From: RicArgente@cs.com
Message-ID: <cb.a9c05b7.2729bac7@cs.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:50:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Anyone else aware of CG change?
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
CC: matt.hapgood@funb.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Matt, 

I went through my stack of Lancair Mail newsletters since I remembered a 
short article regarding your question.  On Issue No.1, 1st QTR 99, page 8, 
you'll find the following article:

===========================
LANCAIR 320/360 CG LIMITS
Recently both Orin, with his MK-II tail and Doug, with his standard tail 
configured 320 performed some flight tests with adjusted fwd CG's.  
Basically, they flew with a slightly forward CG to define how much farther 
forward acceptable flight and most importantly, flair to a landing could be 
maintained.  the standard, smaller tailed 320's played out a little sooner 
but a fwd limit of 11% worked quite nicely.  both reported good authority at 
the flair and enhanced stability as they moved the CG forward.  This 11% of 
MAC should be considered since it offers greater overall CG travel before 
getting too far aft-which is ofcourse, something to be avoided.
===========================

So it looks like that going forward 11% of MAC is acceptable but it doesn't 
mention moving the aft CG limit forward as well...

Rick Argente

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>