Message-ID: <000801bf3eea$32b11a40$536b1b3f@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "dfs" <dfs@gateway.net>
From: "dfs" <dfs@gateway.net>
To: "Lancair List" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Forward CG
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 22:29:46 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Amen to Rob Wolf's comments on the CG in any (two place at least) Lancair.
I have hull #52 of the original 235's and when first set up, with my fuel
tank arrangement, a fishing trip with two aboard plus the gear, I would be
close to the (originally published) aft CG limit until the wing fuel was
depleted and only header fuel was left. In this configuration, I thought PIO
was just a way of life for the airplane! When I made some changes later in
N235SP's life that moved the CG forward (primarily a MT CS prop with that
massive hub and heavier prop) I was amazed at the improvement in handling
qualities!
The change was enough to require stronger pitch trim springs to get enough
trim for all situations but it was worth it for the improved flying
qualities.
As a result, I have arbitrarily moved my personal CG range limits forward
about an inch- maybe more, in the forward limit. As long as I have enough
control authority landing with no baggage, no wing fuel and a full header -
and I presently do - that's where I fly my Lancair.
Again, agreeing with Rob, somewhat forward CG is good, aft CG in very bad.
Dan Schaefer


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>