are a moderate challenge and wh= ilst=20 in turbulent air, they are more interesting. (I believe that is a= =20 quote from the Marquis de Sade shortly after he went flying in his 360.)
 
OK, here is a limited description of my components, customiz= ation=20 and their consequences.
a. Slow built 320, 1200 # empty weight and empty CG a hair forwar= d of=20 specs.
b. Properly installed bob-weight with the elevator bell cran= k arm=20 reduced to 3" (stick throw reduced by 25%, forces increased from none to so= me).=20 60 degree banked (2G) full circle steep turns to the left with cruise = trim=20 untouched require far more than 7 lbs of pull to hold altitude (no opposite= =20 rudder) and the need for the pull is quite delayed after first enterin= g the=20 turn.  Right turns require less force and and the need to=20 apply the full holding force is delayed further than those steep=20 turns to the left.  Holding the altitude within 50 feet throughou= t the=20 360 turn is a real challenge.  720 degree turns are easier becaus= e by=20 then you've got it - until you hit your self induced burble. =20 Drat.
c. I have the Reichel geared trim wheel with stronger springs to= =20 compensate for the shorter arm.  In cruise, spring controlled tri= m=20 characteristics add to the sensitivity in pitch because of the broad= dead=20 band of little spring force exerted at the trimmed position, thus the= =20 non-holding spring is relaxed and, if the plane is "balanced," even th= e=20 hold spring is not pushing very hard.  In slow flight with flaps at so= me=20 extension, the holding spring is under greater tension and the sensitivity = is=20 somewhat reduced.  I cannot compare my flight=20 characteristics to Lancairs equipped with tabbed-elevator tr= im=20 systems.
d. My horizontal tail surfaces are thinner than the plans ca= ll=20 for.  Don't ask.  I don't know if there is a flight effect from t= hat,=20 but it is different than the design.  I also have gap seals with unkno= wn=20 effect on elevator/pitch controlability.
e. More forward CG results in a more stabilized pitch control.  T= he=20 rear quarter of the CG range results in much less stability = than=20 the front half.  Be aware of this when loading the plane.  Lancai= r=20 moved the CG forward 1.5 inches without a detrimental effect (3" longer eng= ine=20 mount to compensate for added weight from the larger tail that=20 moved the CG aftward).  So, keep the CG more forward for better=20 flights.
 
Observed behavior and/or techniques to compensate:
i. Some have experienced an extreme nose bobbing when slipping at slow= air=20 speeds.  Try as I might, I could only induce gentle sinusoidal=20 bobbing, different from left or right (I don't remember which was=20 more).  Since I fly differently than others (Don't we all?), I have li= ttle=20 use for slip attitudes until just above the runway.  If not on an=20 instrument approach, slow down early, fly a higher pattern, fly a stee= per=20 final descent angle, carefully control the speed (AOA has helped).
ii. With respect to slow flight when nearing the airfield - in my= =20 airplane, throttle back and slow to 160 KIAS early, tick the flaps out of r= eflex=20 (resulting in rapid loss of airspeed and lowering the nose) and re-trim.&nb= sp; A=20 stabilized slow speed approach(110 to 120 KIAS) at low power with flap= s at=20 the takeoff position and everything trimmed is the most=20 stabilized, comfortable and with the least workload.  Final = at=20 85-90 Kts.
iii. The lack of longitudinal stability is a bummer during an=20 approach:  Change of speed <=3D> change of attitude <=3D> = change of=20 descent rate.  Note the double pointed arrows.  Instrument approa= ch=20 workload is increased when trying to manage these.  Turbulence do= es=20 not assist the pilot. 
iv. Gap seals have provided a benefit such=20 that the rudder came alive at a lower airspeed (maybe 5 to 10=20 Kts).  I cannot say I noticed a difference with respect to the=20 elevator.  Gap seals are high maintenance items unless they are=20 built-in during construction.
v. I cannot get my Lancair to enter a turn by applying strong rudder i= nputs=20 (Hmmmm, maybe I only tested this at cruise speeds).  In other words, I= do=20 not feel much, if any, roll tendencies from applying the rudder in lev= el=20 flight at cruise speeds.  I don't remember if I had to compensate= =20 for roll in the bobbing tests.  The feel is different from left t= o=20 right rudder.
 
The conclusion for me:  Yes, in certain flight regimes where stab= ility=20 is desirable, it would be nice to have that stability available by design.&= nbsp;=20 Understanding your steed's characteristics can be useful if you=20 remember to take those into account when flying.  There are many=20 experimental and aerobatic planes extant that are twitchy - deal with = them=20 for they are not as forgiving as those designed to be fool-proof.
 
Possible conclusions for others:  Man, this ain't no spam can.&nb= sp;=20 Experiences will vary.  Learn it. Love it.  Stay on your toes.=20 Use O2 as needed. Pay attention to Mother Nature.  Occasiona= lly=20 look out the window.  Don't do noth'n stoopid!
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pi= lot=20 not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
 
PS:  Is it possible the CG range was originally computed fro= m the=20 un-reflexed wing characteristics?  That is, computed from the "no= rmal"=20 wing shape and thus set too far aft?
 
 
In a message dated 1/13/2008 7:31:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 domcrain@tpg.com.au writes:

The recent comments regarding=20 the Small v. Big tail draw my attention to the fact that on a recent visi= t to=20 the wide brown land up over, LML lister Angier was privileged to see two= =20 examples of large tail Lancair= 's. One belonging to me (didn= =92t build it), and the other=20 being the example quoted in the attached letter to Rob Wolf=92s post =93A= look at=20 Lancair 360 Handling Qualities=94. Now owned by another liste= r=20 here.

The only Lancair=92s I have = handled in the air=20 were all large tail versions, with one exception, that being N5ZQ in the= =20 States. Bill will undoubtedly recall that I was =96 let=92s say =93ropey= =94 =96 to say=20 the least. While I am prepared to accept that is my lack of skill, and I= =20 reflect long and hard on this after each flight I have made over forty od= d=20 years, I do come to the conclusion that there is a distinct improvement i= n=20 stability and handling of the Lan<= span style=3D"color: blue;" lang=3D"EN-AU">cair with the large tail.

Over the past few months=20 =96almost a year actually, there has been a slow but steady approach to t= he=20 improvement of training of, and understanding by, Lancair<= /font> pil= ots here up over, brought=20 on by the historical global accident rate, and highlighted by two fatals= =20 within six days in Australia, 20 months ago.

A Lancair Pilot Group has be= en=20 established, and having been asked to be involved, I have sought advice f= rom=20 various sources regarding their views on the matter of Lancair training and opinions on=20 handling.

In this process I have had=20 email discussions with the test pilot who undertook some of the test flyi= ng on=20 the Lancair which resulted in the recommendation to enlarge = the=20 tail.

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

=93=85=85.When the=20 first example (a 320 I think?) was evaluated, it was found to have 2 majo= r=20 design problems/defects.  First the aft CG condition was unrealistic= (in=20 excess of 30% MAC), and the horizontal stabiliser was too small. =20 Combined these resulted in neutral or negative stick free longitudinal=20 stability.  Also manoeuvre stability (stick force per G) was at best= =20 measured in ounces per G.  Standard comment from then owners was"I l= ike=20 it like that because it has fighter like feel."  These pilots had=20 obviously never flown a fighter, at least not one built since about 1920,= =20 which all have positive long stab, and minimum stick forces of about 7=20 lb/G. 

CASA insisted=20 (under the good/bad old 101.28 rule) that stability be improved.  I = think=20 the aft CG limit was moved forward (not sure how much) and bigger tails w= ere=20 required.  The bigger tails (2 local REG 35 solutions by Graham Swan= nel=20 and Dave Simons) produced adequate solutions, but the practicalities of=20 keeping CG forward remained.  The Lancair 235/230/360=20 models also have negative lateral sideslip stability; with a low win= g and=20 no dihedral the predominant rolling force in a sideslip is due to the=20 rudder.  This characteristic is rarely seen, and is disturbing when= =20 deliberately sideslipping during cross wind approaches.  For IF= R=20 approval, CASA insisted this be fixed and a rudder/aileron interconnect w= as=20 developed (I think by Dave Simons) which produced apparent lateral sidesl= ip=20 stability and hence predictable handling qualities in=20 sideslip.

The kit=20 manufacturer was not amused by these criticisms of his creation and refus= ed to=20 have anything to do with them.  However, shortly after CASA came the= =20 heavy, Aviation Consumer magazine in the US conducted some flight tests o= n the=20 Lancair, and another=20 fast plastic of similar size and shape, and concluded their findings with= some=20 not very flattering remarks along the lines of ......... how dare you foi= st on=20 the unsuspecting public expensive machines with such bad design=20 features........ - I was very pleased to hear this as it vindicated the=20 position taken by CASA and other professional Test Pilots who had flown t= he=20 machines. 

Very quickly=20 the manufacturer of kit X came out with a bigger tail (about 50% bigger!)= , and=20 some advice on how to fix the CG problem.  Lancair eventually=20 did the same=85=85=94

CASA is the current name for=20 the old CAA here up over. Under a Labour Government, the name changes eve= ry=20 few weeks to create jobs. Although the quote uses the current term CASA, = at=20 the time of testing the authority was called CAA.

Hopefully this will help, if=20 not cause the usual broad-ranging hackles raising.

Cheers,

Dom Crain

VH-CZJ

Melbourne

Not <= span style=3D"color: blue;" lang=3D"EN-AU">Florida

=



Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new y= ear.
= --_cdcbd312-6a65-4671-8c57-a822ffa6ab01_--