X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:12:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm28.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([98.139.212.187] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6475366 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:34:20 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.212.187; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.212.147] by nm28.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2013 17:33:45 -0000 Received: from [68.142.230.73] by tm4.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2013 17:33:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp230.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2013 17:33:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 22503.33700.bm@smtp230.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: o32mrBYVM1kkXkJcpCLJZRzG8XlHp9jvk5lKB4HWG2NOmDw Fsr5zWYtOCcyBOEGADw9eAApDya2NyvT7DMwKIy1oY5fVDFKY49HezI3Cv9O V_p_qy7FZboto6n6uAwlYv7sbRVvqswVUsEqJG.X0VjBZt6_GXn8tosCNt39 21hRuNSluHWpG9k3hq65EZVSQOjnEgioNfW5qbrgD_xG66C130pNjwtbBBN3 SLIuOIDPhLfa4lacY7IAQcOZuAC5l5MV2e_C3oUusOHbY.gXxkz2GLzSbnMj ELP3BHIkPJ5doi9lgpsU0GC2QoyUw0yF5Mv7EQQrEXDlZe0ElFI7MVY.JVAG ZWOP.LVEdydlXC.vVY1WdRXpyDkI_FHPVfWhJkOMYlcEzQUNkmeMRGMZjOt5 c.EtOMMHx339fnyAFXXIgSWLdelFhWnnWexp1ElM3l4byijqx5.GPfvZJCiL XBbI.AnkwoBLnTrFB50yRRiKt1oeWJqj3Zq82XCiuy3EJAKsi1xEEArueiFP buNQZNb0i78HsB6G8didYuyKCG4bHqJmv9eEqJOVGMs5kndZBh6hehGZUnFj fH4bXGTWH7AANOUkUGS8oh16dtA35wKSJLj.9phum0IFYPVtca69X_HCSMhA knJL3VddrbiCTChhqM1chJQO4W3al5Pcn7Me6tHRmFUVpwTOLWpEYDEYkdUn Rz.g_oaaDEvyotImiUzXiX4M1w8ASppyrg_6jy_zcc_7q3hEZnLMz0dZXJeN 5McaTmmzVtSA- X-Yahoo-SMTP: 076hgjCswBC.G6e0vm7vgvZ9JJ0zmeBo_Oyw X-Rocket-Received: from [10.77.124.35] (chris_zavatson@166.137.215.164 with ) by smtp230.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2013 17:33:44 +0000 UTC Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 performance and stability References: From: Chris Zavatston Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3BB35986-341D-4AEC-86AC-58CC67E883B4 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:33:38 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-3BB35986-341D-4AEC-86AC-58CC67E883B4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Christian, Does your aviation authority have any specific requirements for landing gear= , climb rates, or stall speed? The airframe was designed with margins, but w= ould take a good understanding of your local regulations to know how to advi= se you on increasing gross weight. As to flaps, it would be interesting to see what you get if you were to swee= p through flap settings beyond -7 degrees. The lower your lift coefficient i= s, the more it will favor additional reflex. Chris Zavatson N91CZ 360std www.N91CZ.com On Sep 13, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Christian Meier wrote: > Hi Chris, >=20 > thank you for sharing this interesting reports. > During my flight testing I used accidentally 14=C2=B0 of reflex instead of= 7=C2=B0. I don't have data what the difference in speed between 7=C2=B0 and= 14=C2=B0 was. > As far as I remember there was a similar difference between 0=C2=B0 and 7=C2= =B0 as yours. > During building I installed a longer flap actuator (200mm) to get the full= travel. When my testflying was finished, I installed a phenolic block > to get a hard stop at 7=C2=B0 > I could easily get more then 7=C2=B0 by grinding a bit off.... > But then the flap would stick out of the fuselage fairing and this might c= reate more drag... What do you think about this? > >=20 > The 3,5" increase from CofG sounds good.=20 > I have a long engine mount and a heavy engine (IO390), so I extended my ma= c from 15=C2=B0 to 11=C2=B0 as recommended from Lancair (issue 1/99 page 8) > Having the CofG more forward works nice. My trimtab is smaller as the plan= s say. So I needed to install the trimspring as well in the elevator pushtub= e > to preload the system. On ground my elevator stays level due to the spring= . >=20 > I still have my mtow at 765kg as my inspector was a bit "unflexible". Now I= found a way to increase to the factory tested 810kg. I use a 2. cathegory (= Utility) > with 3,6g instead of 4,4g. I tried flying with 850kg and never had a prob= lem with changing in flight characteristics. I even don't reach the original= rear CofG=20 > when flying overloaded. > I the US the builder can set its own mtow, but here in europe it has to be= tested in all ways... > I passed my load test at 4,4g with 2350kg on the wings.=20 > In your opinion, what could be the max mtow for me when I stay in the 3,6g= cathegory without doing a new load test. If I could get 840kg I would be mo= re=20 > than happy. I just have no clue to make some basic calculation to convince= my inspector.... > Doing a gross weight increase means payinng money to get a test permission= and doing the testflying again including: > takoff and landingdistance, climb performance and noise test. > The reason I want to do this, we get more and more ramp checks. I they get= me flying 50kg overloaded, I have to throw my copilot out of the plane. My f= ather > will not be happy going back by train ;-) >=20 > regards, > Christian >=20 > >=20 > Am 13.09.2013 um 14:31 schrieb Chris Zavatson : >=20 >> N91CZ has been a flying laboratory for most of this year. Below are link= s to three reports that may be of interest to the Lancair community, in part= icular 320/360 flyers. >> =20 >> The first takes a look at the effect flap position has on total aircraft d= rag using the NLF(1)-0215. The numbers are quite impressive in terms of dra= g coefficients. In the end, it looks like we could benefit from a little mo= re reflex beyond -7 degrees. >> http://n91cz.com/Performance/Cruise_Flap_Report.pdf >> =20 >> The second report looks at the neutral point differences and static margi= ns of the small and large tail 320/360 models. A large portion of the docum= ent is a tutorial of sorts on longitudinal stability. It deals only with st= atic stability, but is a good lead-in to the third report. >> http://n91cz.com/Stability/Lancair360_Static_Stability.pdf >> =20 >> The third report looks at the stability of the 360 MKII in much greater d= etail. It include dynamic stability in both cruise and landing configuratio= ns, as well as, stick force gradients and elevator effectiveness all the way= down to stall speed. >> http://n91cz.com/Stability/Lancair360_Stability_and_Control_Evaluation.pd= f >> =20 >> =20 >> Chris Zavatson >> N91CZ >> 360std >> http://www.n91cz.net/ >> -- >> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml >=20 --Apple-Mail-3BB35986-341D-4AEC-86AC-58CC67E883B4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Christian,
= Does your aviation authority have any specific requirements for landing gear= , climb rates, or stall speed?  The airframe was designed with margins,= but would take a good understanding of your local regulations to know how t= o advise you on increasing gross weight.

As to flap= s, it would be interesting to see what you get if you were to sweep through f= lap settings beyond -7 degrees.  The lower your lift coefficient is, th= e more it will favor additional reflex.

Chris Zavat= son
N91CZ
360std


On Sep 13, 2013, at 1:18 P= M, Christian Meier <lancair@meier.cc<= /a>> wrote:

t= o preload the system. On ground my elevator stays level due to the spring.

I still have my mtow at 765kg as my inspector was a b= it "unflexible". Now I found a way to increase to the factory tested 810kg. I= use a 2. cathegory (Utility)
 with 3,6g instead of 4,4g. I t= ried flying with 850kg and never had a problem with changing in flight chara= cteristics. I even don't reach the original rear CofG 
when f= lying overloaded.
I the US the builder can set its own mtow, but h= ere in europe it has to be tested in all ways...
I passed my load t= est at 4,4g with 2350kg on the wings. 
In your opinion, what c= ould be the max mtow for me when I stay in the 3,6g cathegory without doing a= new load test. If I could get 840kg I would be more 
than ha= ppy. I just have no clue to make some basic calculation to convince my inspe= ctor....
Doing a gross weight increase means payinng money to get a= test permission and doing the testflying again including:
takoff a= nd landingdistance, climb performance and noise test.
The reason I= want to do this, we get more and more ramp checks. I they get me flying 50k= g overloaded, I have to throw my copilot out of the plane. My father
will not be happy going back by train ;-)



N91CZ has been a flying laboratory for most of= this year.  Below are links to three reports that may be of interest t= o the Lancair community, in particular 320/360 flyers.
 
The first takes a look at the effect flap position has on to= tal aircraft drag using the NLF(1)-0215.  The numbers are qui= te impressive in terms of drag coefficients.  In the end, it looks= like we could benefit from a little more reflex beyond -7 degrees.
 
The second report looks at the neutral point differences and static margin= s of the small and large tail 320/360 models.  A large portion of the d= ocument is a tutorial of sorts on longitudinal stability.  It deals only with static stability, but is a= good lead-in to the third report.
 
The third report l= ooks at the stability of the 360 MKII in much greater detail.  It inclu= de dynamic stability in both cruise and landing configurations, as well as, s= tick force gradients and elevator effectiveness all the way down to stall sp= eed.
 
 
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std=
=
<DSC_0047 - Copy.JPG>--
For archives and u= nsub http:/= /mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= --Apple-Mail-3BB35986-341D-4AEC-86AC-58CC67E883B4--