Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:36:48 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6480867@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=89.221.244.202; envelope-from=roger@iverin.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roger Iverin <roger@iverin.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 performance and stability
In-Reply-To: <list-6480054@logan.com>
References: <list-6480054@logan.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.2

Maybe we could buy in larger numbers?
I would like to have as well.

Best regards
Roger Iverin


On 2013-09-18 14:32, Keith Smith wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> Are you able to provide a supplier for the material used for the gap
> seals? Any notes about the installation? An engineer from Lo Presti
> came across my airplane on the ramp one day at a fuel stop and was
> crawling over it. "Boy, not much left to do on this thing!"  The only
> thing he mentioned was extending the ram air inlet to be much closer
> to the prop to maximize efficiency and the installation of gap seals.
> 
> I do enough long trips that 6-8kias would be of interest to me,
> especially since I recently managed to hit headwinds over the course
> of 3 days of flying, even though I flew in all directions in those 3
> degs (nuts, right?) Every day brought a new and exciting headwind.
> 'Doh!
> 
> Keith
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:26 PM, <Sky2high@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>>  
>> Great research.
>>  
>> In my small tailed 320, increased flap reflex experimentation did
>> not result in increased top end speed.  The nose up pitch was
>> increased, requiring increased nose down trim - probably resulting
>> in greater empennage drag negating any reduction in drag from the
>> greater reflex.  Of course, we would have to discuss the angle of
>> incidence of the small tail and its relationship to the elevator
>> correcting for nose down pitching ( my incidence was at -.9
>> degrees).
>>  
>> By moving weights forward and aft in the same flight, forward CG
>> was better for maximizing speed - unlike some aircraft that see max
>> speed when the CG is at the neutral point, probably a consequence of
>> more standard wing/tail design that saw drag from wing/horizontal
>> +/- lift factors more balanced and minimized.
>>  
>> For me, the biggest gain in speed came from adding $140 worth
>> of gap seals to both sides of all control surface and the flaps
>> (remember Greenameyer made his flaps part of the wing in his very
>> fast Reno Legacy - he didn't need no stink'n flaps).  I believe
>> that I lost no speed when I removed the upper seals from the flaps
>> last year. The seals were curved Mylar seals often obtainable for
>> gliders.  The gain was from 6 to 8 KIAS, depending.  Controls were
>> more responsive and the wee rudder was effective about 5 KIAS
>> sooner.
>>  
>> I didn't follow up on a cockpit controlled diffuser for managing
>> cooing drag as I saw about 7" H2O upper to lower cowl at about 135
>> KIAS (climb speed), but 13" at 200 KIAS and such pressure was not
>> necessary as the engine ran cool there.
>>  
>> I found the small tail had enough control - I only wanted my little
>> engine to pull everything along as quickly as possible.
>>  
>> Scott Krueger
>>  
>> 
>> In a message dated 9/13/2013 7:32:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> chris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes:
>> 
>>> N91CZ has been a flying laboratory for most of this year.  Below
>>> are links to three reports that may be of interest to the Lancair
>>> community, in particular 320/360 flyers.
>>>  
>>> The first takes a look at the effect flap position has on total
>>> aircraft drag using the NLF(1)-0215.  The numbers are quite
>>> impressive in terms of drag coefficients.  In the end, it looks
>>> like we could benefit from a little more reflex beyond -7
>>> degrees.
>>> http://n91cz.com/Performance/Cruise_Flap_Report.pdf [1]
>>>  
>>> The second report looks at the neutral point differences and
>>> static margins of the small and large tail 320/360 models.  A
>>> large portion of the document is a tutorial of sorts on
>>> longitudinal stability.  It deals only with static stability, but
>>> is a good lead-in to the third report.
>>> http://n91cz.com/Stability/Lancair360_Static_Stability.pdf [2]
>>>  
>>> The third report looks at the stability of the 360 MKII in much
>>> greater detail.  It include dynamic stability in both cruise and
>>> landing configurations, 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.pdf
>>> [3]
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Chris Zavatson
>>> N91CZ
>>> 360std
>>> http://www.n91cz.net/ [4]
>>> 
>>> --
>>> For archives and unsub
>>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html [5]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://n91cz.com/Performance/Cruise_Flap_Report.pdf
> [2] http://n91cz.com/Stability/Lancair360_Static_Stability.pdf
> [3] 
> http://n91cz.com/Stability/Lancair360_Stability_and_Control_Evaluation.pdf
> [4] http://www.n91cz.net/
> [5] http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html