X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:23:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.1) with ESMTP id 2837425 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:00:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.70; envelope-from=artbertolina@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=sLjwwwcXZH60WW+HJ5ewLVpkE7D7RFlqu/AN5kdNuJoecfcTsMm2blBQD0Dq4Xw3; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [206.55.133.78] (helo=LAPTOP2) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JjHAV-0001g7-FE for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:59:36 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <001101c89999$eb423590$7b00000a@LAPTOP2> From: "Art Bertolina" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Horizontal Stabilizer Incidence Angle for IV-P X-Original-Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:59:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8995F.3C0C21B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: 1c57f4aab304e4a6fc8cc707cfd6285a4d2b10475b571120e5c268eb6419e44235caf255601dada093fe5b2b5bb10998350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 206.55.133.78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8995F.3C0C21B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Giff I spoke to Martin Hollman ( L IV designer ) about this when I was installing the HS he said the original plane was designed and = built with 0 degree incidence. I ask why this was changed to -0.6, he didn't know. I built mine to 0 degree=20 incidence. It would be interesting to know the rational for=20 the -0.6 HS incidence. Art =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Giffen Marr=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:13 PM Subject: [LML] Horizontal Stabilizer Incidence Angle for IV-P I am in the process of installing the Horizontal Stabilizer. I have = used a water level to level the Fuselage, using the leveling marks = molded into the structure. When I place the HS in the preinstalled fixture for the HS, I find = that I have almost a -1.4 degrees nose down. When I adjust the HS to = reflect the -0.6 degrees, the leading edge of the HS is about 3/16 above = the fixture. My kit, 386, is a fast build kit, so the fixture was = installed at the factory. Is it possible that the fixture was installed = slightly off the manual specification??? =20 I have reviewed the builder's manual and it calls for -0.6 degrees, = nose down incidence. I have noted in some in-flight pictures that in = many cases the elevator is slightly down, which in my mind means either = the aircraft is at an aft CG or the HS has too much nose down incidence. = Has anyone noted either of these problems??? =20 Would it be prudent to decrease the nose down incidence, and if so, = how much??? =20 Giff Marr LIV-P/Mistral 65% =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8995F.3C0C21B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Giff
I spoke to Martin Hollman ( L IV = designer ) about=20 this when
I was installing the HS he said the = original plane=20 was designed and built with 0 degree incidence. I ask why = this
was changed to -0.6, he didn't know. I = built mine=20 to 0 degree
incidence. It would be interesting to = know the=20 rational for
the -0.6 HS incidence.
Art  
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Giffen Marr=20
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 = 9:13=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Horizontal = Stabilizer=20 Incidence Angle for IV-P

I am in the process of = installing=20 the Horizontal Stabilizer. I have used a water level to level the = Fuselage,=20 using the leveling marks molded into the=20 structure.

When I place the HS in = the=20 preinstalled fixture for the HS, I find that I have almost a -1.4 = degrees nose=20 down. When I adjust the HS to reflect the -0.6 degrees, the leading = edge of=20 the HS is about 3/16 above the fixture. My kit, 386, is a fast build = kit, so=20 the fixture was installed at the factory. Is it possible that the = fixture was=20 installed slightly off the manual=20 specification???

 

I have reviewed the = builder=92s=20 manual and it calls for -0.6 degrees, nose down incidence. I have = noted in=20 some in-flight pictures that in many cases the elevator is slightly = down,=20 which in my mind means either the aircraft is at an aft CG or the HS = has too=20 much nose down incidence. Has anyone noted either of these=20 problems???

 

Would it be prudent to = decrease=20 the nose down incidence, and if so, how = much???

 

Giff=20 Marr

LIV-P/Mistral=20 65%

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8995F.3C0C21B0--