X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:30:27 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2511103 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:14:43 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.137; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.d59.1a700af4 (14457) for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:13:51 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:13:50 EST Subject: Re: [LML] linit Gs for 235 (kit #11) X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1196363630" X-Mailer: AOL 9.0 VR sub 5006 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1196363630 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/29/2007 10:29:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, troneill@charter.net writes: Getting close to asking for airworthiness... and noticed my Pilots Operating Handbook gives Limit Gs' allowed as 4.5, but does not specify for which of the three airframes the POH covers: 235, 320 and 360. It also gives allowable gross as 1400# for the 235, and 1685# for the 320 and 360. Sounds like the gross limit for the 235 is because of lower HP, not airframe... do you have a reference spec? Terry, Interesting question for a 235. Lancair did a static G-test on the 300 series plane by loading the inverted craft's wings with sandbags to 9Gs. If I remember correctly, there was no failure at that load. I also believe that this test was done on wings constructed before the "cap-strip" rib-to-skin technique was used. Lancair later raised the "suggested" max gross weight to 1800 but, if I remember correctly, kept the landing max weight at 1685. These things were documented in Lancair Factory newsletters that may be available at the _www.Lancaironline.net_ (http://www.Lancaironline.net) site (Marv?). It is interesting that Lancair's ultimate load limit is 2 times the max G when the usual STC's planes use 1.5 times. In any event, (1685/1800)x4.5G=4.2G, still a pretty good max G load limit. Note that a critical factor is what weight the landing gear was designed to withstand. For your airworthiness W&B you may state any GW that you want (within reason). I am sure a flying 235'er can describe the effects of being overweight or out of CG. I have flown my 320 at an estimated 1960 lbs only to find that the AP altitude hold slowly wandered up and down until the weight got down to 1900 lbs (burned off ten gallons). Uh, I try to be gentle on all landings regardless of the weight ultimately contacting the pavement. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Darwinian culling phrase: Watch This! **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) -------------------------------1196363630 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 11/29/2007 10:29:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 troneill@charter.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3D"MS Reference Sans Serif"=20 color=3D#000000 size=3D2>

Getting close to aski= ng for=20 airworthiness... and noticed my Pilots Operating Handbook gives Limit= Gs'=20 allowed as 4.5, but does not specify for which of the three airframes the=20= POH=20 covers: 235, 320 and 360.

It also gives allowab= le gross=20 as 1400# for the 235, and 1685# for the 320 and 360.

Sounds like the gross= limit=20 for the 235 is because of lower HP, not airframe... do you have a=20 reference spec?

Terry,

Interesting question for a 235. Lancair did a static G-test on th= e=20 300 series plane by loading the inverted craft's wings with sandbags to=20 9Gs. If I remember correctly, there was no failure at that load. = I=20 also believe that this test was done on wings constructed before the=20 "cap-strip" rib-to-skin technique was used.

Lancair later raised the "suggested" max gross weight to 1800 but, if I= =20 remember correctly, kept the landing max weight at 1685. These things=20= were=20 documented in Lancair Factory newsletters that may be available at the www.Lancaironline.net site=20 (Marv?).

It is interesting that Lancair's ultimate load limit is 2=20 times the max G when the usual STC's planes use 1.5 times. In any= =20 event,

(1685/1800)x4.5G=3D4.2G, still a pretty good max G load limit.

Note that a critical factor is what weight the landing gear was designe= d to=20 withstand. For your airworthiness W&B you may state any GW that yo= u=20 want (within reason). I am sure a flying 235'er can describe the=20 effects of being overweight or out of CG.

I have flown my 320 at an estimated 1960 lbs only to find tha= t=20 the AP altitude hold slowly wandered up and down until the weight got d= own=20 to 1900 lbs (burned off ten gallons). Uh, I try to be gentle on all=20 landings regardless of the weight ultimately contacting the pavement.=20

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

Darwinian culling phrase: Watch=20 This!

Check o= ut AOL Money & Finance's list of the h= ottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

-------------------------------1196363630--