X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:47:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3191660 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:03:30 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.c35.44580658 (29672) for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:03:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:03:04 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Small tail vs. large tail X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1222711384" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1222711384 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, Even more interrrrresting........ What is your empty weight CG? Mine is 20.8" Also, with a 150# pilot and 8 gal in the header my CG would be out of the forward envelope at 23.4"" (12% MAC). BTW, I have a 12# harmonic damper on the flywheel along with the heaviest Hartzell prop. What is your flap setting for these landings? Moving the flaps up somewhat can change the pitch authority and I wonder if you have tried using the flaps to assist in elevator authority. Scott In a message dated 9/29/2008 12:14:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mjrav@comcast.net writes: 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? **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001) -------------------------------1222711384 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mark,

Even more interrrrresting........

What is your empty weight CG? Mine is 20.8" Also, with a 15= 0#=20 pilot and 8 gal in the header my CG would be out of the forward envelope at=20 23.4"" (12% MAC). BTW, I have a 12# harmonic damper on the flywheel al= ong=20 with the heaviest Hartzell prop.

What is your flap setting for these landings? Moving the flaps up= =20 somewhat can change the pitch authority and I wonder if you have tried using= the=20 flaps to assist in elevator authority.

Scott

In a message dated 9/29/2008 12:14:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 mjrav@comcast.net writes:

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

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 heade= r on=20 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 w= ill=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.&nb= sp;=20 Mostly, it's just hard on the tires.

The problem was aggravated by the Hartzel AD requiring a beefed up pr= op=20 hub. The prop shop claimed only a 1/2 lb increase but it felt like m= ore=20 to 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 t= he=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 r= ange=20 has other problematic issues as well. This way gives me the wid= est=20 utility.

Once again, the higher performance Lancair design is a wonderful thin= g=20 but requires a pilot to do more planning than flying that spam can where y= ou=20 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= =20 heavy prop, no baggage and header fuel only? How was the=20 landing? Has everyone calculated the minimum pilot weight to stay=20 within the forward=20 CG?

Looking for simple solutions to your real-life finan= cial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips an= d calculators.

-------------------------------1222711384--