Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #69800
From: <Sky2high@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Large/small tail stability comparison
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:40:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
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.

Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster