Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:16:31 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-3512578@logan.com>
Reply-To: <craig@skybolt.net>
From: "Craig" <craig@skybolt.net>
References: <redirect-3510939@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <redirect-3510939@logan.com>
Subject: RE: 360 in a small-tail LNC2?
Organization: Skybolt
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AcmVPffRLVQGO2TrR6S/RIouNSDicwAq0Khg
Content-Language: en-us

Hi Larry,

I think you are right about the incidence being wrong in a lot of these
airplanes.  Mine will run out of down trim over 210 kts.  A quick look =
back
and I can see the elevator counterbalance sticking up about 3/8 inch.  =
My CG
is perfectly to spec but at 210+ it doesn't seem to matter how the =
airplane
is loaded.  It still needs gobs of down trim.  The problem is the faster =
the
airplane goes the more lift the wing wants to create.  So to keep the
airplane flying level you have to reduce the angle of attack, that means
down trim.  A full flying horizontal stab would be the most efficient =
way
around this. =20

Craig Schulze
Lancair 320 small tail.

-----Original Message-----
From: LHenney [mailto:LHenney@charter.net]=20
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 2:36 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: FW: 360 in a small-tail LNC2?

Tom,

I had occasion to visit my CG limits for a son's science project.  =
Similarly
I was assessing elevator bob weight position relative to the horizontal =
tail
at race speeds and comparing airspeed data. =20

In my aircraft, your premise would be wrong.  That is, I have to move =
the CG
forward to flatten out the elevators to the horizontal tail (which also
increases speed (yes it's hard to believe)).  As opposed to changing CG, =
one
might verify horizontal tail incidence.  Or more precisely all Lancair =
320/
360 I've flown with have this same affect (bob weights a little high at
least minimally).

Regarding your CG comments, serious pursuit of empty CG before any
additional flight would be my recommendation (imho). The phrase " way to =
far
forward I think" has me squirming.

Larry Henney

PS: In my estimation, several 320/ 360 builders took the tail plane =
template
and transferred it to an incidence guide.  The subsequent mistake was
mounting one's smart level atop the guide and setting the tail plane at =
the
requisite 1/4 to 1/2 degree nose down.  The mistake is missing the fact =
that
the incidence guide off the blue print was already 1/2 degree nose down.
Thus reading 0 deg on the smart level should have had the tail at the =
1/2
degree nose down angle.  Many are actually 1 deg nose down.  This is not =
a
problem.  It just increases stability and costs 2-3 kts.

Just my 2 cents.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom McNerney [mailto:dudewanarace@yahoo.com]=20
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:51 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: RE:360 in a small-tail LNC2?


Works great.=A0 I have a 400!=A0 I'm sure the rest of small tail group =
would
agree.=A0 Might have to move your center of gravity back. (I need to)=A0 =
Only
thing I can say is that slow flight with full flaps isn't the most
comfortable, but now that I am aware of how it=A0handles, doesn't bother =
me a
bit.=A0 My CG is way to far forward I think, so that probably makes the =
slow
flight a little different.

On a side note..=A0=A0 I turned around and looked at the tail the =
other=A0day
while indicating 200KTS.=A0 I could see the elevator counter weight, or =
almost
all of it.=A0 I didn't expect to see that at 200.=A0 Maybe 100..=A0 =
haha=A0 This
leads me to believe that I have a forward center of gravity.=A0 The big =
engine
would explain that.=A0 Once I get=A0the plane=A0on some scales, the only =
thing I
can think of is to move=A0the battery.=A0 My battery is behind the =
passenger
seat.

Has anyone mounted a battery behind the baggage compartment?=A0 Advice?

Thanks
Tom
www.N54SG.com=20