X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:18:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.120.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6479003 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:30:56 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.120.48; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Sep 2013 16:30:20 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.177] by nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Sep 2013 16:27:20 -0000 Received: from [98.137.12.190] by tm12.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Sep 2013 16:27:19 -0000 Received: from [216.39.60.195] by tm11.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Sep 2013 16:27:19 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1082.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Sep 2013 16:27:19 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 370213.15694.bm@omp1082.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84690 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Sep 2013 16:27:18 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=22WB40yl8xheFz/9s17qou25HJeu5QPdWdCAGdy/H/LcGhxO4kfGXDnKSp2H6xWb0yguWzPGNQuOfJcVm9LMQ0oim+sk9uzm3FtUT4VtiX4yNPN/uH1btXE3OcY+30oZtemeOo2O6Wid1C41Cr0TWOiWtoc5zahf6dlUwDNTD90=; X-YMail-OSG: 8W3_ZmUVM1mrqXucafkBY_n8qTIR3ePQw1WN5YaOVjhiTO9 IF10AQEyGG6WyZEgFsXFl_SwdHSRMjqtESOc8fw6h1hRMIpL3SsUD5tbPiPD DWiVGp41qaB4eizxHimxT4O3Ugar0UI_mU0IJv9_680XQUooAc6yt_c3iUCX N899NaEZpp2NLjXe7KchGYeHUTXOpTDNOkWsPO8KLLiH7yxvk3ooTSGDuuf_ IIYzUQgyR_QQvCrcauisdOZdqSnzxDqprnR8skWcS65CDvqMtgVUKZwSaGv7 5VGUaLdGb1Vi8NgaXVxvmJuNNwBhivUtjZd96u.LAJChFHTWu_ltEjttvDbp QO0UZncrA9YRB_yDS.PwCdSl27wOSMiPKU5eZh6gzPuQF3EFBiqX4wePkoJ0 NcHHUl2SSLFsidwIfU0EaTL4gLA8fePmsuAf5fRhNOjpImHR2cgkpEbzt1Y0 OiZbepvcIn3qXwHr2Yxg.Qj_9_1H24jQUHFmNeFDsm5Ju6cgy5yrNsD8tHVi bq4Bod1.I1fwc44PI4AB1XpOcgQgfIzaEb_uGlYGrbFPMHQoiagAUnX_LwMe YYnDlWXRthxJc_LiwFOEZWgi.V5HasWiGyljrI4.QEvJQCeHZ02VrafNr_2. Gljnl5GTbCe5T7y6QO5TzULEvSOHsQ8kPfZAwXUwCCWb88jVa7t2MM_Whyzb _gsPyroCm0m6Mwb9_QlK3IjiSmBX8az4gMeFklU3sXwze1VCpgD2IxsbeSH0 - Received: from [172.14.16.72] by web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:27:18 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,U2NvdHQsClRoYW5rcy7CoCBFeGFtaW5pbmcgdGhlwqAzNjAgKE1rSUkpIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIGFuZCBjaGFyYWN0ZXJpc3RpY3MgaW4gZ3JlYXRlciBkZXRhaWwgYXMgYmVlbiB2ZXJ5IGludGVyZXN0aW5nLgrCoApUaGUgc21hbGwgdGFpbCBoYXMgYSB2ZXJ5IGxvdyBhc3BlY3QgcmF0aW8gYW5kIG1heSBpbmRlZWQgYmUgc3ViamVjdCB0byBoaWdoZXIgZHJhZyBpZiB0aGUgc3RhYmlsaXplciBpbmNpZGVuY2UgcmVxdWlyZXMgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgZWxldmF0b3IgaW5wdXQgdG8gdHJpbS7CoMKgVGhlIE1rSUkBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.157.561 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1379435238.64787.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Zavatson Reply-To: Chris Zavatson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 performance and stability X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-36511695-2057346739-1379435238=:64787" ---36511695-2057346739-1379435238=:64787 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott,=0AThanks.=A0 Examining the=A0360 (MkII) performance and characterist= ics in greater detail as been very interesting.=0A=A0=0AThe small tail has = a very low aspect ratio and may indeed be subject to higher drag if the sta= bilizer incidence requires significant elevator input to trim.=A0=A0The MkI= I tail adds about 2 sqft, but more significantly has a much greater aspect = ratio.=A0 My=A0stab was well aligned for the sweep of flap settings as the = elevator deflection was about 0.5 degrees TE down.=A0=A0In fact, all of the= points were=A0inside of=A00.1 degrees of elevator movement.=A0 =0AThe conc= ept of aft CG=A0being more efficient is by reducing trim drag.=A0 It is use= d quite successfully in aircraft that adjust the entire stabilizer for trim= .=A0 A fixed stab angle=A0that is too far from neutral in=A0the aft CG or i= n the 'super-reflexed' cruise=A0condition could negate=A0any benefit.=A0=A0= In my case the plot of flap setting vs. airspeed showed that I had not yet = reached a peak.=A0 Extrapolating the curve gives me another 2 kts at 12 deg= rees reflex.=A0 Extrapolating is a bit dangerous with any polynomial curve,= but on the other=A0hand this one has=A0an exceptionally well=A0behaved 2nd= order trend.=A0=A0 -7 degrees certainly provides a large portion of the be= nefit.=0AIt would be very interesting to run through the same series of tes= ts with a=A0small tail=A0at the same static margins for a side by side comp= arison.=0AChris=A0=A0=A0=0A=A0=0AChris Zavatson=0AN91CZ=0A360std=0Ahttp://w= ww.n91cz.net/=0A=0A=A0 =0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Sky= 2high@aol.com" =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net =0ASent: Sund= ay, September 15, 2013 12:26 PM=0ASubject: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 perfor= mance and stability=0A =0A=0A=0AChris, =0A=0AGreat research. =0A=0AIn my s= mall tailed 320, increased flap reflex experimentation=A0did not =0Aresult = in increased top end speed.=A0 The nose=A0up pitch was increased, =0Arequir= ing increased nose down trim - probably=A0resulting in greater =0Aempennage= drag negating any reduction in drag from the =0Agreater=A0reflex.=A0 Of co= urse, we would have to discuss the angle of =0Aincidence of the small tail = and its relationship to the elevator correcting for =0Anose down pitching (= my incidence was at -.9 degrees). =0A=0ABy moving weights forward and aft = in the same flight, forward CG =0Awas=A0better for maximizing speed - unlik= e some aircraft that see max speed =0Awhen the CG is at the neutral point, = probably a consequence of more standard =0Awing/tail design that saw drag f= rom wing/horizontal +/- lift factors more =0Abalanced and minimized. =0A= =0AFor me, the biggest gain in speed came from adding $140 worth of=A0gap = =0Aseals to both sides of=A0all control surface and the flaps =0A(remember= =A0Greenameyer made his flaps part of the wing in his very fast Reno =0ALeg= acy - he didn't need no stink'n flaps).=A0 I believe that I lost no speed = =0Awhen I removed the upper seals from the flaps last year.=A0The seals wer= e =0Acurved=A0Mylar seals often obtainable for gliders.=A0 The gain was fro= m 6 =0Ato 8 KIAS, depending.=A0 Controls were more responsive and the =0Awe= e=A0rudder was effective about=A05 KIAS sooner. =0A=0AI didn't follow up on= a cockpit controlled diffuser for managing cooing =0Adrag as I saw about 7= " H2O upper to lower cowl=A0at about 135 KIAS (climb =0Aspeed), but 13" at = 200 KIAS and such pressure was not necessary as the engine =0Aran cool ther= e. =0A=0AI found the small tail had enough control - I only wanted my littl= e engine =0Ato pull everything along as quickly as possible. =0A=0AScott Kr= ueger =0A=0AIn a message dated 9/13/2013 7:32:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time= , =0Achris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes: =0AN91CZ has been a flying laboratory= for most of this year.=A0 Below are links to three reports that may be of= interest to the Lancair community, in particular 320/360 flyers. =0A>=0A>= The first takes a look at the effect=A0flap position=A0has on total aircra= ft=A0drag using the NLF(1)-0215.=A0=A0The numbers are quite impressive in = terms of drag coefficients.=A0=A0In the end, it looks like we=A0could bene= fit from a little more reflex beyond -7 degrees. =0A>http://n91cz.com/Perfo= rmance/Cruise_Flap_Report.pdf =0A>=0A>The second report looks at the neutra= l point differences and static margins of the small and large tail 320/360= models.=A0 A large portion of the document is a tutorial of sorts on long= itudinal stability.=A0 It deals only with static stability, but is a good = lead-in to the=A0third report. =0A>http://n91cz.com/Stability/Lancair360_S= tatic_Stability.pdf =0A>=0A>The third report looks at the stability of the = 360 MKII in much greater detail.=A0 It include dynamic stability in both c= ruise and landing configurations, as well as, stick force gradients and el= evator effectiveness all the way down to stall speed. =0A>http://n91cz.com= /Stability/Lancair360_Stability_and_Control_Evaluation.pdf =0A>=0A>=0A>Chri= s Zavatson =0A>N91CZ =0A>360std =0A>http://www.n91cz.net/=0A>=0A>--=0A>For = =0A archives and unsub =0A http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/Lis= t.html=0A> ---36511695-2057346739-1379435238=:64787 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Scott,
Thanks.  Examining the 360 (MkII) performance and charac= teristics in greater detail as been very interesting.
 
The small tail has a very low aspect ratio = and may indeed be subject to higher drag if the stabilizer incidence requir= es significant elevator input to trim.  The MkII tail adds about = 2 sqft, but more significantly has a much greater aspect ratio.  My&nb= sp;stab was well aligned for the sweep of flap settings as the elevator def= lection was about 0.5 degrees TE down.  In fact, all of the point= s were inside of 0.1 degrees of elevator movement.  <= /div>
The concept of aft CG being more efficient is by reduc= ing trim drag.  It is used quite successfully in aircraft that adjust the entire stabilizer for trim.  A fixed stab angle that = is too far from neutral in the aft CG or in the 'super-reflexed' cruis= e condition could negate any benefit.  In my case the p= lot of flap setting vs. airspeed showed that I had not yet reached a peak.&= nbsp; Extrapolating the curve gives me another 2 kts at 12 degrees reflex.&= nbsp; Extrapolating is a bit dangerous with any polynomial curve, but on th= e other hand this one has an exceptionally well behaved 2nd = order trend.   -7 degrees certainly provides a large portion of t= he benefit.
It would be very interesting to run thro= ugh the same series of tests with a small tail at the same static= margins for a side by side comparison.
Chris &= nbsp; 
 
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std=
From: "Sky2high@ao= l.com" <Sky2high@aol.com>
T= o: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 perfo= rmance and stability

=0A=0A =0A =0A
=0A
Chris,
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
Great research.
=0A
 
=0A
In my sma= ll tailed 320, increased flap reflex experimentation did not =0Aresult= in increased top end speed.  The nose up pitch was increased, = =0Arequiring increased nose down trim - probably resulting in greater = =0Aempennage drag negating any reduction in drag from the =0Agreater r= eflex.  Of course, we would have to discuss the angle of =0Aincidence = of the small tail and its relationship to the elevator correcting for =0Ano= se down pitching ( my incidence was at -.9 degrees).
=0A
 =0A
By moving weights forward and aft in the same flight, forward CG= =0Awas better for maximizing speed - unlike some aircraft that see ma= x speed =0Awhen the CG is at the neutral point, probably a consequence of m= ore standard =0Awing/tail design that saw drag from wing/horizontal +/- lif= t factors more =0Abalanced and minimized.
=0A
 
=0AFor me, the biggest gain in speed came from adding $140 worth of gap = =0Aseals to both sides of all control surface and the flaps =0A(rememb= er Greenameyer made his flaps part of the wing in his very fast Reno = =0ALegacy - he didn't need no stink'n flaps).  I believe that I lost n= o speed =0Awhen I removed the upper seals from the flaps last year. Th= e seals were =0Acurved Mylar seals often obtainable for gliders. = The gain was from 6 =0Ato 8 KIAS, depending.  Controls were more resp= onsive and the =0Awee rudder was effective about 5 KIAS sooner.=0A
 
=0A
I didn't follow up on a cockpit controlled = diffuser for managing cooing =0Adrag as I saw about 7" H2O upper to lower c= owl at about 135 KIAS (climb =0Aspeed), but 13" at 200 KIAS and such p= ressure was not necessary as the engine =0Aran cool there.
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
I found the small tail had enough control - I only wanted = my little engine =0Ato pull everything along as quickly as possible.
= =0A
 
=0A
Scott Krueger
=0A
 
=0A
= =0A
In a message dated 9/13/2013 7:32:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time, = =0Achris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes:
=0A
=0A
=0A
N91CZ has been a flying laborato= ry for most of this year.  Below are =0A links to three reports that = may be of interest to the Lancair community, in =0A particular 320/360 fly= ers.
=0A
 
=0A
The first takes a look at the eff= ect flap position has on total =0A aircraft drag using the = NLF(1)-0215.  The numbers are quite =0A impressive in terms of d= rag coefficients.  In the end, it looks like =0A we could b= enefit from a little more reflex beyond -7 degrees.
=0A =0A
&= nbsp;
=0A
The second report looks at the neutral point differenc= es and static =0A margins of the small and large tail 320/360 models. = ; A large portion of =0A the document is a tutorial of sorts on longitudin= al stability.  It deals =0A only with static stability, but is a good= lead-in to the third =0A report.
=0A = =0A
 
=0A
The third report looks at the stability of = the 360 MKII in much greater =0A detail.  It include dynamic stabilit= y in both cruise and landing =0A configurations, as well as, stick force g= radients and elevator effectiveness =0A all the way down to stall speed.=0A

--
For =0A archives and unsub =0A http://mail.l= ancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


---36511695-2057346739-1379435238=:64787--