X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:24:44 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-alt2.hserv1.homehost.com.br ([82.102.17.196] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6488628 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:29:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=82.102.17.196; envelope-from=ppxsn@novellisouza.com.br Received: from [177.111.245.54] (port=49531 helo=54.245.111.177.isp.timbrasil.com.br) by hserv1.homehost.com.br with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VOZDu-0034Jp-Q1 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:28:46 -0300 From: Silvio Novelli Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E202527-D431-492D-8FF2-0896D5F7F4DB" Subject: Re: [LML] Lancair 320/360 performance and stability X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:28:39 -0300 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - hserv1.homehost.com.br X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - novellisouza.com.br X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: hserv1.homehost.com.br: authenticated_id: silvio@novellisouza.com.br --Apple-Mail=_7E202527-D431-492D-8FF2-0896D5F7F4DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi colleges, Exactly the same happens with my elevator as Christian's picture. No = problems for me, the elevator does not loose authority, perhaps could be = a bit fast if the incidence of the horizontal had been fixed a little = less negative. Lyc 320, 2450 RPM, 21 to 22 MP, 185 kt TAS, big tail, = wing extensions. Some movies at YouTube, choose PP-XSN. Silvio Novelli Lancair 320 PP-XSN +55 (14) 9.9614-3129 On 24 Sep 2013,w 39, at 7:19 AM, Christian Meier wrote: Chris, today I made a picture during Cruise with Autopilot at 7500ft with = following configuration: 770 kg 40l in header, 20l in each wing (80l total), 75kg and 83kg for = pilot and co. Flap was on 7=B0 reflex CG 26,20" =20 My design CG is 22,8 - 30,3 from firewall back, horizontal was = installed - 0.6=B0 So it looks like if I would add more reflex than 7=B0, I would need more = down elevator. So the gain with the higher reflex would be lost with the down = elevator.... Christian Am 17.09.2013 um 21:18 schrieb Chris Zavatson = : > Scott, > Thanks. Examining the 360 (MkII) performance and characteristics in = greater detail as been very interesting. > =20 > The small tail has a very low aspect ratio and may indeed be subject = to higher drag if the stabilizer incidence requires significant elevator = input to trim. The MkII tail adds about 2 sqft, but more significantly = has a much greater aspect ratio. My stab was well aligned for the sweep = of flap settings as the elevator deflection was about 0.5 degrees TE = down. In fact, all of the points were inside of 0.1 degrees of elevator = movement.=20 > The concept of aft CG being more efficient is by reducing 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' cruise condition could negate any = benefit. In my case the plot of flap setting vs. airspeed showed that I = had not yet reached a peak. Extrapolating the curve gives me another 2 = kts at 12 degrees reflex. Extrapolating is a bit dangerous with any = polynomial curve, but on the other hand this one has an exceptionally = well behaved 2nd order trend. -7 degrees certainly provides a large = portion of the benefit. > It would be very interesting to run through the same series of tests = with a small tail at the same static margins for a side by side = comparison. > Chris =20 > =20 > Chris Zavatson > N91CZ > 360std > http://www.n91cz.net/ >=20 > =20 > From: "Sky2high@aol.com" > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:26 PM > Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 performance and stability >=20 > Chris, > =20 > Great research. > =20 > 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). > =20 > 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. > =20 --Apple-Mail=_7E202527-D431-492D-8FF2-0896D5F7F4DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi = colleges,

Exactly the same happens with my elevator = as Christian's picture. No problems for me, the elevator does not loose = authority, perhaps could be a bit fast if the incidence of the = horizontal had been fixed a little less negative. Lyc 320, 2450 RPM, 21 = to 22 MP, 185 kt TAS, big tail, wing = extensions.

Some movies at YouTube, choose = PP-XSN.

     Silvio = Novelli
 Lancair 320 PP-XSN
+55 (14) = 9.9614-3129




On 24  Sep 2013,w 39, at 7:19 AM, Christian Meier = wrote:

My design CG is 22,8  - =  30,3 from firewall back,  horizontal was installed - = 0.6=B0

So it looks like if I would add more = reflex than 7=B0, I would need more down elevator.
So the gain = with the higher reflex would be lost with the down = elevator....

Christian

<= br>
<IMG_4920.jpeg>
Am 17.09.2013 = um 21:18 schrieb Chris Zavatson <chris_zavatson@yahoo.com>:=

http://www.n91cz.net/
=
 
= From: "Sky2high@aol.com" <Sky2high@aol.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
= Sent: Sunday, September = 15, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair 320/360 performance and stability

=20 =20
Chris,
 
Great research.
 
In my small tailed 320, increased flap reflex = experimentation did not=20 result in increased top end speed.  The nose up pitch was = increased,=20 requiring increased nose down trim - probably resulting in greater=20= empennage drag negating any reduction in drag from the=20 greater reflex.  Of course, we would have to discuss the angle = of=20 incidence of the small tail and its relationship to the elevator = correcting for=20 nose down pitching ( my incidence was at -.9 degrees).
 
By moving weights forward and aft in the same flight, forward CG=20 was better for maximizing speed - unlike some aircraft that see max = speed=20 when the CG is at the neutral point, probably a consequence of more = standard=20 wing/tail design that saw drag from wing/horizontal +/- lift factors = more=20 balanced and minimized.
 
=


= --Apple-Mail=_7E202527-D431-492D-8FF2-0896D5F7F4DB--