X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:29:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <5zq@cox.net> Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.240.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1121096 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 20 May 2006 08:53:44 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.38; envelope-from=5zq@cox.net Received: from OFFICE ([68.110.252.196]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with SMTP id <20060520125256.QSWO17255.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@OFFICE> for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 08:52:56 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <01de01c67c0c$4f027250$6501a8c0@OFFICE> From: "Bill&Sue" <5zq@cox.net> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: , Lancair handling characteristics X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 08:52:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01DB_01C67BEA.C7452900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01DB_01C67BEA.C7452900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmmmm. Dom, I think that there may be additional differences that might = have to be taken into consideration besides the small/large tail. We = have done a modification to the elevator horn (fairly common). This = modification involves drilling a new hole closer to the pivot point for = the push rod attach, one inch closer if memory serves. The effect of = this modification is to REDUCE the stick MOVEMENT required for a given = elevator deflection. At the same time it acts to INCREASE the stick = FORCE required for the same deflection.=20 Another modification was to increase the size and strength of the trim = springs. This mod was done in conjunction with the geared trim wheel = system. This allows us adequate trim at any speed from a red line power = dive to a short field flaps 40 approach at 70 knots. We did the trim = wheel and big spring mod before first flight so we can't speak directly = as to the "changes" produced by these mods.=20 Like you, I have flown both large tail (mk II) and small tail LNC2's and = frankly don't notice much difference. I have also flown the standard = trim system and find that it's inconvenient not being able to trim at = both extremes, but just an inconvenience, not a hazard.=20 Finally, I think that there is a difference between "sensitivity" and = "stability". I believe that one can have (and believe that we have) an = aircraft that is both sensitive and stable. I wouldn't want it any other = way. Funny, I don't remember you over-controling. Maybe you just needed to = get used to flying upside down since you were flying ours here in the = NORTHERN hemishpere! :-) Bill Harrelson 5zq@cox.net N5ZQ 320 1,200 hrs N6ZQ IV 7.00113% 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_01DB_01C67BEA.C7452900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hmmmm. Dom, I think that there may=20 be additional differences that might have to be taken into = consideration=20 besides the small/large tail.  We have done a modification to the = elevator=20 horn (fairly common). This modification involves drilling a new = hole closer=20 to the pivot point for the push rod attach, one inch closer if memory = serves.=20 The effect of this modification is to REDUCE the stick MOVEMENT = required=20 for a given elevator deflection. At the same time it acts to INCREASE = the stick=20 FORCE required for the same deflection.
 
Another modification was to increase = the size and=20 strength of the trim springs. This mod was done in conjunction with the = geared=20 trim wheel system. This allows us adequate trim at any speed from a = red=20 line power dive to a short field flaps 40 approach at 70 knots. We = did the=20 trim wheel and big spring mod before first flight so we can't speak = directly as=20 to the "changes" produced by these mods.
 
Like you, I have flown both large tail = (mk II) and=20 small tail LNC2's and frankly don't notice much difference. I have also = flown=20 the standard trim system and find that it's inconvenient not being able = to trim=20 at both extremes, but just an inconvenience, not a hazard.
 
Finally, I think that there is a = difference between=20 "sensitivity" and "stability". I believe that one can have (and believe = that we=20 have) an aircraft that is both sensitive and stable. I wouldn't want it = any=20 other way.
 
Funny, I don't remember you = over-controling. Maybe=20 you just needed to get used to flying upside down since you were=20 flying ours here in the NORTHERN hemishpere!  = :-)
 
Bill Harrelson
5zq@cox.net
N5ZQ 320 1,200 hrs
N6ZQ  IV   = 7.00113%
 

What I found a mystery was the=20 over-control I exhibited in both pitch and roll axes. Mine is very = stable in=20 both areas.

Dom Crain

VH-CZJ

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_01DB_01C67BEA.C7452900--