Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 10:49:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 1980667 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 02:56:27 -0500 Received: from attbi.com (12-233-4-187.client.attbi.com[12.233.4.187]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003011107561200200fuq3ge>; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 07:56:12 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <3E1FCE38.5B1F022C@attbi.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:56:40 -0800 From: Bob X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Wing Loading mysteries References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with John Poco. The down force on the tail must be counteracted by additional lift over and above the weight of the airplane. Imagine you are flying level, and a passenger moves from the back to the front. To remain level, additional down force is required from the tail. This results in a slight increase in AOA and an increase in lift equal to the additional down force on the tail. Bob Belshe N19BJ