Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:20:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [206.246.194.60] (HELO visi.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.3) with ESMTP id 432824 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:50:46 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.246.194.60; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com X-Virus-Scanner: ClamAV Received: from [69.143.104.75] (HELO cp172883-b.arlngt01.va.comcast.net) by visi.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with SMTP id 27653544 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:47:47 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Bob Pastusek" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] How I did the wing incidence measurements X-Original-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:47:50 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003f01c4a3c7$08349660$6601a8c0@cp172883-b.arlngt01.va.comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01C4A3A5.8122F660" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C4A3A5.8122F660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Easley of Colorado Springs wrote: ... By adjusting the chord of the jig, you can measure to the trailing edge of the top skin, or the trailing edge of the flap, or whatever point you want to check. See attached drawing. Mike, That's a very good jig, and useful for similar applications as you noted. Having watched the postings about "factory alignment" over the past few days, I thought it useful to comment on my experience with my IV-P. I have one of the early "fast build" kits--by today's standard it would be considered a slooooow build, but when compared to the original IV/IV-P kits, it was pretty impressive. In the 1998-1999 time frame, we had a considerable discussion on wing incidence and twist in this forum, and I carefully checked my wings for both. They were accurate and symmetrical to the limit of my ability to measure them. I did find that I'd installed the left wing with about 0.3 degrees more incidence, which I corrected by clamping it in the proper position and redrilling the rear spar bolt to a larger size. That was a LONG time ago, and without going into detail, I'll say that the measurement technique I used was crude and time consuming. Now that the airplane is painted and in final assembly, I intend to level it and check both the wings and tail using your technique. The thought of finding an error scares me a bit--difficult to impossible to correct at this point--but the need to know before flying it far outweighs the alternative. My continuing observation is that these are "home builts" and not certificated production line machines. I expected Lancair to take reasonable precautions and care in their work, and have found them to have done so consistently over many years--it's why I chose their airplane kit to build in the first place. I also expect that they will make a mistake from time to time, and I assumed the responsibility for discovering if they (or I) had done so. I've checked everything I (and others) could think of to check, and it's been both a learning experience and a significant confidence builder. Again, many thanks for the tip on wing measurement technique! Bob Pastusek ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C4A3A5.8122F660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mike Easley=20 of Colorado Springs=20 wrote:

... By = adjusting the=20 chord of the jig, you can measure to the trailing edge of the top = skin, or the=20 trailing edge of the flap, or whatever point you want to check. See attached = drawing.

Mike,

That's a very good jig, and = useful for=20 similar applications as you noted. Having watched the postings about = "factory=20 alignment" over the past few days, I thought it useful to comment on = my=20 experience with my IV-P. I have one of the early "fast build" kits--by = today's=20 standard it would be considered a slooooow build, but when compared to = the=20 original IV/IV-P kits, it was pretty impressive.

In the 1998-1999 time frame, we = had a=20 considerable discussion on wing incidence and twist in this forum, and = I=20 carefully checked my wings for both. They were accurate and = symmetrical to the=20 limit of my ability to measure them. I did find that I'd installed the = left=20 wing with about 0.3 degrees more incidence, which I corrected by = clamping it=20 in the proper position and redrilling the rear spar bolt to a = larger=20 size. That was a LONG time ago, and without going into detail, I'll = say that=20 the measurement technique I used was crude and time consuming. =

Now that the airplane is painted = and in=20 final assembly, I intend to level it and check both the wings and tail = using=20 your technique. The thought of finding an error scares me a = bit--difficult to=20 impossible to correct at this point--but the need to know before = flying=20 it far outweighs the alternative.

My continuing observation is = that these=20 are "home builts" and not certificated production line machines. I = expected=20 Lancair to take reasonable precautions and care in their work, and = have found=20 them to have done so consistently over many years--it's why I chose = their=20 airplane kit to build in the first place. I also expect that = they will=20 make a mistake from time to time, and I assumed the responsibility for = discovering if they (or I) had done so. I've checked everything I = (and=20 others) could think of to check, and it's been both a = learning=20 experience and a significant confidence builder.

Again, many thanks for the tip = on wing=20 measurement technique!

Bob Pastusek

------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C4A3A5.8122F660--