X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:25:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3193477 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:53:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.96; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from OMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36]) by QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id M5Am1a03W0mv7h0597st82; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:52:53 +0000 Received: from mjr ([24.2.142.220]) by OMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id M7sY1a00j4lWzVU3X7sb7D; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:52:35 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=dB38uSkvO-sA:10 a=cOjlPskJjurZCpswj3sA:9 a=9N7BVEAW9VtpK5c6lgIA:7 a=s3jsQ-HLB2Hc0_s2aNdEIwf9vIMA:4 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 a=MP_20UxOAAAA:8 a=EN0mPt8yAAAA:8 a=2azZB_CUCHfZpbktKfgA:9 a=mdxXccbitaZTrlADTb0A:7 a=sOH8e_OIyDYw-eUrcSADhWBEOLIA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-Original-Message-ID: <006701c92336$6ee13970$dc8e0218@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Small tail vs. large tail X-Original-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0064_01C92314.E7AAD360" 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_0064_01C92314.E7AAD360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Scott, I can't put my hands on the numbers but from memory, they match yours = closely. My heavier motor matches your harmonic gizmo. And, that's why there is a less than perfect landing if I get sloppy and = put all 8 gallons remaining fuel in the header. I almost always use full flaps but the throttle works great for = improving elevator authority. Mark ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Small tail vs. large tail 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. =20 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. ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C92314.E7AAD360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Scott,
I can't put my hands on the numbers but from memory, they match = yours=20 closely.
My heavier motor matches your harmonic gizmo.
And, that's why there is a less than perfect landing if I get = sloppy and=20 put all 8 gallons remaining fuel in the header.
 
I almost always use full flaps but the throttle works great for = improving=20 elevator authority.
 
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sky2high@aol.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, = 2008 10:47=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Small tail = vs. large=20 tail

Mark,
 
Even more interrrrresting........
 
What is your empty weight CG?  Mine is 20.8"  Also, = with a 150#=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=20 along 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=20 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=20 on a lightweight landing.  Having it 1/4 to 1/2 full is safe=20 enough.
What happens is that I run out of aft stick travel in the flare = and=20 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=20 be.  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=20 more to me.  I think the new hub puts the prop a little further = forward=20 as 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=20 range has other problematic issues as well.  This way = gives me the=20 widest utility.
 
Once again, the higher performance Lancair design is a = wonderful thing=20 but requires a pilot to do more planning than flying that spam can = where you=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 financial challenges? = Check out WalletPop for the latest news and = information, tips=20 and calculators.
------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C92314.E7AAD360--