Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:21:46 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4427393@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.191.85.70; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=aCexOfFmQPu6FoA3w3Dt12nT3ktkgfZwAU2ITbv2YMiI7DmhS4Wtf/L+qoWIBQaRNX4dLbQnN7GKOGGd1KGUGtcgAL65xs1QuT8E7zIpNT+nq0LjrfXOaUFnYdWThYzV6tQb7tRC/pkuKpM5sNjoFVOVd6nXYtGelclP1gToYGM=;
References: <list-4425729@logan.com>
From: Chris Zavatson <chris_zavatson@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: flap coupling, LNC2 flap implications
In-Reply-To: <list-4425729@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1709958904-1281556159=:20958"

--0-1709958904-1281556159=:20958
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott,=0AWhen the airfoil was tested, M 0.1 was likely used to eliminate co=
mpressibility =0Aeffects.=A0 Note that the Reynolds numbers are in the appr=
opriate range for our =0Aapplication.=A0 There is also a chart showing some=
 compressibility effects.=A0=A0 When =0Atesting, temperature and/or pressur=
e are changed to vary Reynolds numbers=A0while =0Amaintaining a constant Ma=
ch number.=A0 The 0.1 Mach number is not meant to =0Aimply=A0usage at 66 kt=
s=0Ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number=0AChris=0A=0A=0AChris Zava=
tson=0AN91CZ=0A360std=0Awww.N91CZ.com=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______________________=
_________=0AFrom: "Sky2high@aol.com" <Sky2high@aol.com>=0ATo: lml@lancairon=
line.net=0ASent: Tue, August 10, 2010 1:52:05 PM=0ASubject: [LML] Re: flap =
coupling, LNC2 flap implications=0A=0AChris and Wolfgang,=0A=0AThe airfoil =
report only deals with a section, not the whole wing with its =0Awashout or=
 the whole airplane,=A0etc.=A0 Furthermore, while figure 12 indeed =0Ademon=
strates drag reduction for a section in reflex, the notation claims it=A0is=
 =0Aat .1 Mach or about 66 Knots.=A0 I can't get my head around that since =
that is =0Atouchdown speed where the flaps=A0should be out of reflex at lea=
st.=A0 =0A=0A=0AExperience with my airplane=A0tells me that full reflex (pe=
rhaps up to -10 degrees =0Ain flight out at the twisted flap end) minimizes=
 drag in the speed range above =0Aabout=A0160 KIAS.=A0 Below those speeds=
=A0a nose up=A0attitude (and AOA) begins to creep =0Ain to maintain lift.=
=A0 By the time 120 KIAS is reached=A0my flaps are in takeoff =0Aposition (=
10 degrees down from full reflex).=A0 Why?=A0 Because the nose up =0Aattitu=
de=A0would be perhaps 6 degrees higher if no flaps were used.=A0 I have nev=
er =0Ameasured the power or speed difference needed to maintain level fligh=
t=A0between =0Athe two flap positions (drag indicators for the same lift) b=
ecause speeds below =0A120 are only flown on an approach, in the pattern or=
 at OSH.=A0 =0A=0A=0AI continue to claim that the LNC2 flaps are a fourth c=
ontrol surface that has =0Aimportant=A0drag implications and significant pi=
tch consequences - certainly more =0Apronounced than that of=A0any spam can=
.=A0 =A0=A0=A0=0A=0AScott=0A=0APS - I certainly like the LNC2 continuous fl=
ap position capability rather than =0Afixed detents.=A0 Continuous position=
ing=A0fits its role as another control surface.=0A=0AIn a message dated 8/9=
/2010 6:33:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =0Achris_zavatson@yahoo.com write=
s:=0AWolfgang,=0A>The MkII tail uses a servo to drive the trim tab.=A0 If i=
nstalled, the bob-weight =0A>is the only thing contributing to any static f=
orce in rear half of the system.=A0 =0A>If an autopilot is fighting an out =
of trim condition that would=A0add =0A>some=A0force-much like the old trim =
system does.=A0 Outside of that all trim forces =0A>for the large tail are =
self-contained in the elevator.=0A>Attached are some charts showing the ben=
efits of reflex relative to the =0A320/360.=0A>=0A>Chris Zavatson=0A>N91CZ=
=0A>360std=0A>www.N91CZ.com=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A_____________________________=
___=0AFrom: Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>=0A>To: lml@lancaironline.net=0A>S=
ent: Mon, August 9, 2010 12:04:51 PM=0A>Subject: [LML] Re: flap coupling=0A=
>=0A>=0A>The push rod forces are definitely there. =0A>The trim system that=
 keeps those forces from showing up at the control stick.=0A>. . . . unless=
 you're using servo tabs . . . .=0A>=A0=0A>Yes, I want to map the drag buck=
et for various flap conditions. =0A>NASA tech paper 1865 shows it's effect.=
 I want to expand that on the 300 =0Aseries.=0A>I believe it can add some e=
fficiency points if utilized.=0A>=A0=0A>Wolfgang=0A>=0A____________________=
____________=0A=0A>From: Sky2high@aol.com =0A>Sender: <marv@lancaironline.n=
et> =0A>Subject: Re: [LML] Re: flap coupling =0A>Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:=
33:19 -0400 =0A>To: lml@lancaironline.net   =0A>Uh, the push rod forces sho=
uld be zero when trimmed.=A0 If one cannot reach a =0A>trimmed configuratio=
n, then force will be required to reach sustained level =0A>flight.=A0 One =
can only wonder about the position of the trimming device (there =0A>are so=
 many different methods) when one then calculates=A0forces necessary for =
=0A>level flight at different airspeeds/configurations.=0A>=0A>Wolfgang is =
seeking the "drag bucket" for different flight regimes.=A0 The purpose =0A>=
is unknown.=A0 Each configuration change affects either lift (induced drag)=
=A0or =0A>parasitic drag or both.=A0 Faster =3D less induced drag, more par=
asitic drag.=A0 =0A>Slower =3D more induced drag, less parasitic.=A0 Parasi=
tes are everywhere.=0A>=0A>http://www.charlesriverrc.org/articles/asfwpp/le=
lke_airfoilperf.htm=A0clarifies =0A>the "drag bucket" concept.=A0 Good (an =
extra "o" converts God to good) Is only of =0A>concern at cruise configurat=
ions.=A0 Why?=A0 Because anything else is confounded by =0A>other variables=
 - density altitude, wind, efficiency, etc.=A0 The designer defined =0A>the=
 cruise range as the best conditions (altitude, power, etc) where the =0A>l=
ongeron was level.=A0 Other things can affect drag, engine cooling, laminar=
 flow =0A>because of smooth surfaces, weight (lift-induced drag), wax (para=
sitic drag), =0A>etc. etc. etc.=A0 =0A>=0A>=0A>Who cares at other speeds le=
ss than cruise=A0- we know that max efficiency can be =0A>reached when para=
sitic drag and induced drag cross at some minima.=A0 Uh, the old =0A>max ra=
nge vs max endurance question. =A0 Frequently, best efficiency occurs at =
=0A>best glide speed (like 107 KIAS in a half loaded=A0320).=A0 So what?=A0=
 Do I care if I =0A>can reach Austin, TX in=A08 hours using only 20 gallons=
 or 4.3 hours using 30 =0A>gallons or=A04.8 hours at best power requiring a=
 fuel stop to maintain minimums =0A>(43 gal tank).=A0 Of course.=A0 But I d=
on't need anything more than ROP/LOP fuel =0A>burns and associated TAS - fo=
rtunately for=A0my very slick bird, there is only a =0A>loss of 6 or 7 knot=
s for a drop of 2 gph from ROP to LOP at some useful =0A>altitude.=A0=A0So,=
 I get >1 hour more=A0endurance=A0at LOP and I can see if that 28 NM =0A>di=
fference (4 hours)=A0is worth the 1 hour refueling stop.=A0 Uh, Austin is a=
 flip =0A>of the coin at 820 NM (wind and weather depending).=0A>=0A>Scott =
Krueger=0A>LNC2 320=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=0A>=0A>In a message dated 8/8/2010 6:46:=
31 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =0A>chris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes:=0A>The =
MKII tail is a little different.=A0=A0Push rod forces are zero for all trim=
med =0A>conditions.=0A>>=0A>>Chris Zavatson=A0=A0=A0 =0A>>N91CZ=A0=A0=A0 =
=0A>>360std=0A>>www.N91CZ.com=0A>>=0A>>=A0=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A_______________=
_________________=0AFrom: Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>=0A>>To: lml@lancair=
online.net=0A>>Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 10:06:44 PM=0A>>Subject: [LML] Re:=
 flap coupling=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>I have taken elevator pushrod force measuremen=
ts and was surprised.=0A>>Elevator pushrod forces to stick forces are about=
 6.5 to 1=0A>>The trim system, when dialed in, provides these forces.=0A>>=
=A0=0A>>At=A0190 imph and -7=BA flaps, there is a 60lb forward force.=0A>>A=
t 80 imph and 10=BA flaps, there is about zero force.=0A>>At 80 imph and 20=
=BA flaps, there is a slight (-1lb)=A0rearward force.=0A>>=A0=0A>>These num=
bers are with the horizontal stabilizer built at -1.2=BA=0A>>- - - plans ra=
nge is -0.5=BA to -1.0=BA=0A>>=A0=0A>>An=A0input from the flap bellcrank of=
 about 20-40 lb at -7=BA would be good,=0A>>=A0tapering down to zero lbs at=
 10=BA flaps=0A>>=A0=0A>>A horizontal stabilizer built at -0.5=BA would, of=
 course, change these numbers.=0A>>=A0=0A>>Comments ?=0A>>=A0=0A>>Wolfgang=
=0A>>=A0 =0A>=0A>=0A>--=0A>For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline=
.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=0A>=0A=0A=0A      
--0-1709958904-1281556159=:20958
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1=
0pt"><DIV>Scott,</DIV>=0A<DIV>When the airfoil was tested, M 0.1 was likely=
 used to eliminate compressibility effects.&nbsp; Note that the Reynolds nu=
mbers are in the appropriate range for our application.&nbsp; There is also=
 a chart showing some compressibility effects.&nbsp;&nbsp; When testing, te=
mperature and/or pressure are changed to vary Reynolds numbers&nbsp;while m=
aintaining a constant Mach number.&nbsp; The 0.1 Mach number is not meant t=
o imply&nbsp;usage at 66 kts</DIV>=0A<DIV><A href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.or=
g/wiki/Reynolds_number">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number</A></D=
IV>=0A<DIV>Chris</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Chris=
 Zavatson</DIV>=0A<DIV>N91CZ</DIV>=0A<DIV>360std</DIV>=0A<DIV><A href=3D"ht=
tp://www.n91cz.com/">www.N91CZ.com</A><BR></DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE:=
 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT=
-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT fa=
ce=3DTahoma size=3D2>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0A<B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold=
">From:</SPAN></B> "Sky2high@aol.com" &lt;Sky2high@aol.com&gt;<BR><B><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> lml@lancaironline.net<BR><B><SPA=
N style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tue, August 10, 2010 1:52:05=
 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [LML] Re: f=
lap coupling, LNC2 flap implications<BR></FONT><BR><FONT id=3Drole_document=
 face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>=0A<DIV>Chris and Wolfgang,</DIV>=0A=
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>The airfoil report only deals with a section, not =
the whole wing with its washout or the whole airplane,&nbsp;etc.&nbsp; Furt=
hermore, while figure 12 indeed demonstrates drag reduction for a section i=
n reflex, the notation claims it&nbsp;is at .1 Mach or about 66 Knots.&nbsp=
; I can't get my head around that since that is touchdown speed where the f=
laps&nbsp;should be out of reflex at least.&nbsp; </DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV=
>=0A<DIV>Experience with my airplane&nbsp;tells me that full reflex (perhap=
s up to -10 degrees in flight out at the twisted flap end) minimizes drag i=
n the speed range above about&nbsp;160 KIAS.&nbsp; Below those speeds&nbsp;=
a nose up&nbsp;attitude (and AOA) begins to creep in to maintain lift.&nbsp=
; By the time 120 KIAS is reached&nbsp;my flaps are in takeoff position (10=
 degrees down from full reflex).&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because the nose up attit=
ude&nbsp;would be perhaps 6 degrees higher if no flaps were used.&nbsp; I h=
ave never measured the power or speed difference needed to maintain level f=
light&nbsp;between the two flap positions (drag indicators for the same lif=
t) because speeds below 120 are only flown on an approach, in the pattern o=
r at OSH.&nbsp; </DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>I continue to claim that =
the LNC2 flaps are a fourth control surface that has important&nbsp;drag im=
plications and significant pitch consequences - certainly more pronounced t=
han that of&nbsp;any spam can.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;=
</DIV>=0A<DIV>Scott</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>PS - I certainly like =
the LNC2 continuous flap position capability rather than fixed detents.&nbs=
p; Continuous positioning&nbsp;fits its role as another control surface.</D=
IV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV>In a message dated 8/9/2010 6:33:38 =
P.M. Central Daylight Time, chris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>=0A<BLOCK=
QUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px s=
olid"><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#0=
00000 size=3D2>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvet=
ica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helv=
etica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV>Wolfgang,</DIV>=0A<DIV>The MkII tail uses a serv=
o to drive the trim tab.&nbsp; If installed, the bob-weight is the only thi=
ng contributing to any static force in rear half of the system.&nbsp; If an=
 autopilot is fighting an out of trim condition that would&nbsp;add some&nb=
sp;force-much like the old trim system does.&nbsp; Outside of that all trim=
 forces for the large tail are self-contained in the elevator.</DIV>=0A<DIV=
>Attached are some charts showing the benefits of reflex relative to the 32=
0/360.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Chris Zavatson</DIV>=0A<DIV>N91CZ</=
DIV>=0A<DIV>360std</DIV>=0A<DIV><A title=3Dhttp://www.n91cz.com/ href=3D"ht=
tp://www.n91cz.com/" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow>www.N91CZ.com</A><BR></=
DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-s=
erif"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, n=
ew york, times, serif"><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0A<B><=
SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Wolfgang &lt;Wolfgang@MiC=
om.net&gt;<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> lml@lanca=
ironline.net<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Mon, =
August 9, 2010 12:04:51 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:=
</SPAN></B> [LML] Re: flap coupling<BR></FONT><BR>=0A<STYLE></STYLE>=0A=0A<=
DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The push rod forces are definitely there. <=
/FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The trim system that keeps =
those forces from showing up at the control stick.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FON=
T face=3DArial size=3D2>. . . . unless you're using servo tabs . . . .</FON=
T></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FON=
T face=3DArial size=3D2>Yes, I want to map the drag bucket for various flap=
 conditions. </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>NASA tech pap=
er 1865 shows it's effect. I want to expand that on the 300 series.</FONT><=
/DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I believe it can add some efficien=
cy points if utilized.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FO=
NT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Wolfgang</FONT></DIV>=0A=
<DIV>=0A<HR>=0A</DIV>=0A<DIV>=0A<TABLE class=3DmessageData cellSpacing=3D0 =
cellPadding=3D0 border=3D0>=0A<TBODY>=0A<TR>=0A<TD>=0A<TABLE class=3Drfchea=
der cellSpacing=3D0>=0A<TBODY>=0A<TR vAlign=3Dtop>=0A<TD width=3D"100%">=0A=
<TABLE class=3Drfcheaderfields>=0A<TBODY>=0A<TR>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldname=
>From:</TD>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldvalue>Sky2high@aol.com</TD></TR>=0A<TR>=
=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldname>Sender:</TD>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldvalue>&lt;ma=
rv@lancaironline.net&gt;</TD></TR>=0A<TR>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldname>Subjec=
t:</TD>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldvalue>Re: [LML] Re: flap coupling</TD></TR>=
=0A<TR>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldname>Date:</TD>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldvalue>M=
on, 09 Aug 2010 07:33:19 -0400</TD></TR>=0A<TR>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldname>=
To:</TD>=0A<TD class=3Drfcfieldvalue>lml@lancaironline.net</TD></TR></TBODY=
></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR>=0A<TR>=0A<TD><FONT face=3DAri=
al color=3D#000000 size=3D2>=0A<DIV>Uh, the push rod forces should be zero =
when trimmed.&nbsp; If one cannot reach a trimmed configuration, then force=
 will be required to reach sustained level flight.&nbsp; One can only wonde=
r about the position of the trimming device (there are so many different me=
thods) when one then calculates&nbsp;forces necessary for level flight at d=
ifferent airspeeds/configurations.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Wolfgan=
g is seeking the "drag bucket" for different flight regimes.&nbsp; The purp=
ose is unknown.&nbsp; Each configuration change affects either lift (induce=
d drag)&nbsp;or parasitic drag or both.&nbsp; Faster =3D less induced drag,=
 more parasitic drag.&nbsp; Slower =3D more induced drag, less parasitic.&n=
bsp; Parasites are everywhere.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><A title=3D=
http://www.charlesriverrc.org/articles/asfwpp/lelke_airfoilperf.htm href=3D=
"http://www.charlesriverrc.org/articles/asfwpp/lelke_airfoilperf.htm" targe=
t=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow><FONT face=3DVerdana>http://www.charlesriverrc.or=
g/articles/asfwpp/lelke_airfoilperf.htm</FONT></A>&nbsp;clarifies the "drag=
 bucket" concept.&nbsp; Good (an extra "o" converts God to good) Is only of=
 concern at cruise configurations.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because anything else i=
s confounded by other variables - density altitude, wind, efficiency, etc.&=
nbsp; The designer defined the cruise range as the best conditions (altitud=
e, power, etc) where the longeron was level.&nbsp; Other things can affect =
drag, engine cooling, laminar flow because of smooth surfaces, weight (lift=
-induced drag), wax (parasitic drag), etc. etc. etc.&nbsp; </DIV>=0A<DIV>&n=
bsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Who cares at other speeds less than cruise&nbsp;- we know=
 that max efficiency can be reached when parasitic drag and induced drag cr=
oss at some minima.&nbsp; Uh, the old max range vs max endurance question. =
&nbsp; Frequently, best efficiency occurs at best glide speed (like 107 KIA=
S in a half loaded&nbsp;320).&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; Do I care if I can reach=
 Austin, TX in&nbsp;8 hours using only 20 gallons or 4.3 hours using 30 gal=
lons or&nbsp;4.8 hours at best power requiring a fuel stop to maintain mini=
mums (43 gal tank).&nbsp; Of course.&nbsp; But I don't need anything more t=
han ROP/LOP fuel burns and associated TAS - fortunately for&nbsp;my very sl=
ick bird, there is only a loss of 6 or 7 knots for a drop of 2 gph from ROP=
 to LOP at some useful altitude.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, I get &gt;1 hour more&nbsp;=
endurance&nbsp;at LOP and I can see if that 28 NM difference (4 hours)&nbsp=
;is worth the 1 hour refueling stop.&nbsp; Uh, Austin is a flip of the coin=
 at
 820 NM (wind and weather depending).</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Scot=
t Krueger</DIV>=0A<DIV>LNC2 320&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>=
&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV>In a message dated 8/8/2010 6:46:31 P.M. Centra=
l Daylight Time, chris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>=0A<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT=
 face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV>The MKII tail is a l=
ittle different.&nbsp;&nbsp;Push rod forces are zero for all trimmed condit=
ions.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Chris Zavatson&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </D=
IV>=0A<DIV>N91CZ&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV>=0A<DIV>360std</DIV>=0A<DIV><A tit=
le=3Dhttp://www.n91cz.com/ href=3D"http://www.n91cz.com/" target=3D_blank r=
el=3Dnofollow><FONT face=3DVerdana>www.N91CZ.com</FONT></A></DIV>=0A<DIV><B=
R>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><BR>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>=0A<HR SIZE=
=3D1>=0A<B><SPAN>From:</SPAN></B> Wolfgang &lt;Wolfgang@MiCom.net&gt;<BR><B=
><SPAN>To:</SPAN></B> lml@lancaironline.net<BR><B><SPAN>Sent:</SPAN></B> Fr=
i, August 6, 2010 10:06:44 PM<BR><B><SPAN>Subject:</SPAN></B> [LML] Re: fla=
p coupling<BR></FONT><BR>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have taken e=
levator pushrod force measurements and was surprised.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><=
FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Elevator pushrod forces to stick forces are abou=
t 6.5 to 1</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The trim system,=
 when dialed in, provides these forces.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DAr=
ial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At&nbsp=
;190 imph and -7=BA flaps, there is a 60lb forward force.</FONT></DIV>=0A<D=
IV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At 80 imph and 10=BA flaps, there is about z=
ero force.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At 80 imph and 2=
0=BA flaps, there is a slight (-1lb)&nbsp;rearward force.</FONT></DIV>=0A<D=
IV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DAria=
l size=3D2>These numbers are with the horizontal stabilizer built at -1.2=
=BA</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>- - - plans range is -0=
.5=BA to -1.0=BA</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nb=
sp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>An&nbsp;input from the flap be=
llcrank of about 20-40 lb at -7=BA would be good,</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT=
 face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;tapering down to zero lbs at 10=BA flaps</FONT=
></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT=
 face=3DArial size=3D2>A horizontal stabilizer built at -0.5=BA would, of c=
ourse, change these numbers.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D=
2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Comments ?</FONT><=
/DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT f=
ace=3DArial size=3D2>Wolfgang</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=
=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT>=
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>F=
or archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html<=
BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV></div><br>=0A=0A      </bod=
y></html>
--0-1709958904-1281556159=:20958--