X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3191096 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:39:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.48; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id LaLk1a00A17dt5G55bfH0f; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:39:17 +0000 Received: from mjr ([24.2.142.220]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id LbfE1a00J4lWzVU3ZbfHic; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:39:17 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=dB38uSkvO-sA:10 a=bARKvZdAeAaIOb-hHo0A:9 a=WFY2lp2a2SZNu_mXuPQA:7 a=Ci7s9NpW-gfRkcZdHwvyCs48DFoA:4 a=gi0PWCVxevcA:10 a=Q45EC38k7bQQxOhcnGMA:9 a=zOB5LOIWQLaM_DJFFoYA:7 a=O-tWV1Vp_xkZZYs4hv1tb8O3KtMA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-Original-Message-ID: <01dc01c92228$5001a0d0$a18f0218@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Small tail vs. large tail X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D9_01C92206.C8C9DB30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1933 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1933 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01D9_01C92206.C8C9DB30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I suppose I qualify at 150 lbs. Std 360, battery in the footwell, Hartzel CS prop. Generally, I make a point to NOT have all fuel in the header on a = lightweight landing. Having it 1/4 to 1/2 full is safe enough. What happens is that I run out of aft stick travel in the flare and will = have a hard landing if I'm not very close to wheels down. The further foreward the CG, the faster the landing speed must be. = Mostly, it's just hard on the tires. The problem was aggravated by the Hartzel AD requiring a beefed up prop = hub. The prop shop claimed only a 1/2 lb increase but it felt like more = to me. I think the new hub puts the prop a little further forward as = well. Also, check that you actually get full elevator travel according to the = build manual. Those last few degrees of up elevator are critical here. An obvious solution might be to move the battery aft but the aft CG = range has other problematic issues as well. This way gives me the = widest utility. Once again, the higher performance Lancair design is a wonderful thing = but requires a pilot to do more planning than flying that spam can where = you can be more careless about loading. . Mark Ravinski 360 1447 hrs 1077 of it mine. PS - Is there a really skinny flier out there that was aloft with a = heavy prop, no baggage and header fuel only? How was the landing? Has = everyone calculated the minimum pilot weight to stay within the forward = CG? ------=_NextPart_000_01D9_01C92206.C8C9DB30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I suppose I qualify at 150 lbs.

Std 360, battery in the footwell, Hartzel CS prop.

Generally, I make a point to NOT have all fuel in the = header on a=20 lightweight landing. Having it 1/4 to 1/2 full is safe = enough.

What happens is that I run out of aft stick travel in the flare and = will=20 have a hard landing if I'm not very close to wheels down.

The further foreward the CG, the faster the landing speed must = be. =20 Mostly, it's just hard on the tires.

The problem was aggravated by the Hartzel AD requiring a beefed up = prop=20 hub. The prop shop claimed only a 1/2 lb increase but it felt like = more to=20 me. I think the new hub puts the prop a little further forward as=20 well.

Also, check that you actually get full elevator travel according to = the=20 build manual. Those last few degrees of up elevator are critical=20 here.

An obvious solution might be to move the battery aft but the aft CG = range=20 has other problematic issues as well. This way gives me the = widest=20 utility.

Once again, the higher performance Lancair design is a wonderful = thing but=20 requires a pilot to do more planning than flying that spam can where you = can=20 be more careless about loading.

Mark Ravinski

360 1447 hrs 1077 of it mine.

PS - Is there a really skinny flier out there that was aloft with = a heavy=20 prop, no baggage and header fuel only? How was the = landing? Has=20 everyone calculated the minimum pilot weight to stay within the = forward=20 CG?

------=_NextPart_000_01D9_01C92206.C8C9DB30--