X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:14:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6572802 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:00:01 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=tednoel@cfl.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=KJLY/S5o c=1 sm=0 a=LB5lCuZFLfWm7iwnKAU65Q==:17 a=NQ98tjbrS84A:10 a=FtzfK-18wKcA:10 a=05ChyHeVI94A:10 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=nMsho4IkhHUA:10 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=vMUPNxEqWWS7wSn2Xm4A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=TA44d82-p6ERU4Y4EcoA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=PYTZPIeYDGH2qESO:21 a=LB5lCuZFLfWm7iwnKAU65Q==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 71.47.128.114 Received: from [71.47.128.114] ([71.47.128.114:53332] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 17/06-00701-EB3B3725; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:59:27 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <5273B3AC.3030906@cfl.rr.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:59:08 -0400 From: Ted Noel Reply-To: tednoel@cfl.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Tip tanks References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070703080605060701060603" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070703080605060701060603 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked this basic question a few years ago. In essence, Beech did this with some Bonanzas and Cessna did it with 310's. It turned out to increase acceptable gross weight because it changed the spanwise weight distribution to reduce flexing loads on the wing. With proper design, the tanks also acted like winglets to reduce drag in some flight regimes. Ted Noel On 11/1/2013 7:24 AM, JIM HANKINS wrote: > Does anyone know of a valid reason for not installing 15 gal tip tanks > on a Lancair IVP turboprop? I made provisions for > this when I was building, but to my knowledge it has not been widely > done. Adjustment of the angle of attack on the tanks would be welcome. > Most comments on this would be appreciated. > Jim Hankins > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3615/6797 - Release Date: 10/31/13 > --------------070703080605060701060603 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked this basic question a few years ago. In essence, Beech did this with some Bonanzas and Cessna did it with 310's. It turned out to increase acceptable gross weight because it changed the spanwise weight distribution to reduce flexing loads on the wing. With proper design, the tanks also acted like winglets to reduce drag in some flight regimes.

Ted Noel

On 11/1/2013 7:24 AM, JIM HANKINS wrote:

Does anyone know of a valid reason for not installing 15 gal tip tanks on a Lancair IVP turboprop? I made provisions for

this when I was building, but to my knowledge it has not been widely done. Adjustment of the angle of attack on the tanks would be welcome.

Most comments on this would be appreciated.

Jim Hankins

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3615/6797 - Release Date: 10/31/13

--------------070703080605060701060603--