X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from omr-d02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.109.194] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6842036 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:41:24 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.109.194; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mbe01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mbe01.mx.aol.com [172.26.254.175]) by omr-d02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id E3B967022B535 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mlb004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mlb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.186.146]) by mtaomg-mbe01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id A77A938000081 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:40:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: <48ff.7a65538b.4087bd52@aol.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:40:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Large/small tail stability comparison To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_48ff.7a65538b.4087bd52_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [24.14.166.87] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1398170451; bh=6g3BF+6RRXisCUxp3Rb1R5XE6cR30upWk8c5jhsFBBc=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iMM61//YmjOzzjhzLz6dufE7MzkKNix39I9ZlJU4Ej29KKLhQXz4wahYQS4HW0oTe efDkWw5qAeyUisyUqd+U5tB/FMODa0c1uUc1RfGB0A4NLkSeZWeHjA6jmf4Ni41qYn GjGPcoKZnWoEYE8jes+JoCLT0RwpGljiuf9urizM= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1afeaf535663532e4a --part1_48ff.7a65538b.4087bd52_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris, Excellent Analysis. Since the 320 has got to be the most individually modified kit plane, could you be more specific about details of the elevator system in the 320 used for comparison: 1. Was the elevator bell crank arm 4" (original design) or 3" (popular mod) as this affects stick forces and movement distances? 2. Since the spring trim system was used, was the trim the original crucifix and spring system or was the Reichel trim wheel with stronger springs used?. This has some effect on trim rigidity and stick forces for elevator movement away from the trimmed position. You did mention that trim tabs could alter certain results (even the tab sizes used by builders may be quite different). 3. Was the bob weight installed? Recently some builders claimed that they did not install the bob weight that was designed to increase stick forces under increased aircraft loading. Considering these variables, what implications might they have with respect to observations/conclusions made in your report? Thanks, Scott Krueger In a message dated 4/22/2014 6:58:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time, troneill@charter.net writes: On Apr 21, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Chris Zavatson wrote: Last year after I posted the results of some MKII stability testing, it was suggested the same exercise be repeated with the original tail. Dan Meyer offered up his beautiful 320 to be instrumented and used in repeating the same series of tests wth the small tail. He did a great job following the maneuver definitions and flight cards which produced some very nice data. http://www.n91cz.com/Stability/Comparative_Stability_Study.pdf Chris Zavatson N91CZ 360std --part1_48ff.7a65538b.4087bd52_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris,
 
Excellent Analysis.
 
Since the 320 has got to be the most individually modified kit plane, = could=20 you be more specific about details of the elevator system in the 320 u= sed=20 for comparison:
 
1. Was the elevator bell crank arm 4" (original design) or 3" (popular= mod)=20 as this affects stick forces and movement distances?
 
2. Since the spring trim system was used, was the trim=20 the original crucifix and spring system or was the Reic= hel=20 trim wheel with stronger springs used?.  This has some effect on trim= =20 rigidity and stick forces for elevator movement away from the trimmed=20 position.  You did mention that trim tabs could alter certain results = (even=20 the tab sizes used by builders may be quite different).
 
3. Was the bob weight installed?  Recently some builders=20 claimed that they did not install the bob weight that was designe= d to=20 increase stick forces under increased aircraft loading.
 
Considering these variables, what implications might they have with re= spect=20 to observations/conclusions made in your report?
 
Thanks,
 
Scott Krueger
 
In a message dated 4/22/2014 6:58:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 troneill@charter.net writes:
=
On Apr 21, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Chris Zavatson wrote:

Last year after I posted the results of some MKII stability= =20 testing, it was suggested the same exercise be repeated with = the=20 original tail.  Dan Meyer offered up his beautiful 320 to be= =20 instrumented and used in repeating the same series of tests wth th= e=20 small tail.  He did a great job following the maneuver definitions= and=20 flight cards which produced some very nice data.

Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
 --part1_48ff.7a65538b.4087bd52_boundary--