X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:03:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mtai05.charter.net ([209.225.8.185] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c3) with ESMTP id 2520068 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:18:01 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.8.185; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from aarprv04.charter.net ([10.20.200.74]) by mtai05.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.00 201-2186-121-20061213) with ESMTP id <20071129231724.NAHU12551.mtai05.charter.net@aarprv04.charter.net>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:24 -0500 Received: from axs ([75.132.198.100]) by aarprv04.charter.net with SMTP id <20071129231724.GPLR17353.aarprv04.charter.net@axs>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:24 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <005b01c832de$04ad64a0$6501a8c0@axs> From: "terrence o'neill" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Cc: "sean" , "tim" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: linit Gs for 235 (kit #11) X-Original-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:17:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01C832AB.B98AD8E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Chzlrs: 0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C832AB.B98AD8E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott, Thanks for the info. Do I understand that you imply the 300-series wing = that was load tested is the same as the 200's? I'll try to access Lancair factory newsletters also, for further = enlightenment. Elsewise, I think it may be 'practical' to test glass airplanes at @2x = limit for ultimate instead of 1.5, because they (I think) fail more like = wood than stretchey metal. I could check with (send this Info to) sons = Sean and Tim about that, as they have experience designing tooling and = structures for composites for Boeing. I'm presently starting work on my 'spats' (2-position slots to delay = horizontal stab stalling), and expect to be offered delivery of the = 3-blade Vari-Prop in a week or so. Also the Prince capacitance fuel = level sensor was dropped onto the back porch by UPS a few minutes ago, = so I'm now thinking of the recent polsts of how to keep warm in the = hangar. The sky's been beautiful lately ... beconing the frustrated builders. Terry ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 01:30 PM Subject: [LML] Re: linit Gs for 235 (kit #11) 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?=20 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 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,=20 (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 = 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.=20 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.=20 Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Darwinian culling phrase: Watch This! -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top = money wasters of 2007. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C832AB.B98AD8E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Scott,
 
Thanks for the info.  = Do I=20 understand that you imply the 300-series wing that was load tested is = the same=20 as the 200's?
 
I'll try to access Lancair = factory=20 newsletters also, for further enlightenment.
 
Elsewise, I think it may be=20 'practical' to test glass airplanes at @2x limit for ultimate instead of = 1.5,=20 because they (I think) fail more like wood than stretchey metal.  I = could=20 check  with (send this Info to) sons Sean and Tim about that, = as they=20 have experience designing tooling and structures for composites for=20 Boeing.
 
I'm presently starting work = on my=20 'spats' (2-position slots to delay horizontal stab  stalling), and = expect=20 to be offered delivery of the 3-blade Vari-Prop in a week or so.  = Also the=20 Prince capacitance fuel level sensor was dropped onto the back porch by = UPS a=20 few  minutes ago, so I'm now thinking of the recent polsts of how = to keep=20 warm in the hangar.
 
The sky's been beautiful = lately ...=20 beconing the frustrated builders.
 
Terry
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sky2high@aol.com=20
Sent: Thursday, November 29, = 2007 01:30=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: linit Gs for = 235 (kit=20 #11)

In a message dated 11/29/2007 10:29:30 A.M. Central Standard = Time, troneill@charter.net = writes:
Getting close = to asking for=20 airworthiness... and noticed my Pilots Operating Handbook gives = Limit=20 Gs' allowed as 4.5, but does not specify for which of the three = airframes=20 the POH covers: 235, 320 and 360.
It also gives = allowable=20 gross as 1400# for the 235,  and 1685# for the 320 and=20 360.
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 the=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 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 = designed=20 to withstand.  For your airworthiness W&B you may state any = GW that=20 you want (within reason).  I am sure a flying 235'er can = describe=20 the effects of being overweight or out of CG. 
 
I have flown my 320 at an estimated 1960 lbs only to = find that=20 the AP altitude hold slowly wandered up and down until the weight = got=20 down 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=20 Krueger AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

Darwinian culling phrase: Watch=20 This!



Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of=20 2007.
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C832AB.B98AD8E0--