X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:54:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.143.99] (HELO imo-m11.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3195462 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:11:11 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.c9d.33a0a2d8 (41812) for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:11:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:11:05 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="-----------------------------1222906265" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1222906265 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, Please try Lorn's resolution, no more than 25 degrees of flaps - see if that gives you all the elevator authority you need. Grayhawk PS Getting grayer eachday................ In a message dated 10/1/2008 3:27:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mjrav@comcast.net writes: 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 ----- From: _Sky2high@aol.com_ (mailto:Sky2high@aol.com) To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net) 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. 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://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1209382257x1200540686/aol?redir=http://ww w.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001) . **************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) -------------------------------1222906265 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,
 
Please try Lorn's resolution, no more than 25 degrees of flaps - see if= =20 that gives you all the elevator authority you need.
 
Grayhawk
 
PS  Getting grayer eachday................
 
In a message dated 10/1/2008 3:27:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 mjrav@comcast.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>
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=20= and=20 put all 8 gallons remaining fuel in the header.
 
I almost always use full flaps but the throttle works great for impro= ving=20 elevator authority.
 
Mark
----- Original Message -----
Fr= om:=20 Sky2high@aol.com
To: lml@lancaironline.net
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=20= a=20 150# pilot and 8 gal in the header my CG would be out of the forward=20 envelope at 23.4"" (12% MAC).  BTW, I have a 12# harmonic damper on= the=20 flywheel along with the heaviest Hartzell prop. 
 
What is your flap setting for these landings?  Moving the flap= s up=20 somewhat can change the pitch authority and I wonder if you have tried u= sing=20 the 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:
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=20 header on a lightweight landing.  Having it 1/4 to 1/2 full is sa= fe=20 enough.
What happens is that I run out of aft stick travel in the flare a= nd=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 u= p=20 prop hub.  The prop shop claimed only a 1/2 lb increase but it fe= lt=20 like more to me.  I think the new hub puts the prop a little furt= her=20 forward as well.
 
Also, check that you actually get full elevator travel according=20= to=20 the build manual.  Those last few degrees of up elevator are crit= ical=20 here.
 
An obvious solution might be to move the battery aft but the aft=20= CG=20 range has other problematic issues as well.  This way gives=20= me=20 the widest utility.
 
Once again, the higher performance Lancair design is a wonderful=20 thing but requires a pilot to do more planning than flying that spam c= an=20 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 wi= th a=20 heavy prop, no baggage and header fuel only?  How was the=20 landing?  Has everyone calculated the minimum pilot weight to s= tay=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=20 calculators.
<= BR>

Looking for simple solutions to your re= al-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and informatio= n, tips and calculators.
-------------------------------1222906265--