Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:55:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [209.98.52.17] (HELO HLM_Exchange.HLM) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 1980112 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:43:19 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <6FA98AC6B173D41180670090272AB8C538A6EE@HLM_Exchange.HLM> From: Michael Smith X-Original-To: 'Lancair Mailing List' Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Wing Loading mysteries X-Original-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:26:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8CD.68EF60C0" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8CD.68EF60C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Does not the increased down load from the tail also add to wing loading and therefore a lower ultimate G factor? Michael Smith Lancair website specs say that the IV and IV-P max gross weight is 3200 and the positive G rating is 4.4 in the utility category. Using both wings, 24000/3200 = 7.5 max G load. 7.5/4.4 = 1.7, a 13.5% higher safety factor that the type certificated 1.5 requirement. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8CD.68EF60C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Does not the increased down load from the tail also add to wing loading and therefore a lower ultimate G factor?

Michael Smith

Lancair website specs say that the IV and IV-P max gross weight is 3200 and the positive G rating is 4.4 in the utility category. Using both wings, 24000/3200 = 7.5 max G load. 7.5/4.4 = 1.7, a 13.5% higher safety factor that the type certificated 1.5 requirement.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8CD.68EF60C0--