X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:13:57 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.15) with ESMTP id 3801485 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:36:54 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=KfpZhuKV5eHpLrC7qHTwhydNk2YyYyp6VbHiApNiEWUoD1tVhcutJ5vkb0mFjmi/; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.63] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Mai9r-0005z8-BU for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:36:19 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <0a6301ca1a34$e3aa97b0$6701a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: Subject: rudder extensions X-Original-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:36:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0A60_01CA1A13.5C4EF660" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da9408b4a078827b6d6f5504dac535ab45b22350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.63 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0A60_01CA1A13.5C4EF660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's interesting that so many 235 builders have modified the rudder. I = thought that was a big deal requiring lots of engineering and flight = testing. Anyway for a different reason, I"ve always thought it would be good to = extend the rudder downward on the IVP on the theory that at high angles = of attack the top of the rudder is largely blanketed but the bottom = could be in clean air. =20 Have any IVP owners modified their rudder? Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_0A60_01CA1A13.5C4EF660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's interesting that so many 235 = builders have=20 modified the rudder.   I thought that was a big deal requiring = lots of=20 engineering and flight testing.
 
Anyway for a different reason, I"ve = always thought=20 it would be good to extend the rudder downward on the IVP on the theory = that at=20 high angles of attack the top of the rudder is largely blanketed but the = bottom=20 could be in clean air.  
 
Have any IVP owners modified their=20 rudder?
 
Colyn
 
------=_NextPart_000_0A60_01CA1A13.5C4EF660--