X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:46:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTP id 5443347 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:00:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=kkellner1@new.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=d9t3OGfE c=1 sm=0 a=obLwkm3ISv3u5N1fLH+lKQ==:17 a=Iy1csxky15oA:10 a=m-mSg2F3nesA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=3AJpX1He3T0ihf-lkFAA:9 a=hTu2t-BrJOqTj7vlWsYA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=to2ju4hKxjAA:10 a=hV-wVUytbA4A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=_P8PpDgA_nMYyqcV:21 a=ggJ09syg5_iY4kxy:21 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=C_IRinGWAAAA:8 a=gaI_q117mFdfOVhSckUA:9 a=hzUByN--9klw_6VBikYA:7 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=obLwkm3ISv3u5N1fLH+lKQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 70.92.78.168 Received: from [70.92.78.168] ([70.92.78.168:1680] helo=D4SSJS91) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 46/43-26054-9F3026F4; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:00:09 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <26B0114F21EC4F149497FDA2A1BAEF80@D4SSJS91> From: "Ken" X-Original-To: References: Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll X-Original-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:00:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007A_01CD0292.679F8240" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01CD0292.679F8240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "One of the first things Cessna did to reduce the aileron stick forces when= they purchased the Columbia line." With apologies to the good folks at Lancair, my crediting Cessna with impro= ving the aileron stick forces in the Columbia was not correct. The tabs de= scribed were standard on the Columbia before being taken over by Cessna. = =20 Ken Kellner IV-P N14LK ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ken=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:26 AM Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll Randy, One option to reduce aileron stick forces is to add something similar to,= but not exactly, a roll trim tab. It goes on the wing opposite the wing t= hat has the trim tab. Instead of attaching the new tab to a trim servo, it= is attached to the trailing edge of the wing, or hinge bearing block, via = a fixed push rod. The length of the rod is adjustable so you can change ho= w much the stick forces are reduced. The new tab with the fixed push rod m= oves opposite the direction of the aileron. =20 After reading my own description even I am confused. But, if you look at= a Cessna Corvallis (or whatever it is called) it is standard equipment. O= ne of the first things Cessna did to reduce the aileron stick forces when t= hey purchased the Columbia line. I have flown a before and after example of this mod on a Glastar and it i= s a noticeable improvement. I have no clue what the potential structural o= r aerodynamic downsides might be. Ken Kellner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: John Hafen=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll Randy: It's the same on my IVP. If I sneeze, I will gain or lose 200 = feet without touching the stick. The aileron forces are so brutal that I d= on't turn at all. I just go around the block.=20 If I do need to turn, I use my knees to provide pressure assist. Works= for left turns, not so much for right turns. I don't notice it after a few hundred hours, but pilots new to the plan= e freak out. =20 Cheers, John On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Randy Hartman wrote: To: All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that wants to weigh in on the subj= ect, Subject: Stick force harmony (or stick movement vs. control surface mov= ement) between pitch and roll My Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown now for 450 hours, has an c= haracteristic that I would like some input on from all you well-informed an= d intelligent LML readers and contributors. The characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch axis that is not harmonized= with the roll axis. I have gotten used to the difference and frankly don't plan on changing= anything about it unless someone out there has a good suggestion. I have some questions: 1. Is this typical of the LNC2? 2. What kinds of things should I be concerned about in considerin= g any changes to the linkage of the system? 3. Has anyone made any changes and what were the results? 4. Does anyone out there have any experience with using full pitc= h deflection - in any portion of flight? I imagine it might be needed in l= anding, full flaps, lower speeds - but I have not seen it. It seems to me the way to make an increase in aileron sensitivity is to= change the mechanical linkage geometry to effectively make the control sur= face move more degrees of rotation per degree of stick movement. This woul= d (and could) be done but the resultant would be the stick not getting full= deflection (as compared to now) in the cockpit when the aileron was at ful= l deflection. This might not be a bad thing because right now the stick ha= s to be jammed up against one or the other of your thighs in order to get t= he aileron to full deflection. Ideally I would like to have less sensitivity in pitch, resulting in mo= re stick deflection for the same pitch results as now - and less total stic= k deflection in roll, which should result in more roll sensitivity. For clarification purposes - my horizontal stab and elevator are a one-= off design of Chuck Brenner. Chuck was involved with part of the construct= ion of this project prior to my involvement with it. Randy Hartman Cell (319) 360-9775 ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01CD0292.679F8240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"One of the first things Cessna did to re= duce the=20 aileron stick forces when they purchased the Columbia line."
 
With apologies to the good folks at Lancair, my crediting Cessna with= =20 improving the aileron stick forces in the Columbia was not correct.  T= he=20 tabs described were standard on the Columbia before being taken over by=20 Cessna. 
 
Ken Kellner
IV-P  N14LK
----- Original Me= ssage=20 -----
Fro= m:=20 Ken<= /A>=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:26= =20 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminiz= ation=20 between pitch and roll

Randy,
 
One option to reduce aileron stick forces is to add something= =20 similar to, but not exactly, a roll trim tab.  It goes on the w= ing=20 opposite the wing that has the trim tab.  Instead of attaching the= =20 new tab to a trim servo, it is attached to the trailing edge of the = wing,=20 or hinge bearing block, via a fixed push rod.  The length of th= e rod=20 is adjustable so you can change how much the stick forces are reduced.&nb= sp;=20 The new tab with the fixed push rod moves opposite the direction of the= =20 aileron. 
 
After reading my own description even I am confused.  But, if y= ou=20 look at a Cessna Corvallis (or whatever it is called) it is standard=20 equipment.  One of the first things Cessna did to reduce the aileron= =20 stick forces when they purchased the Columbia line.
 
I have flown a before and after example of this mod on a Glastar and= it=20 is a noticeable improvement.  I have no clue what the potential=20 structural or aerodynamic downsides might be.
 
Ken Kellner
 
 
----- Original Message -----
F= rom:=20 John= =20 Hafen
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:2= 5=20 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harmin= ization=20 between pitch and roll

Randy:  It's the same on my IVP.  If I sneeze,= I=20 will gain or lose 200 feet without touching the stick.  The ailero= n=20 forces are so brutal that I don't turn at all.  I just go around t= he=20 block.=20

If I do need to turn, I use my knees to provide pressure assist.= =20  Works for left turns, not so much for right turns.

I don't notice it after a few hundred hours, but pilots new to the= =20 plane freak out.  

Cheers,

John


On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Randy Hartman wrote:
To:=20 All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that wants to weigh in on the=20 subject,
Subject:=20 Stick force harmony (or stick movement vs. control surface movement) be= tween=20 pitch and roll
My=20 Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown now for 450 hours, has an=20 characteristic that I would like some input on from all you well-inform= ed=20 and intelligent LML readers and contributors. The=20 characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch axis that is not harmonized wit= h the=20 roll axis. I=20 have gotten used to the difference and frankly don't plan on changing= =20 anything about it unless someone out there has a good=20 suggestion. I=20 have some questions: 1.     &nb= sp; Is this typica= l of=20 the LNC2? 2.     &nb= sp; What kinds of = things=20 should I be concerned about in considering any changes to the linkage o= f the=20 system? 3.     &nb= sp; Has anyone mad= e any=20 changes and what were the results? 4.     &nb= sp; Does anyone ou= t there=20 have any experience with using full pitch deflection - in any portion o= f=20 flight?  I imagine it might be needed in landing, full flaps, lowe= r=20 speeds - but I have not seen it. It=20 seems to me the way to make an increase in aileron sensitivity is to ch= ange=20 the mechanical linkage geometry to effectively make the control surface= move=20 more degrees of rotation per degree of stick movement.  This would= (and=20 could) be done but the resultant would be the stick not getting full=20 deflection (as compared to now) in the cockpit when the aileron was at = full=20 deflection.  This might not be a bad thing because right now the s= tick=20 has to be jammed up against one or the other of your thighs in order to= get=20 the aileron to full deflection. Ideally=20 I would like to have less sensitivity in pitch, resulting in more stick= =20 deflection for the same pitch results as now - and less total stick=20 deflection in roll, which should result in more roll=20 sensitivity. For=20 clarification purposes - my horizontal stab and elevator are a one-off= =20 design of Chuck Brenner.  Chuck was involved with part of the=20 construction of this project prior to my involvement with=20 it. Randy=20 Hartman Cell=20 (319)=20 360-9775
------=_NextPart_000_007A_01CD0292.679F8240--