X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:09:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail7.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTPS id 1120479 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 May 2006 19:26:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.12.160.103; envelope-from=domcrain@tpg.com.au X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed Received: from CRAIN (60-240-63-36.tpgi.com.au [60.240.63.36]) by mail7.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from domcrain@tpg.com.au) (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4JNPnv7019410 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 09:25:51 +1000 From: "Dominic V Crain" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] IVP Crash, Lancair handling characteristics X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 09:25:47 +1000 X-Original-Message-ID: <000801c67b9b$8fe4ed50$0202a8c0@CRAIN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C67BEF.61936E50" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C67BEF.61936E50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmmm. I think I have a comment worth posting on the tail size. Now, here in OZ I have a "large tail" 320. Yet, it seems that there were two ways of determining the "large tail" design when the local authority demanded it. One was to create a new 25% larger horizontal stab with the elevator = full width, and the elevator horns wrapped around the ends. The other was to extend the horizontal stab the 25% while retaining the = same elevator width. ( Thus, my request to Grayhawk for a measure of the = length of his tail - er, elevator - ahem!) Now, at approach speeds, I find I run out of pitch trim at about the = point of stabilized approach with landing flap (30) on final. This means that the there is always an ever so slight tendency for pitch down at that speed. Which in turn means stability. Now, Airbus, in its wisdom, and for those who have flown or still fly = 'em know, decided Lancair had a great idea with this nose down pitch = stability on approach. 'Cos at 100' on final, the elevator computer takes a snapshot of the = pitch angle, and retains that in memory. Then at 50' the elevator computer commences a positive nose down pitch = which demands the pilot commences a flare into the landing. Bloody marvelous mates. Also I had the privilege of flying Bill and Sue's 320 at Fredericksburg = last year, although I suggest Bill would suggest the term, "fly", is a gross exaggeration in my case, and confess I couldn't tell the difference = between my tail and theirs. What I found a mystery was the over-control I exhibited in both pitch = and roll axes. Mine is very stable in both areas. Dom Crain VH-CZJ =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C67BEF.61936E50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hmmm.

I think I have a comment worth = posting on the tail size.

Now, here in OZ I have a = “large tail” 320.

Yet, it seems that there were two = ways of determining the “large tail” design when the local authority demanded it.

One was to create a new 25% larger = horizontal stab with the elevator full width, and the elevator horns wrapped around = the ends.

The other was to extend the = horizontal stab the 25% while retaining the same elevator width. ( Thus, my request to = Grayhawk for a measure of the length of his tail – er, elevator - = ahem!)

Now, at approach speeds, I find I = run out of pitch trim at about the point of stabilized approach with landing = flap (30) on final.

This means that the there is = always an ever so slight tendency for pitch down at that speed.

Which in turn means = stability.

Now, Airbus, in its wisdom, and = for those who have flown or still fly ‘em know, decided Lancair had a great idea with this nose down pitch = stability on approach.

‘Cos at 100’ on final, the elevator computer takes a snapshot of the = pitch angle, and retains that in memory.

Then at 50’ the elevator = computer commences a positive nose down pitch which demands the pilot commences a = flare into the landing.

Bloody marvelous = mates.

Also I had the privilege of flying = Bill and Sue’s 320 at Fredericksburg last year, although I suggest Bill = would suggest the term, “fly”, is a gross exaggeration in my case, = and confess I couldn’t tell the difference between my tail and = theirs.

What I found a mystery was the = over-control I exhibited in both pitch and roll axes. Mine is very stable in both = areas.

Dom Crain

VH-CZJ

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C67BEF.61936E50--